oEPA
Documentation for the EPA's
Preliminary 2028 Regional Haze Modeling
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
United States Environmental Protection Agency
October 2017

-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Background and Caveats	1
1.1 Introduction	1
2.0 Air Quality Modeling Platform	2
2.1	Air Quality Model Configuration	3
2.2	Meteorological Data for 2011	4
2.3	Initial and Boundary Concentrations	7
2.4	Emissions Inventories	7
2.5	Air Quality Model Evaluation	8
3.0 Projection of Future Year 2028 Visibility	10
3.1	Regional Haze Rule Requirement	10
3.2	Calculation of 2028 Visibility	12
3.3	Comparison to Regional Haze "Glidepath"	20
4.0 PSAT Source Apportionment	29
4.1	Process for creating PSAT sector contributions for Class I Areas	31
4.2	Sector Tag Results	36
5.0 Summary	39
References	42
Appendix A Model Performance Evaluation
Appendix B IMPROVE Summary Plots
Appendix C "Range" Calculation Details
Appendix D Emissions Summary by Sector 2011 and 2028
Appendix E Example Tag Sector Spatial Maps
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Map of the CAMx modeling domain used for regional haze modeling	4
Figure 2-2. Climate regions used for aggregating model performance	8
Figure 2-3 Example Glidepath Plot	11
Figure 3-1- Change in deciviews at IMPROVE sites between 2011 and 2028 (2028 -
2011)	20
0

-------
Figure 3-2 Map of deviation from the 2028 glidepath at IMPROVE sites, with additional
2011 model performance and uncertainty information	28
Figure 4-1 SMAT advanced option "Create forecast IMPROVE visibility file"	33
Figure 4-2 SMAT advanced option "Forecast IMPROVE daily data file"	34
	36
Figure 4-3 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from boundary
conditions	36
Figure 4-4 July 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in |ag/m3) from boundary
conditions	37
Figure 4-5 July 2028 monthly average sulfate fraction (1.0 = 100%) from boundary
conditions	37
Figure 4-6 July 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in |ag/m3) from EGU
emissions	38
Figure 4-7 July 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in |ag/m3) from offshore
emissions	38
Figure 4-8 July 2028 monthly average organic carbon contribution (in |ag/m3) from U.S.
wildfire emissions	39
List of Tables
Table 2-1 CAMx model runs for 2011 and 2028.	4
Table 2-2. WRF and CAMx layers and their approximate height above ground level.	5
Table 3-1 SMAT settings for 2028 visibility calculations.	14
Table 3-2 Base and future year deciview values on the 20% clearest and 20% most
impaired days at each Class I area for the base model period (2009-2013) and future year
(2028).	15
Table 3-3 Natural conditions, 2000-2004 baseline visibility, observed 2009-2013
visibility, 2028 projected visibility, and 2028 glidepath values (all in deciviews).	21
Table 4-1 CAMx source sector PSAT tags for 2028.	30
Table 4-2 Matching of CAMx raw output species to SMAT input variables.	31
Table 4-3 Matching of "bulk raw species, PSAT output species, and SMAT input variables.
32
Table 4-4 Source apportionment emissions summary categories.	35
1

-------
1.0 Background and Caveats
The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requires a state implementation plan (SIP) that evaluates
reasonable progress for implementation periods in approximately 10 year increments. The next
regional haze SIP is due in 2021, for the second implementation period which ends in 2028
(period of 2019-2028).1 The EPA conducted preliminary visibility modeling for 2028 with the
intention of informing the regional haze SIP development process.
Based on our analysis of these results, we identified a number of uncertainties and
model performance issues that should be addressed in future EPA, state, multistate, or
stakeholder modeling that may be used in regional haze SIP development. Despite these
uncertainties, the EPA is releasing this information as part of the necessary collaborative work
with states, tribes, multi-jurisdictional organizations, and federal land managers. Our goal is
that this information, along with future collaborative work, will improve the technical
foundation of modeling used in regional haze SIP development. For most Class I areas, we
recommend using these preliminary results only as a first step in the process of developing
technically sound regional haze modeling for the second implementation period. However, the
modeling results for some sites (particularly in the east) may provide a reasonably accurate
assessment of 2028 visibility levels and source sector contributions. States should consult with
their EPA Regional Office to determine the usefulness of these preliminary model results for
any particular Class I area.
1.1 Introduction
In this technical support document (TSD) we describe the air quality modeling
performed as a first look at regional haze in 2028. For this assessment, air quality modeling is
used to project visibility levels at individual Class I areas (represented by Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments [IMPROVE] monitoring sites) to 2028 and to
estimate emissions sector contributions to 2028 particulate matter (PM) concentrations and
visibility. The projected 2028 PM concentrations are converted to light extinction coefficients
and then to deciviews and used to evaluate visibility progress as of 2028. In addition, 2028
visibility contribution information by major emissions source sector is calculated using
particulate source apportionment technology (PSAT). The sector contribution information can
1 On January 10, 2017 (82 FR 3078), the EPA revised the Regional Haze Rule to clarify and streamline
certain planning requirements for states. The rule also extended the deadline for second
implementation period plans by three years, to July 31, 2021. The second implementation period covers
2019 to 2028.
1

-------
help us to better understand the sources of future visibility impairment (including domestic
anthropogenic, domestic natural, and international anthropogenic and natural sources).
The remaining sections of this TSD are as follows. Section 2 describes the air quality
modeling platform and the evaluation of model predictions using measured concentrations.
Section 3 defines the procedures for projecting regional haze deciview values to 2028. Section 4
describes (1) the PM source contribution (i.e., particulate source apportionment) modeling and
(2) the procedures for quantifying contributions to visibility at individual IMPROVE monitoring
sites.
2.0 Air Quality Modeling Platform
The EPA used a 2011-based air quality modeling platform which includes emissions,
meteorology, and other inputs for 2011 as the base year for the modeling described in this
TSD. The 2011 base year emissions were projected to a future year base case scenario, 2028.
The 2011 modeling platform and projected 2028 emissions were used to drive the 2011 base
year and 2028 base case air quality model simulations. The 2011 base year emissions and
methods for projecting these emissions to 2028 are in large part similar to the data and
methods used by EPA in the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update2 and the
subsequent notice of data availability (NODA)3 to support ozone transport for the 2015 ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The 2011 and 2028 emissions used for this
regional haze modeling are described in the documents, "Preparation of Emissions Inventories
for the Version 6.3, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform",4 "Technical Support Document (TSD)
Updates to Emissions Inventories for the Version 6.3 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform for the
Year 2028",5 and "EPA Base Case v.5.16 for 2023 Ozone Transport NODA Using IPM
Incremental Documentation."6The meteorological data and initial and boundary
concentrations used for this regional haze assessment, as described below, are the same as
those used for the Final CSAPR Update air quality modeling and the 2015 ozone transport
NAAQS NODA.
2	https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/final-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update
3	https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/notice-data-availabilitv-preliminarv-interstate-ozone-transport-
modeling-data-2015-ozone
4	https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2011-version-63-technical-support-document
5	https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2011-version-63-platform
6	https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-base-case-v516-2015-ozone-naaqs-transport-noda-using-ipm-
incremental-documentation
2

-------
2.1 Air Quality Model Configuration
The photochemical model simulations performed for this ozone transport assessment
used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.32) which is a
version of CAMx v6.30 (Ramboll Environ, 2016) with updated Carbon Bond chemistry (CB6r4).7
CAMx is a three-dimensional grid-based Eulerian air quality model designed to simulate the
formation and fate of oxidant precursors, primary and secondary particulate matter
concentrations, and deposition over regional and urban spatial scales (e.g., the contiguous
U.S.). Consideration of the different processes (e.g., transport and deposition) that affect
primary (directly emitted) and secondary (formed by atmospheric processes) pollutants at the
regional scale in different locations is fundamental to understanding and assessing the effects
of emissions on air quality concentrations.
Figure 2-1 shows the geographic extent of the modeling domain that was used for air
quality modeling in this analysis. The domain covers the 48 contiguous states along with the
southern portions of Canada and the northern portions of Mexico. As discussed later, the
limited coverage of Canada and Mexico is an important consideration when interpreting the
modeling results. This modeling domain contains 25 vertical layers with a top at about 17,550
meters, or 50 millibars (mb), and horizontal grid resolution of 12 km x 12 km. The model
simulations produce hourly air quality concentrations for each 12 km grid cell across the
modeling domain.
CAMx requires a variety of input files that contain information pertaining to the
modeling domain and simulation period. These include gridded, hourly emissions estimates and
meteorological data, and boundary concentrations. Separate emissions inventories were
prepared for the 2011 base year and the 2028 base case. All other inputs (i.e., meteorological
fields, initial concentrations, and boundary concentrations) were specified for the 2011 base
year model application and remained unchanged for the future-year model simulations.8
7	The updates to the Carbon Bond chemical mechanism in CB6r4 are described in a Technical
Memorandum "EMAQ4-07_Task7_TechMemo_lAugl6.pdf" which can be found in the docket for the
CSAPR Update. CAMx v6.32 is a pre-release version of CAMx v6.40.
8	The CAMx annual simulations for 2011 and 2028 were each performed using two time segments
(January 1 through April 30, 2011 with a 10-day ramp-up period at the end of December 2010 and May 1
through December 31, 2011 with a 10-day ramp-up period at the end of April 2011).
3

-------
T
L«_
Figure 2-1. Map of the CAMx modeling domain used for regional haze modeling.
Table 2-1 below list the three CAMx model runs which were performed for this analysis.
There is a 2011 base case model run, a 2028 future base case model run, and a separate 2028
PSAT source apportionment run.
Table 2-1 CAMx model runs for 2011 and 2028.
Scenario Name
Scenario
Description
2011el
2011 base case
Historical base case
2028el
2028 future base case
Future year "on the books" base case
2028el_secsa
2028 PSAT sector source
apportionment case
Source apportionment case which
produces both 2028 "bulk outputs"
and source sector tag outputs
2.2 Meteorological Data for 2011
The 2011 meteorological data for the air quality modeling of 2011 and 2028 were
derived from running Version 3.4 of the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF)
(Skamarock, et al., 2008). The meteorological outputs from WRF include hourly-varying
horizontal wind components (i.e., speed and direction), temperature, moisture, vertical
diffusion rates, and rainfall rates for each vertical layer in each grid cell. Selected physics
options used in the WRF simulation include Pleim-Xiu land surface model (Xiu and Pleim, 2001;
Pleim and Xiu, 2003), Asymmetric Convective Model version 2 planetary boundary layer scheme
(Pleim 2007a,b), Kain-Fritsch cumulus parameterization (Kain, 2004) utilizing the moisture-
4

-------
advection trigger (Ma and Tan, 2009), Morrison double moment microphysics (Morrison, et al.,
2005; Morrison and Gettelman, 2008), and Rapid Radiative Transfer Model-Global (RRTMG)
longwave and shortwave radiation schemes (lacono, et.al., 2008).
The WRF model simulation was initialized using the 12km North American Model
(12NAM) analysis product provided by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Where
12NAM data were unavailable, the 40km Eta Data Assimilation System (EDAS) analysis
(ds609.2) from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) was used. Analysis
nudging for temperature, wind, and moisture was applied above the boundary layer only. The
model simulations were conducted in 5.5 day blocks with soil moisture and temperature carried
from one block to the next via the "ipxwrf" program (Gilliam and Pleim, 2010). Land use and
land cover data were based on the 2006 National Land Cover Database (NLCD2006) data.9 Sea
surface temperatures at 1 km resolution were obtained from the Group for High Resolution Sea
Surface Temperatures (GHRSST) (Stammer, et al., 2003). As shown in Table 2-2, the WRF
simulations were performed with 35 vertical layers up to 50 mb, with the thinnest layers being
nearest the surface to better resolve the planetary boundary layer (PBL). The WRF 35-layer
structure was collapsed to 25 layers for the CAMx air quality model simulations, as shown in
Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. WRF and CAMx layers and their approximate height above ground level.
CAMx
Layers
WRF
Layers
Sigma
P
Pressure
(mb)
Approximate
Height
(m AGL)
25
35
0.00
50.00
17,556

34
0.05
97.50
14,780
24
33
0.10
145.00
12,822

32
0.15
192.50
11,282
23
31
0.20
240.00
10,002

30
0.25
287.50
8,901
22
29
0.30
335.00
7,932

28
0.35
382.50
7,064
21
27
0.40
430.00
6,275

26
0.45
477.50
5,553
20
25
0.50
525.00
4,885

24
0.55
572.50
4,264
19
23
0.60
620.00
3,683
18
22
0.65
667.50
3,136
9 The 2006 NLCD data are available at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06 data.php
5

-------
CAMx
Layers
WRF
Layers
Sigma
P
Pressure
(mb)
Approximate
Height
(m AGL)
17
21
0.70
715.00
2,619
16
20
0.74
753.00
2,226
15
19
0.77
781.50
1,941
14
18
0.80
810.00
1,665
13
17
0.82
829.00
1,485
12
16
0.84
848.00
1,308
11
15
0.86
867.00
1,134
10
14
0.88
886.00
964
9
13
0.90
905.00
797

12
0.91
914.50
714
8
11
0.92
924.00
632

10
0.93
933.50
551
7
9
0.94
943.00
470

8
0.95
952.50
390
6
7
0.96
962.00
311
5
6
0.97
971.50
232
4
5
0.98
981.00
154

4
0.99
985.75
115
3
3
0.99
990.50
77
2
2
1.00
995.25
38
1
1
1.00
997.63
19
Details of the annual 2011 meteorological model simulation and evaluation are provided in a
separate technical support document (US EPA, 2014a) which can be obtained at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/reports/MET TSD 2011 final ll-26-14.pdf
The meteorological data generated by the WRF simulations were processed using
wrfcamx v4.3 (Ramboll Environ, 2014) meteorological data processing program to create
model-ready meteorological inputs to CAMx.10 In running wrfcamx, vertical eddy diffusivities
(Kv) were calculated using the Yonsei University (YSU) (Hong and Dudhia, 2006) mixing scheme.
We used a minimum Kv of 0.1 m2/sec except for urban grid cells where the minimum Kv was
10 The meteorological data used for the preliminary 2015 ozone transport assessment modeling are the
same as the meteorological data EPA used for the final CSAPR Update air quality modeling.
6

-------
reset to 1.0 m2/sec within the lowest 200 m of the surface in order to enhance mixing
associated with the nighttime "urban heat island" effect. In addition, we invoked the subgrid
convection and subgrid stratoform cloud options in our wrfcamx run for 2011.
al and Boundary Concentrations
The lateral boundary and initial species concentrations are provided by a three-
dimensional global atmospheric chemistry model, GEOS-Chem (Yantosca, 2004) standard
version 8-03-02 with 8-02-01 chemistry. The global GEOS-Chem model simulates atmospheric
chemical and physical processes driven by assimilated meteorological observations from the
NASA's Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS-5; additional information available at:
http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/GEOS/ and http://wiki.seas.harvard.edu/geos-
chem/index.php/GEOS-5 ). This model was run for 2011 with a grid resolution of 2.0 degrees x
2.5 degrees (latitude-longitude). The predictions were used to provide one-way dynamic
boundary concentrations at one-hour intervals and an initial concentration field for the CAMx
simulations. The 2011 boundary concentrations from GEOS-Chem were used for the 2011 and
2028 model simulations. The procedures for translating GEOS-Chem predictions to initial and
boundary concentrations are described elsewhere (Henderson, 2014). More information about
the GEOS-Chem model and other applications using this tool is available at: http://www-
as.harvard.edu/chemistry/trop/geos.
2.4 Emissio ' sntories
CAMx requires detailed emissions inventories containing temporally allocated (i.e.,
hourly) emissions for each grid-cell in the modeling domain for a large number of chemical
species that act as primary pollutants and precursors to secondary pollutants. Annual emission
inventories for 2011 and 2028 were preprocessed into CAMx-ready inputs using the Sparse
Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system (Houyoux et al., 2000).11
The emissions data in the 2011 platform are primarily based on the 2011NEIv2 for point
sources, nonpoint sources, commercial marine vessels (CMV), nonroad mobile sources and
fires. The onroad mobile source emissions are similar to those in the 2011NEIv2, but were
generated using the released 2014a version of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
(MOVES2014a). The 2011 emissions were also projected to 2028 using various sector
dependent methodologies. Onroad and nonroad mobile source emissions were created for
2028 using the MOVES and NONROAD models, respectively. Electric generating unit (EGU)
11 The SMOKE output emissions case name for the 2011 base year is "2011el_cb6v2_v6_llg" and the
emissions case name for the 2023 base case is "2023el_cb6v2_v6_llg".
7

-------
emissions for 2028 were derived from the Integrated Planning Model (IPM v.5.16).12 Fugitive
dust emissions from anthropogenic sources (i.e., agricultural tilling and unpaved roads) are
included in the nonpoint sector of the inventory, but wind-blown dust from natural sources is
not accounted for in the inventory. Detailed information on the emissions inventories used as
input to the 2011 and 2028 CAMx model simulations can be found in the emissions inventory
technical support documents identified in Section 2.0.
2.5 Air Quality Model Evaluation
An operational model performance evaluation was performed for particulate matter
(PIVb.s species components and coarse PM) and regional haze to examine the ability of the
CAMx v6.32 modeling system to simulate 2011 measured concentrations. This evaluation
focused on graphical analyses and statistical metrics of model predictions versus observations.
Regional statistics and summaries are presented by the NOAA Climate Regions shown in Figure
2-2 below. Details on the evaluation methodology, the calculation of performance statistics,
and results are provided in Appendix A.
U.S. Climate Regions
Figure 2-2. Climate regions used for aggregating model performance.
Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-regions.php
12 The 2028 EGU emissions (from IPM) were based on a model run from 2016, which assumed that the
Clean Power Plan (CPP) and Texas regional haze FIP were in place. See
https://www.epa.gov/airnnarkets/epas-power-sector-modeiing-support-notice-data-avaiiabilitv-
preiiminary-interstate-ozone.
8

-------
The model evaluation was focused on the ability of the model to predict visibility-
reducing PM at Class I areas (represented by IMPROVE monitoring sites). The analysis looked at
monthly and seasonal average PM species component performance at IMPROVE and other PM
monitoring networks, and performance on the 20% most impaired (and 20% clearest) days13 at
individual IMPROVE sites. This provides a comprehensive assessment of the components that
make up visibility performance.
The measured concentrations of PM components such as sulfate and nitrate on the 20%
most impaired days at many Class I areas in the West are extremely small. Numerous Western
Class I areas have average sulfate and nitrate observations (on the 20% most impaired days) of
less than 1 |-ig/m3. This makes it challenging to correctly model observed visibility. Assumptions
regarding particular emissions categories and boundary conditions can have a large impact on
model performance. Even when model performance appears to be accurate, it is difficult
(without further modeling and analysis) to determine if we are getting the right answer for the
right reasons (for example, when the extinction is dominated by modeled boundary
conditions).
Overall, the visibility performance for 2011 was mixed. In different parts of the country,
varying PM components contribute to visibility impairment, which also varies by season. The
modeling system was generally able to correctly simulate the relatively high sulfate
contributions to visibility impairment in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, Ohio Valley, and
Southeast, but sulfate concentrations (and extinction levels) in those regions were also
generally underpredicted. In the Northern Rockies, Northwest, Southwest, and West, sulfate is
often the largest contributor to visibility impairment, but nitrate, coarse mass, and organic
carbon can also be important contributors. The modeling system generally underpredicted
sulfate on the 20% most impaired days across the domain, with an especially large
underprediction in the Southwest. Nitrate on the 20% most impaired days was underpredicted
in the southern portion of the domain, again, especially in the Southwest. However, nitrate on
the 20% most impaired days was overpredicted in the Northwest and Northern Rockies regions.
Coarse mass was underpredicted in many areas of the Southwest and West, where it can be an
important contributor to visibility impairment. Organic carbon performance was mixed, with
large underprediction and overprediction biases in most parts of the country.
Appendix A contains more detailed maps, tables, figures, and descriptions of model
performance including individual IMPROVE site information. Performance issues seen in the
2011 operational performance evaluation, combined with the 2028 source apportionment
13 The values for the 20% most impaired and clearest days are calculated according to the draft
recommended method in the draft EPA guidance document "Draft Guidance for the Second
Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Rule" posted at https://www.epa.gov/visibilitv/regional-
haze-guidance-technical-support-document-and-data-file.
9

-------
results (see section 4) indicate a large amount of uncertainty in the model results at many Class
I areas (especially in the western U.S.). Improvements in emissions inputs, boundary conditions,
and model chemistry may help improve model performance, particularly in the Northern
Rockies, Northwest, West, and the Southwest regions.
3.0 Projection of Future Year 2028 Visibility
The PM predictions from the 2011 and 2028 CAMx model simulations were used to project
2009-2013 IMPROVE visibility data to 2028 following the approach described in EPA's ozone,
PM2.5 and regional haze modeling guidance (US EPA, 2014b).14 The guidance describes the
recommended modeling analysis used to help set reasonable progress goals (RPGs) that reflect
emissions controls in a regional haze SIP.
3.1 Regional Haze Rule Requirement
As required by the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) RPGs must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired days relative to baseline visibility
conditions and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 20 percent clearest days relative to
baseline visibility conditions.15 The baseline for each Class I area is the average visibility (in
deciviews) for the years 2000 through 2004.16 The visibility conditions in these years are the
benchmark for the "provide for an improvement" and "no degradation" requirements. In
addition, states are required to determine the rate of improvement in visibility needed to reach
natural conditions by 2064 for the 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired days.17 A line
drawn between the end of the 2000-2004 baseline period and 2064 (dv/year) shows a uniform
rate of progress (URP) between these two points. This "glidepath" is the amount of visibility
improvement needed in each implementation period, starting from the baseline period, to stay
on a linear path towards visibility improvement to natural conditions by 2064. The glidepath
represents a linear or uniform rate of progress. This is a framework for consideration but there
is no requirement to be on or below the glidepath. An example glidepath plot is shown in Figure
2-3.
14 The EPA's regional haze (and ozone/PIVh.s) modeling guidance is referred to as "the modeling
guidance" in the remainder of this document.
1S40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
1S40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) and definitions in 51.301.
17 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1).
10

-------
m
00
5-year average
of 20% most
impaired days
o
CO
ID
CM
Uniform rate of progress
or Glidepath
o
CM
Yearly average
of 20% most
impaired days
2028
Reasonable
progress
goal
o
Natural
visibility
condition
in
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Year
Figure 2-3 Example Glidepath Plot.
The RHR requires states to submit an implementation plan that evaluates reasonable
progress for implementation periods in approximately ten year increments. The next regional
haze SIP is due in 2021, for the implementation period which ends in 2028 (period of 2019-
2028). Therefore, modeling was used to project visibility to 2028 using a 2028 emissions
inventory with "on-the-books" controls. The EPA Software for Model Attainment Test-
Community Edition (SMAT-CE) tool was used to calculate 2028 deciview values on the 20%
most impaired and 20% clearest days at each Class I Area (IMPROVE site).18 SMAT-CE is an EPA
software tool which implements the procedures in the modeling guidance19 to project
visibility to a future year.20
18	The base year (2009-2013) IMPROVE data for the 20% most impaired and 20% clearest days was
calculated based on the draft EPA method described in "Draft Guidance for the Second Implementation
Period of the Regional Haze Rule."
19	The procedures in the modeling guidance were followed except we used the "20% most impaired
days" instead of the "20% worst days". The draft guidance is in the process of being updated to refer to
the 20% most impaired days (to reflect the revised regional haze rule).
20	A beta version of SMAT-CE is available here: https://www.epa.gov/scram/photochemical-modeling-
tools
11

-------
uiation of 2028 Visibility
The visibility projections follow the procedures in section 4.8 of the modeling
guidance. Based on the recommendation in the modeling guidance, the observed base period
visibility data is linked to the base modeling year. This is the 5-year ambient data base period
centered about the base modeling year. In this case, for a base modeling year of 2011, the
ambient IMPROVE data should be from the 2009-2013 period.21
The visibility calculations use the "revised" IMPROVE equation (Hand, 2006);
(Pitchford, 2007), which has replaced the original IMPROVE equation and has been used in
most regional haze SIPs over the last 10 years. The IMPROVE equation (or algorithm) uses PM
species concentrations and relative humidity data to calculate visibility impairment or beta
extinction (bext) in units of extinction (expressed in inverse megameters (Mm4) as follows:
bext = 2.2 x fs(RH) x [Small Sulfate] + 4.8 x fi_(RH) x [Large Sulfate]
+ 2.4 x fs(RH) x [Small Nitrate] + 5.1 x fi_(RH) x [Large Nitrate]
+ 2.8 x {Small Organic Mass] + 6.1 x [Large Organic Mass]
+ 10 x [Elemental Carbon]
+ 1 x [Fine Soil]
+ 1.7xfss(RH)x [Sea Salt]
+ 0.6 x [Coarse Mass]
+ Rayleigh Scattering (site specific)
The total sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon compound concentrations are each split
into two fractions, representing small and large size distributions of those components.
Site-specific Rayleigh scattering is calculated based on the elevation and annual average
temperature of each IMPROVE monitoring site. See (Hand, 2006) for more details.
The 2028 future year visibility on the 20% most impaired days22 and 20% clearest days at each
21	The baseline period for the regional haze program continues to be 2000-2004, and the uniform rate of
progress is calculated using that historical data. However, the modeled visibility projections should use
ambient data from a 5-year base period that corresponds to the modeled base year meteorological and
emissions data. Also, unlike the ozone and PM2.5 attainment tests, the calculation is a 5-year mean,
where each year counts equally (unlike the 5-year weighted average values for the ozone and PM2.5
attainment test).
22	Note that the modeling guidance refers to the 20% worst days and 20% best days, which are not
based on the anthropogenic impairment. However, the procedures for processing model results to
calculate future year visibility are the same for total impairment and anthropogenic impairment. Future
updates to the guidance will refer to the "most impaired" and "clearest" days.
12

-------
Class I area is estimated by using the observed IMPROVE data (2009-2013) and the relative
percent modeled change in PM species between 2011 and 2028. The process is described in
the following six steps (see the modeling guidance for a more detailed description and
examples).
1)	For each Class I area (IMPROVE site), estimate anthropogenic impairment on each day
using observed speciated PM2.5 data plus PM10 data (and other information) for each of
the 5 years comprising the base period (2009-2013 in this case) and rank the days on
this indicator.23 This ranking will determine the 20 percent most anthropogenically
impaired days. For each Class I area, also rank observed visibility (in deciviews) on each
day using observed speciated PM2.5 data plus PM10 data for each of the 5 years
comprising the base period. This ranking will determine the 20 percent clearest days.
2)	For each of the 5 years comprising the base period, calculate the mean deciviews for the
20 percent most anthropogenically impaired days and 20 percent clearest days. For
each Class I area, calculate the 5 year mean deciviews for most impaired and clearest
days from the 5 year-specific values.
3)	Use an air quality model to simulate air quality with base period (2011) emissions and
future year (2028) emissions. Use the resulting information to develop site-specific
relative response factors (RRFs) for each component of PM identified in the "revised"
IMPROVE equation.24 The RRFs are an average percent change in species concentrations
based on the measured 20% most impaired and 20% clearest days from 2011 (the
calendar days identified from the IMPROVE data above are matched to the same
modeled days).
4)	Multiply the species-specific RRFs by the measured daily species concentration data
during the 2009-2013 base period (for each day in the measured 20% most impaired day
set and each day in the 20% clearest day set), for each site. This results in daily future
year 2028 PM species concentration data.
5)	Using the results in Step 4 and the IMPROVE algorithm, calculate the future daily
extinction coefficients for the previously identified 20 percent most impaired days and
20 percent clearest days in each of the five base years.
6)	Calculate daily deciview values (from total daily extinction) and then compute the future
23	The methodology for determining the most anthropogenically impaired days (which includes the
explanation of how anthropogenic vs. natural daily light extinction was determined) can be found in
section 5 of the draft regional haze guidance published July 8, 2016. [81 FR 44608],
https://www.epa.gov/visibility/draft-guidance-second-implementation-period-regional-haze-rule.
24	Relative response factors (RRFs) are calculated for sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon mass, elemental
carbon, fine soil mass, and coarse mass. Since observed sea salt is primarily from natural sources which
are not expected to be year-sensitive, and the modeled sea salt is uncertain, the sea salt RRF for all sites
is assumed to be 1.0.
13

-------
year (2028) average mean deciviews for the 20 percent most impaired days and 20
percent clearest days for each year. Average the five years together to get the final
future mean deciview values for the 20 percent most impaired days and 20 percent
clearest days.
The SMAT-CE tool outputs individual year and 5-year average base year and future year
deciview values on the 20% most impaired days and 20% clearest days. Additional SMAT output
variables include the results of intermediate calculations such as species specific extinction
values (both base and future year) and species specific RRFs (on the 20% most impaired and
clearest days).
Table 3-1 details the settings used for the SMAT runs to generate the 2028 future year
deciview projections:
Table 3-1 SMAT settings for 2028 visibility calculations.
SMAT Option
Setting or File Used
IMPROVE algorithm
Use new version
Grid cells at monitor or Class 1 area
centroid?
Use grid cells at monitor
IMPROVE data file
Classlareas_NEWIMPROVEALG_2000to2015_2017april
27_l M PAIRM ENT.csv25
Baseline file
mats_small.PM.12US2.2011el_cb6r4_v6_llg.csv
Forecast file
mats_small.PM.12US2.2028el_cb6r4_v6_llg.csv
Temporal adjustment at monitor
3x3
Start monitor year
2009
End monitor year
2013
Base Model year
2011
Minimum years required for a valid
monitor
3
25 The IMPROVE ambient data file has the 20% most impaired days identified as "group 90" days and 20%
clearest days identified as "group 10" days. The definition of most impaired days uses the EPA
recommended values from the draft regional haze guidance published July 8, 2016. [81 FR 44608],
https://www.epa.gov/visibility/draft-guidance-second-implementation-period-regional-haze-rule. The
IMPROVE data file used for this analysis did not include substituted data. It may be possible to project
2028 visibility for several additional IMPROVE sites if substituted data is incorporated into the ambient
data file.
14

-------
Table 3-2 shows the base and future year deciview values on the 20% clearest and most
impaired days at each Class I area for the base model period (2009-2013) and future year
(2028).26
Table 3-2 Base and future year deciview values on the 20% clearest and 20% most impaired days at each
Class I area for the base model period (2009-2013) and future year (2028).
Class 1
Area
Site ID
Class 1 Area Name
IMPROVE
Site ID
Base Year
(2009-
2013)
20%
Clearest
Days (dv)
Future
Year
(2028)
20%
Clearest
Days (dv)
Base Year
(2009-
2013) 20%
Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
Future
Year
(2028)
20% Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
ACAD
Acadia NP
ACAD1
7.02
6.73
16.84
14.7
AGTI
Agua Tibia Wilderness
AGTI1
6.45
6.23
17.66
15.34
ALLA
Alpine Lake Wilderness
SNPA1
3.89
3.44
13.75
12.49
ANAC
Anaconda-Pintler
Wilderness
SULA1
1.85
1.73
8.75
8.48
ANAD
Ansel Adams Wilderness
(Minarets)
KAIS1
1.52
1.37
11.69
10.55
ARCH
Arches NP
CANY1
3.04
2.83
8.26
7.46
BADL
Badlands NP
BADL1
5.78
5.42
14.33
12.68
BAND
Bandelier NM
BAND1
3.99
3.96
9.17
8.72
BIBE
Big Bend NP
BIBE1
5.65
5.59
14.37
13.93
BLCA
Black Canyon of the
Gunnison NM
WEMI1
2.07
1.87
6.83
6.38
BOAP
Bosque del Apache
BOAP1
5.72
5.71
11.19
10.69
BOMA
Bob Marshall Wilderness
MONTI
2.73
2.53
9.83
9.61
BOWA
Boundary Waters Canoe
Area
BOWA1
4.86
4.72
16.43
13.81
BRCA
Bryce Canyon NP
BRCA1
1.77
1.64
7.47
7.14
BRET
Breton
BRIS1
13.81
12.29
22.49
18.45
BRID
Bridger Wilderness
BRID1
1.01
0.88
6.91
6.41
BRIG
Brigantine
BRIG1
12.25
10.73
22.26
18.66
CABI
Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness
CAB 11
2.49
2.11
10.1
9.58
CACR
Caney Creek Wilderness
CACR1
9.74
8.67
20.87
18.51
CANY
Canyonlands NP
CANY1
3.04
2.83
8.26
7.46
CAPI
Capitol Reef NP
CAP 11
2.61
2.41
8.05
7.42
CARI
Caribou Wilderness
LA VOl
2.03
1.89
10.08
9.57
26The 2028 results are calculated for 136 Class I areas which are represented by 94 IMPROVE sites.
Results are not shown for Class I areas which are outside of the modeling domain (outside of the
contiguous U.S.), and for Class I areas which did not have complete IMPROVE data in 2011, or did not
have at least 3 years of complete IMPROVE data in the 2009-2013 period.
15

-------



Base Year
Future
Base Year
Future



(2009-
Year
(2009-
Year



2013)
(2028)
2013) 20%
(2028)
Class 1


20%
20%
Most
20% Most
Area

IMPROVE
Clearest
Clearest
Impaired
Impaired
Site ID
Class 1 Area Name
Site ID
Days (dv)
Days (dv)
Days (dv)
Days (dv)
CAVE
Carlsbad Caverns NP
GUMOl
5.25
4.95
12.81
11.97
CHAS
Chassahowitzka
CHAS1
13.76
12.73
19.94
17.14
CHIR
Chiricahua NM
CHIR1
4.13
3.87
9.99
9.38
CHIW
Chiricahua Wilderness
CHIR1
4.13
3.87
9.99
9.38
COHU
Cohutta Wilderness
COHU1
10.94
9.11
21.19
15.15
CRLA
Crater Lake NP
CRLA1
1.36
1.25
8.84
8.62
CRMO
Craters of the Moon NM
CRMOl
3.06
2.78
10.44
9.04
DESO
Desolation Wilderness
BLIS1
1.86
1.68
9.4
8.79
DIPE
Diamond Peak Wilderness
CRLA1
1.36
1.25
8.84
8.62
DOME
Dome Land Wilderness
DOME1
4.52
4.25
16.01
14.32
DOSO
Dolly Sods Wilderness
DOSOl
9.03
7.18
21.59
15.11
EACA
Eagle Cap Wilderness
STAR1
2.96
2.75
11.92
10.99
EANE
Eagles Nest Wilderness
WHRI1
-0.09
-0.21
5.71
5.19
EMIG
Emigrant Wilderness
YOSE1
2.62
2.49
12.31
11.28
EVER
Everglades NP
EVER1
11.23
10.66
16.3
15.56
FITZ
Fitzpatrick Wilderness
BRID1
1.01
0.88
6.91
6.41
FLTO
Flat Tops Wilderness
WHRI1
-0.09
-0.21
5.71
5.19
GALI
Galium Wilderness
CHIR1
4.13
3.87
9.99
9.38

Gearhart Mountain





GEMO
Wilderness
CRLA1
1.36
1.25
8.84
8.62
GLAC
Glacier NP
GLAC1
5.4
4.96
13.89
13.42
GLPE
Glacier Peak Wilderness
NOCA1
2.71
2.52
10.99
10.38
GORO
Goat Rocks Wilderness
WHPA1
1.1
1.01
9.06
8.57
GRCA
Grand Canyon NP
GRCA2
1.83
1.56
7.53
7.48
GRGU
Great Gulf Wilderness
GRGU1
5.87
5.34
15.43
12.41
GRSA
Great Sand Dunes NM
GRSA1
3.81
3.68
8.78
8.24
GRSM
Great Smoky Mountains NP
GRSM1
10.63
9.05
21.39
15.63
GRTE
Grand Teton NP
YELL2
1.51
1.28
7.41
6.94
GUMO
Guadalupe Mountains NP
GUMOl
5.25
4.95
12.81
11.97
HECA
Hells Canyon Wilderness
HECA1
4.12
3.85
13.47
12.06
HEGL
Hercules-Glades Wilderness
HEGL1
10.96
9.64
21.63
18.9
HOOV
Hoover Wilderness
HOOV1
1.12
1.04
7.69
7.24
ISLE
Isle Royale NP
ISLE1
5.4
5.22
17.63
15.06
JARB
Jarbidge Wilderness
JARB1
1.88
1.82
7.73
7.52
JARI
James River Face Wilderness
JARI 1
11.79
9.58
21.37
16.03
JOMU
John Muir Wilderness
KAIS1
1.52
1.37
11.69
10.55
JOSH
Joshua Tree NM
JOSH1
4.27
4.2
13.61
12.13
16

-------
Class 1
Area
Site ID
Class 1 Area Name
IMPROVE
Site ID
Base Year
(2009-
2013)
20%
Clearest
Days (dv)
Future
Year
(2028)
20%
Clearest
Days (dv)
Base Year
(2009-
2013) 20%
Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
Future
Year
(2028)
20% Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
JOYC
Joyce-Kilmer-Slickrock
Wilderness
GRSM1
10.63
9.05
21.39
15.63
KAIS
Kaiser Wilderness
KAIS1
1.52
1.37
11.69
10.55
KALM
Kalmiopsis Wilderness
KALM1
6.01
5.84
12.62
12.23
KICA
Kings Canyon NP
SEQU1
6.87
6.21
19.95
16.36
LABE
Lava Beds NM
LAB El
2.71
2.56
9.87
9.53
LAGA
La Garita Wilderness
WEMI1
2.07
1.87
6.83
6.38
LAVO
Lassen Volcanic NP
LAVOl
2.03
1.89
10.08
9.57
LIGO
Linville Gorge Wilderness
LIGOl
9.7
7.88
20.39
14.62
LYBR
Lye Brook Wilderness
LYEB1
4.89
4.16
18.06
14.15
MABE
Maroon Bells-Snowmass
Wilderness
WHRI1
-0.09
-0.21
5.71
5.19
MACA
Mammoth Cave NP
MACA1
13.69
11.72
24.04
20.01
MAMO
Marble Mountain
Wilderness
TRIN1
2.55
2.38
10.77
10.18
MAZA
Mazatzal Wilderness
IKBA1
4.38
4.13
9.96
8.96
MELA
Medicine Lake
ME LAI
6.56
6.3
16.59
15.5
MEVE
Mesa Verde NP
MEVE1
2.96
2.66
7.92
7.33
MIMO
Mission Mountains
Wilderness
MONTI
2.73
2.53
9.83
9.61
MING
Mingo
MING1
12.47
10.98
22.7
19.74
MOHO
Mount Hood Wilderness
MOHOl
1.3
1.22
10.12
9.27
MOJE
Mount Jefferson Wilderness
THSI1
2.63
2.54
11.45
10.96
MOKE
Mokelumne Wilderness
BLIS1
1.86
1.68
9.4
8.79
MO LA
Mountain Lakes Wilderness
CRLA1
1.36
1.25
8.84
8.62
MOOS
Moosehorn
MOOS1
6.71
6.61
15.8
13.9
MORA
Mount Rainier NP
MORA1
3.95
3.71
14.19
13.14
MOWA
Mount Washington
Wilderness
THSI1
2.63
2.54
11.45
10.96
MOZI
Mount Zirkel Wilderness
MOZI1
0.44
0.3
6.05
5.49
NOCA
North Cascades NP
NOCA1
2.71
2.52
10.99
10.38
OKEF
Okefenokee
OKEF1
13.34
11.98
20.7
17.34
OLYM
Olympic NP
OLYM1
3.73
3.45
13.22
12.42
OTCR
Otter Creek Wilderness
DOSOl
9.03
7.18
21.59
15.11
PASA
Pasayten Wilderness
PASA1
1.9
1.65
9.27
8.8
PECO
Pecos Wilderness
WHPE1
0.57
0.5
6.96
6.42
PEFO
Petrified Forest NP
PEFOl
4.08
3.68
9.17
8.24
PIMO
Pine Mountain Wilderness
IKBA1
4.38
4.13
9.96
8.96
17

-------
Class 1
Area
Site ID
Class 1 Area Name
IMPROVE
Site ID
Base Year
(2009-
2013)
20%
Clearest
Days (dv)
Future
Year
(2028)
20%
Clearest
Days (dv)
Base Year
(2009-
2013) 20%
Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
Future
Year
(2028)
20% Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
PINN
Pinnacles NM
PINN1
7.52
7
14.79
13.29
PORE
Point Reyes NS
PORE1
7.76
7.11
17.02
15.45
PRRA
Presidential Range-Dry River
Wilderness
GRGU1
5.87
5.34
15.43
12.41
RAFA
San Rafael Wilderness
RAFA1
4.66
4.3
15.05
13.09
RAWA
Rawah Wilderness
MOZI1
0.44
0.3
6.05
5.49
REDR
Red Rock Lakes
YELL2
1.51
1.28
7.41
6.94
REDW
Redwood NP
REDW1
5.23
4.96
13.36
12.81
ROCA
Roosevelt Campobello
International Park
MOOS1
6.71
6.61
15.8
13.9
ROMA
Cape Romain
ROMA1
13.59
12.06
21.48
17.35
ROMO
Rocky Mountain NP
ROMOl
1.6
1.44
9.21
8.2
SACR
Salt Creek
SACR1
7.37
7.55
15.31
14.69
SAGO
San Gorgonio Wilderness
SAGOl
3.38
3.21
15.74
13.28
SAJA
San Jacinto Wilderness
SAGOl
3.38
3.21
15.74
13.28
SAMA
St. Marks
SAMA1
13.33
11.93
20.11
16.85
SAPE
San Pedro Parks Wilderness
SAP El
1.22
1.07
6.82
6.35
SAWT
Sawtooth Wilderness
SAWT1
3.3
3.13
8.71
8.5
SCAP
Scapegoat Wilderness
MONTI
2.73
2.53
9.83
9.61
SELW
Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness
SULA1
1.85
1.73
8.75
8.48
SENE
Seney
SENE1
5.51
5.29
19.84
16.87
SEQU
Sequoia NP
SEQU1
6.87
6.21
19.95
16.36
SHEN
Shenandoah NP
SHEN1
8.6
6.79
20.72
14.26
SIPS
Sipsey Wilderness
SIPS1
12.84
11.2
21.67
17.64
SOWA
South Warner Wilderness
LAB El
2.71
2.56
9.87
9.53
STMO
Strawberry Mountain
Wilderness
STAR1
2.96
2.75
11.92
10.99
SUPE
Superstition Wilderness
TONT1
5.19
4.79
11.04
10.16
SWAN
Swanquarter
SWAN1
11.76
10.68
19.76
15.32
SYCA
Sycamore Canyon
Wilderness
SYCA2
5.05
4.55
11.47
10.81
TETO
Teton Wilderness
YELL2
1.51
1.28
7.41
6.94
THIS
Three Sisters Wilderness
THSI1
2.63
2.54
11.45
10.96
THLA
Thousand Lakes Wilderness
LA VOl
2.03
1.89
10.08
9.57
THRO
Theodore Roosevelt NP
THROl
6.38
6.02
15.71
14.42
ULBE
UL Bend
ULBE1
4.03
3.86
11.9
11.15
UPBU
Upper Buffalo Wilderness
UPBU1
9.95
8.78
20.52
18.08
18

-------



Base Year
Future
Base Year
Future



(2009-
Year
(2009-
Year



2013)
(2028)
2013) 20%
(2028)
Class 1


20%
20%
Most
20% Most
Area

IMPROVE
Clearest
Clearest
Impaired
Impaired
Site ID
Class 1 Area Name
Site ID
Days (dv)
Days (dv)
Days (dv)
Days (dv)
VENT
Ventana Wilderness
PINN1
7.52
7
14.79
13.29
WEEL
West Elk Wilderness
WHRI1
-0.09
-0.21
5.71
5.19
WEMI
Weminuche Wilderness
WEMI1
2.07
1.87
6.83
6.38
WHIT
White Mountain Wilderness
WHIT1
3.34
3.25
10.58
9.98
WHPA
Mount Adams Wilderness
WHPA1
1.1
1.01
9.06
8.57
WHPE
Wheeler Peak Wilderness
WHPE1
0.57
0.5
6.96
6.42
WICA
Wind Cave NP
WICA1
3.99
3.75
12.31
10.87
WIMO
Wichita Mountains
WIMOl
9.22
8.55
20.32
17.94
WOLF
Wolf Island
OKEF1
13.34
11.98
20.7
17.34
YELL
Yellowstone NP
YELL2
1.51
1.28
7.41
6.94

Yolla Bolly Middle Eel





YOBO
Wilderness
TRIN1
2.55
2.38
10.77
10.18
YOSE
Yosemite NP
YOSE1
2.62
2.49
12.31
11.28
Figure 3-1 shows the predicted change in deciviews at each Class I area (IMPROVE site) on the
20% most impaired days between 2011 and 2028 (2028 deciviews minus 2011 deciviews). The
visibility improvement in the east is generally large, in the range of a 2-6 deciview
improvement. Most sites in the west show a relatively small deciview improvement of less
than 2 deciviews. There are 35 Class I areas in the west with a projected deciview
improvement of less than 0.5 deciviews.
19

-------
20% Most Impaired Days
Deciview Change
(2011 to 2028)
O	-6.48 - -5.00 (8)
O	-4.99--3.00 (14)
O	-2.99--2.00 (12)
O	-1.99--1.00 (25)
O	-0.99 --0.50 (42)
#	-0.49 - -0.05 (35)
Figure 3-1- Change in deciviews at IMPROVE sites27 between 2011 and 2028 (2028 - 2011).
3.3 Comparison to Regional Haze "Glidepath"
The future year 2028 deciview projections can be compared to the unadjusted visibility
"glidepath" at each Class I area, as defined above.28 The unadjusted "glidepath" represents
the amount of visibility improvement needed in each implementation period, starting from
the baseline 2000-2004 period, to stay on a linear path to natural visibility conditions by
2064. Visibility on the 20% most impaired days is compared to the relevant value of the
glidepath, in this case for a future year of 2028. Since the glidepath is a linear path between
2004 and 2064, a glidepath value (in deciviews) can be calculated for any future year, using a
simple equation. The following formula was used to calculate the 2028 glidepath value:
27	The map shows results at IMPROVE sites. Note that many IMPROVE sites represent more than one
Class I area.
28	The projected 2028 visibility level is compared to the "unadjusted" glidepath for each Class I area
because we expect stakeholders to be interested in this comparison. No adjustments have been made
for impacts from international anthropogenic sources or wildland prescribed fires, as would be an
option under the Regional Haze Rule. The relevance of this comparison to SIP development is beyond
the scope of this modeling. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) and (iii) for more information.
20

-------
Glidepath2o28= Baseline avg deciview - (((Baseline avg deciview - Natural
conditions)/60)*24)
Where
Baseline avg deciview = average observed deciview value on the 20% most impaired
days for 2000-2004 (in dv)
Natural conditions= Natural conditions on the 20% most impaired days at the Class I
area (in dv)
Table 3-3 shows the 2028 glidepath values (in dv) at each Class I area, including the data
needed to calculate the glidepath (natural conditions and the 2000-2004 baseline deciview
values).29 The observed 2009-2013 values and projected 2028 values are repeated from
Table 3-2.
Table 3-3 Natural conditions, 2000-2004 baseline visibility, observed 2009-2013 visibility, 2028 projected
visibility, and 2028 glidepath values
all in deciviews).
Class 1
Area
ID
Class 1 Area Name
State
IMPROVE
Site ID
Natural
Conditions
20% Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
Observed
00-04
Baseline
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Observed
09-13
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Projected
2028
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
2028
Glidepath
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
ACAD
Acadia NP
ME
ACAD1
10.39
22.01
16.84
14.70
17.36
AGTI
Agua Tibia
Wilderness
CA
AGTI1
7.63
21.62
17.66
15.34
16.03
ALLA
Alpine Lake
Wilderness
WA
SNPA1
7.25
15.37
13.75
12.49
12.12
ANAC
Anaconda-Pintler
Wilderness
MT
SULA1
5.48
10.06
8.75
8.48
8.23
ANAD
Ansel Adams
Wilderness
(Minarets)
CA
KAIS1
5.98
N/A
11.69
10.55
N/A
ARCH
Arches NP
UT
CANY1
4.11
8.79
8.26
7.46
6.92
BADL
Badlands NP
SD
BAD LI
6.09
14.98
14.33
12.68
11.42
BAND
Bandelier NM
NM
BAND1
4.59
9.70
9.17
8.72
7.65
BIBE
Big Bend NP
TX
BIBE1
5.33
15.57
14.37
13.93
11.47
BLCA
Black Canyon of the
Gunnison NM
CO
WEMI1
3.98
7.81
6.83
6.38
6.28
29 The values for the 20% most impaired and clearest days and natural conditions are calculated
according to the draft recommended method in the draft EPA guidance document "Draft Guidance for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Rule" posted at
https://www.epa.gov/visibilitv/regional-haze-guidance-technical-support-document-and-data-file.
21

-------
Class 1
Area
ID
Class 1 Area Name
State
IMPROVE
Site ID
Natural
Conditions
20% Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
Observed
00-04
Baseline
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Observed
09-13
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Projected
2028
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
2028
Glidepath
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
BOAP
Bosque del Apache
NM
BOAP1
5.36
11.61
11.19
10.69
9.11
BOMA
Bob Marshall
Wilderness
MT
MONTI
5.43
10.84
9.83
9.61
8.68
BOWA
Boundary Waters
Canoe Area
MN
BOWA1
9.11
N/A
16.43
13.81
N/A
BRCA
Bryce Canyon NP
UT
BRCA1
4.08
8.42
7.47
7.14
6.68
BRET
Breton
LA
BRIS1
9.28
N/A
22.49
18.45
N/A
BRID
Bridger Wilderness
WY
BRID1
3.90
7.96
6.91
6.41
6.34
BRIG
Brigantine
NJ
BRIG1
10.69
27.43
22.26
18.66
20.74
CABI
Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness
MT
CABI1
5.65
10.73
10.10
9.58
8.70
CACR
Caney Creek
Wilderness
AR
CACR1
9.47
23.99
20.87
18.51
18.18
CANY
Canyonlands NP
UT
CANY1
4.11
8.79
8.26
7.46
6.92
CAPI
Capitol Reef NP
UT
CAPI1
4.13
N/A
8.05
7.42
N/A
CARI
Caribou Wilderness
CA
LA VOl
6.14
11.50
10.08
9.57
9.36
CAVE
Carlsbad Caverns NP
TX
GUMOl
4.83
14.60
12.81
11.97
10.69
CHAS
Chassahowitzka
FL
CHAS1
8.97
24.62
19.94
17.14
18.36
CHIR
Chiricahua NM
AZ
CHIR1
4.93
10.50
9.99
9.38
8.27
CHIW
Chiricahua
Wilderness
AZ
CHIR1
4.93
10.50
9.99
9.38
8.27
COHU
Cohutta Wilderness
GA
COHU1
9.52
N/A
21.19
15.15
N/A
CRLA
Crater Lake NP
OR
CRLA1
5.22
9.36
8.84
8.62
7.70
CRMO
Craters of the Moon
NM
ID
CRMOl
4.97
11.91
10.44
9.04
9.13
DESO
Desolation
Wilderness
CA
BLIS1
4.91
10.06
9.40
8.79
8.00
DIPE
Diamond Peak
Wilderness
OR
CRLA1
5.22
9.36
8.84
8.62
7.70
DOME
Dome Land
Wilderness
CA
DOME1
6.18
17.20
16.01
14.32
12.79
DOSO
Dolly Sods Wilderness
WV
DOSOl
8.92
28.29
21.59
15.11
20.54
EACA
Eagle Cap Wilderness
OR
STAR1
6.59
14.53
11.92
10.99
11.35
EANE
Eagles Nest
Wilderness
CO
WHRI1
3.02
6.30
5.71
5.19
4.99
EMIG
Emigrant Wilderness
CA
YOSE1
6.29
13.52
12.31
11.28
10.63
EVER
Everglades NP
FL
EVER1
8.34
19.54
16.30
15.56
15.06
FITZ
Fitzpatrick
Wilderness
WY
BRID1
3.90
7.96
6.91
6.41
6.34
22

-------
Class 1
Area
ID
Class 1 Area Name
State
IMPROVE
Site ID
Natural
Conditions
20% Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
Observed
00-04
Baseline
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Observed
09-13
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Projected
2028
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
2028
Glidepath
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
FLTO
Flat Tops Wilderness
CO
WHRI1
3.02
6.30
5.71
5.19
4.99
GALI
Galium Wilderness
AZ
CHIR1
4.93
10.50
9.99
9.38
8.27
GEMO
Gearhart Mountain
Wilderness
OR
CRLA1
5.22
9.36
8.84
8.62
7.70
GLAC
Glacier NP
MT
GLAC1
6.99
16.19
13.89
13.42
12.51
GLPE
Glacier Peak
Wilderness
WA
NOCA1
6.79
N/A
10.99
10.38
N/A
GORO
Goat Rocks
Wilderness
WA
WHPA1
6.15
10.48
9.06
8.57
8.75
GRCA
Grand Canyon NP
AZ
GRCA2
4.18
7.94
7.53
7.48
6.44
GRGU
Great Gulf
Wilderness
NH
GRGU1
9.78
21.93
15.43
12.41
17.07
GRSA
Great Sand Dunes
NM
CO
GRSA1
4.45
9.66
8.78
8.24
7.58
GRSM
Great Smoky
Mountains NP
TN
GRSM1
10.05
29.16
21.39
15.63
21.51
GRTE
Grand Teton NP
WY
YELL2
3.98
8.30
7.41
6.94
6.57
GUMO
Guadalupe
Mountains NP
TX
GUMOl
4.83
14.60
12.81
11.97
10.69
HECA
Hells Canyon
Wilderness
OR
HECA1
6.57
16.51
13.47
12.06
12.53
HEGL
Hercules-Glades
Wilderness
MO
HEGL1
9.30
25.17
21.63
18.90
18.82
HOOV
Hoover Wilderness
CA
HOOV1
4.91
8.97
7.69
7.24
7.35
ISLE
Isle Royale NP
Ml
ISLE1
10.15
19.53
17.63
15.06
15.78
JARB
Jarbidge Wilderness
NV
JARB1
5.23
8.73
7.73
7.52
7.33
JARI
James River Face
Wilderness
VA
JARI1
9.48
28.08
21.37
16.03
20.64
JOMU
John Muir Wilderness
CA
KAIS1
5.98
N/A
11.69
10.55
N/A
JOSH
Joshua Tree NM
CA
JOSH1
6.09
17.74
13.61
12.13
13.08
JOYC
Joyce-Kilmer-
Slickrock Wilderness
TN
GRSM1
10.05
29.16
21.39
15.63
21.51
KAIS
Kaiser Wilderness
CA
KAIS1
5.98
N/A
11.69
10.55
N/A
KALM
Kalmiopsis
Wilderness
OR
KALM1
7.80
13.35
12.62
12.23
11.13
KICA
Kings Canyon NP
CA
SEQU1
6.29
23.23
19.95
16.36
16.45
LABE
Lava Beds NM
CA
LABE1
6.16
11.29
9.87
9.53
9.24
LAGA
La Garita Wilderness
CO
WEMI1
3.98
7.81
6.83
6.38
6.28
LAVO
Lassen Volcanic NP
CA
LAVOl
6.14
11.50
10.08
9.57
9.36
23

-------
Class 1
Area
ID
Class 1 Area Name
State
IMPROVE
Site ID
Natural
Conditions
20% Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
Observed
00-04
Baseline
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Observed
09-13
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Projected
2028
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
2028
Glidepath
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
LIGO
Linville Gorge
Wilderness
NC
LIGOl
9.70
28.05
20.39
14.62
20.71
LYBR
Lye Brook Wilderness
VT
LYEB1
10.23
23.57
18.06
14.18
18.23
MABE
Maroon Bells-
Snowmass
Wilderness
CO
WHRI1
3.02
6.30
5.71
5.19
4.99
MACA
Mammoth Cave NP
KY
MACA1
9.79
29.83
24.04
20.01
21.81
MAMO
Marble Mountain
Wilderness
CA
TRIN1
6.24
11.97
10.77
10.18
9.67
MAZA
Mazatzal Wilderness
AZ
IKBA1
5.22
11.19
9.96
8.96
8.80
MELA
Medicine Lake
MT
ME LAI
5.95
16.63
16.59
15.50
12.36
MEVE
Mesa Verde NP
CO
MEVE1
4.20
9.22
7.92
7.33
7.22
MIMO
Mission Mountains
Wilderness
MT
MONTI
5.43
10.84
9.83
9.61
8.68
MING
Mingo
MO
MING1
9.28
N/A
22.70
19.74
N/A
MOHO
Mount Hood
Wilderness
OR
MOHOl
6.60
12.10
10.12
9.27
9.90
MOJE
Mount Jefferson
Wilderness
OR
THSI1
7.30
12.80
11.45
10.96
10.60
MOKE
Mokelumne
Wilderness
CA
BLIS1
4.91
10.06
9.40
8.79
8.00
MO LA
Mountain Lakes
Wilderness
OR
CRLA1
5.22
9.36
8.84
8.62
7.70
MOOS
Moosehorn
ME
MOOS1
9.97
20.66
15.80
13.90
16.38
MORA
Mount Rainier NP
WA
MORA1
7.66
16.53
14.19
13.14
12.98
MOWA
Mount Washington
Wilderness
OR
THSI1
7.30
12.80
11.45
10.96
10.60
MOZI
Mount Zirkel
Wilderness
CO
MOZI1
3.16
7.29
6.05
5.49
5.64
NOCA
North Cascades NP
WA
NOCA1
6.79
N/A
10.99
10.38
N/A
OKEF
Okefenokee
GA
OKEF1
9.47
25.34
20.70
17.34
18.99
OLYM
Olympic NP
WA
OLYM1
6.88
14.93
13.22
12.42
11.71
OTCR
Otter Creek
Wilderness
WV
DOSOl
8.92
28.29
21.59
15.11
20.54
PASA
Pasayten Wilderness
WA
PASA1
5.97
10.41
9.27
8.80
8.63
PECO
Pecos Wilderness
NM
WHPE1
3.53
7.35
6.96
6.42
5.83
PEFO
Petrified Forest NP
AZ
PEFOl
4.21
9.82
9.17
8.24
7.57
PIMO
Pine Mountain
Wilderness
AZ
IKBA1
5.22
11.19
9.96
8.96
8.80
24

-------
Class 1
Area
ID
Class 1 Area Name
State
IMPROVE
Site ID
Natural
Conditions
20% Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
Observed
00-04
Baseline
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Observed
09-13
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Projected
2028
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
2028
Glidepath
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
PINN
Pinnacles NM
CA
PINN1
6.96
17.02
14.79
13.29
12.99
PORE
Point Reyes NS
CA
PORE1
9.75
19.38
17.02
15.45
15.53
PRRA
Presidential Range-
Dry River Wilderness
NH
GRGU1
9.78
21.93
15.43
12.41
17.07
RAFA
San Rafael
Wilderness
CA
RAFA1
6.85
N/A
15.05
13.09
N/A
RAWA
Rawah Wilderness
CO
MOZI1
3.16
7.29
6.05
5.49
5.64
REDR
Red Rock Lakes
WY
YELL2
3.98
8.30
7.41
6.94
6.57
REDW
Redwood NP
CA
REDW1
8.54
13.64
13.36
12.81
11.60
ROCA
Roosevelt
Campobello
International Park
ME
MOOS1
9.97
20.66
15.80
13.90
16.38
ROMA
Cape Romain
SC
ROMA1
9.79
25.25
21.48
17.35
19.07
ROMO
Rocky Mountain NP
CO
ROMOl
4.93
11.12
9.21
8.20
8.64
SACR
Salt Creek
NM
SACR1
5.50
16.54
15.31
14.69
12.12
SAGO
San Gorgonio
Wilderness
CA
SAGOl
6.19
20.43
15.74
13.28
14.74
SAJA
San Jacinto
Wilderness
CA
SAGOl
6.19
20.43
15.74
13.28
14.74
SAMA
St. Marks
FL
SAMA1
9.19
N/A
20.11
16.85
N/A
SAPE
San Pedro Parks
Wilderness
NM
SAPE1
3.36
7.66
6.82
6.35
5.94
SAWT
Sawtooth Wilderness
ID
SAWT1
4.67
9.62
8.71
8.50
7.64
SCAP
Scapegoat Wilderness
MT
MONTI
5.43
10.84
9.83
9.61
8.68
SELW
Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness
MT
SULA1
5.48
10.06
8.75
8.48
8.23
SENE
Seney
Ml
SENE1
11.11
23.62
19.84
16.87
18.62
SEQU
Sequoia NP
CA
SEQU1
6.29
23.23
19.95
16.36
16.45
SHEN
Shenandoah NP
VA
SHEN1
9.52
28.32
20.72
14.26
20.80
SIPS
Sipsey Wilderness
AL
SIPS1
9.55
27.71
21.67
17.64
20.44
SOWA
South Warner
Wilderness
CA
LABE1
6.16
11.29
9.87
9.53
9.24
STMO
Strawberry Mountain
Wilderness
OR
STAR1
6.59
14.53
11.92
10.99
11.35
SUPE
Superstition
Wilderness
AZ
TONT1
5.06
11.34
11.04
10.16
8.83
SWAN
Swanquarter
NC
SWAN1
9.79
N/A
19.76
15.32
N/A
SYCA
Sycamore Canyon
Wilderness
AZ
SYCA2
4.68
12.16
11.47
10.81
9.17
25

-------
Class 1
Area
ID
Class 1 Area Name
State
IMPROVE
Site ID
Natural
Conditions
20% Most
Impaired
Days (dv)
Observed
00-04
Baseline
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Observed
09-13
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
Projected
2028
Impairment
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
2028
Glidepath
20% Most
Impaired
Days(dv)
TETO
Teton Wilderness
WY
YELL2
3.98
8.30
7.41
6.94
6.57
THIS
Three Sisters
Wilderness
OR
THSI1
7.30
12.80
11.45
10.96
10.60
THLA
Thousand Lakes
Wilderness
CA
LA VOl
6.14
11.50
10.08
9.57
9.36
THRO
Theodore Roosevelt
NP
ND
THROl
5.96
16.35
15.71
14.42
12.19
ULBE
UL Bend
MT
ULBE1
5.87
12.76
11.90
11.15
10.00
UPBU
Upper Buffalo
Wilderness
AR
UPBU1
9.43
24.25
20.52
18.08
18.32
VENT
Ventana Wilderness
CA
PINN1
6.96
17.02
14.79
13.29
12.99
WEEL
West Elk Wilderness
CO
WHRI1
3.02
6.30
5.71
5.19
4.99
WEMI
Weminuche
Wilderness
CO
WEMI1
3.98
7.81
6.83
6.38
6.28
WHIT
White Mountain
Wilderness
NM
WHIT1
4.89
11.31
10.58
9.98
8.74
WHPA
Mount Adams
Wilderness
WA
WHPA1
6.15
10.48
9.06
8.57
8.75
WHPE
Wheeler Peak
Wilderness
NM
WHPE1
3.53
7.35
6.96
6.42
5.83
WICA
Wind Cave NP
SD
WICA1
5.64
13.09
12.31
10.87
10.11
WIMO
Wichita Mountains
OK
WIMOl
6.92
22.15
20.32
17.94
16.06
WOLF
Wolf Island
GA
OKEF1
9.47
25.34
20.70
17.34
18.99
YELL
Yellowstone NP
WY
YELL2
3.98
8.30
7.41
6.94
6.57
YOBO
Yolla Bolly Middle Eel
Wilderness
CA
TRIN1
6.24
11.97
10.77
10.18
9.67
YOSE
Yosemite NP
CA
YOSE1
6.29
13.52
12.31
11.28
10.63
The 2028 future year projected deciview values can be compared to the unadjusted glidepath
for 2028 to determine if the Class I area is projected to be above, below, or on the glidepath.
While the RHR requires future year projected visibility impairment be compared to the
glidepath, it does not require the RPGs be on or below the glidepath. However, the rule has
different requirements depending on whether the projected value (RPG) is above or below
the glidepath. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) and (iii) for more information.
Figure 3-2 below combines 2011 model performance information, a representation of the
deviation (in deciviews) from the 2028 glidepath, and an uncertainty calculation. The map
26

-------
includes the 2028 projected deciview deviation from the glidepath (color, blue and red), a
qualitative representation of model skill (size of gray color), and whether or not uncertainty,
represented by alternative projections, is large enough to potentially change the sign of the
glidepath deviation for IMPROVE sites in the lower 48 states (vertical bar). Each component is
described in more detail as follows:
•	Each colored dot represents the IMPROVE station's deviation from the 2028 glidepath
for the top 20% most impaired days (red: above; blue: below). The deviation is
calculated as the difference between the RRF projected 2028 values compared to the
glidepath as above.
•	The size of each colored dot (blue, red) is sized inversely proportional to the root mean
square error for averaged extinction by species, as described in Equation 1 (as the
blue/red gets smaller, the grey gets larger). RMSE ranks sites by magnitude and
composition skill using extinction weighted predictions and observations, and is used in
a qualitative sense for comparing model performance across sites.
D = {d: 20% most impaired days}
Nd = ft in D
i G {CM, Crustal, AMMN03, AMMS04, EC, OMC, SEA_SALT}
• The presence of a vertical bar on some dots represent the potential for boundary
condition assumptions to change the sign of the deviation. When a vertical bar is
present, the sign can change due to assumptions in boundary conditions alone. We use
two alternative assumptions about future boundary conditions to create a range of 2028
projections (see Appendix C).
A relatively large boundary contribution (included in "Mixed") and/or poor model
performance will lead to a relatively large 2028 range. The range is relatively small (and
l
RMSE
Eq.l
where
Yt = l/NDj:ieDyiid
Ot — 1/Nd oi d
27

-------
therefore less uncertain) if model performance is generally good and the boundary
contribution is small. When the site range crosses the glidepath, the range is sufficient to
change the sign of the deviation and a vertical bar is overlaid on the IMPROVE sites circle.
#•
-3.0 -1.0 -0.2 0.5 2.0
2028 deviation from unadjusted glidepath (dv) TQ
O Worse Model Performance
O Better Model Peformance
Sensitive Outcome
Figure 3-2 Map of deviation from the 2028 glidepath at IMPROVE sites30, with additional 2011
model performance and uncertainty information.
If the sign of the deviation can change and/or model performance is particularly poor,
confidence in the projection is low. There are two major features that can be seen in the map.
First, Class I areas east of the Mississippi river tend to be significantly below the glidepath (with
the exception of the Everglades in South Florida), performance is frequently good, and the
binary results (being above or below the glidepath) are insensitive to the boundary condition
assumptions. West of the Mississippi river, results are more mixed. For example, several sites in
30 The map shows results at IMPROVE sites where a 2028 glidepath could be calculated. Note that many
IMPROVE sites represent more than one Class I area.
28

-------
Southern California are projected to be below the glidepath, have low model skill, and are
insensitive to boundary conditions. Over large areas in the west, however, the deviation from
the glidepath is positive (above the glidepath), model performance is relatively good, but the
result is sensitive to assumptions in the boundary conditions.
4.0 PSAT Source Apportionment
In order to gain a better understanding of the source contributions to modeled visibility, the EPA
used CAMx Particulate Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) modeling. PSAT uses multiple
tracer families to track the fate of both primary and secondary PM (Yarwood et al., 2004). PSAT
is designed to apportion the following classes of CAMx PM species:
•	Sulfate (PS04)
•	Particulate nitrate (PN03)
•	Ammonium (PNH4)
•	Secondary organic aerosol (SOA)
•	Primary PM (PEC, POA, FCRS, FPRM, CCRS, and CPRM)
•	Particulate mercury (HgP)
For this application, sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and primary PM were tracked using PSAT.
Tracking of SOA contributions may also be of use, but SOA tagging in PSAT adds significant
time to the model runs. Therefore, SOA was not explicitly tracked.
PSAT allows emissions to be tracked (tagged) by various combinations of sectors and
geographic areas (e.g., by state). For this application, 2028 emissions were tagged by
nationwide major source sector (not by state).31 Table 4-1 below shows the sector tags that
were modeled in 2028 using the CAMx PSAT. Each of these emissions source sectors were
processed separately through SMOKE and tracked in PSAT as individual source tags. "Notes"
included in the table add more information about the nature of some individual source sector
tags.
31 There were 18 source sector tags plus boundary conditions (which are always tracked). This is a
reasonable number of tags that can completed in a single model run on the OAQPS computer system.
Adding additional tags to track each sector by state would have multiplied the number of tags by 48, for
a total of 864 tags (18 x 48 plus boundary conditions).
29

-------
Table 4-1 CAMx source sector PSAT tags for 2028.
Tag#
Sector Description
SMOKE Sector Name
Notes
1
Biogenics
beis

2
Area source fugitive dust
afdust
primary PM only
3
Agriculture ammonia
ag
ammonia only
4
Commerical Marine Vessels-
onshore
cmv
Onshore port and underway emissions
assigned to specific states (mostly
within 3 miles of state boundaries)
5
Non-point
nonpt
Area sources that are not O&G
6
Onroad mobile
onroad, onroad_catx_adj

7
Nonroad mobile
nonroad

8
Nonpoint and Point oil and
gas
np_oilgas, pt_oilgas

9
Electric Generating Units
(EGUs)
ptegu_summer,
ptegu_winter

10
Wildfires
ptwildfire3D
Wildfires (U.S. only)
12
Fires in Mexico and Canada
ptfire_mxca3D
Canada and Mexico, all fires
11
Prescribed fires
ptprescfire3D
Prescribed fires (U.S. only)
13
Agricultural fires
agfire
Ag fires
14
Point non-EGU sources
ptnonipm
All NonEGU point that are not O&G
15
Rail
Rail

16
Residential Wood
Combustion
rwc

17
Canada and Mexico
othafdust_adj + othar +
othon + othpt (excluding
offshore)
All anthropopgenic emissions from
Canada and Mexico
18
Offshore
othpt_offshore,
clc2_offshore
Offshore CMV - including clc2 CMV
and Gulf oil and gas platform emissions
IC/BC
Initial and Boundary
Conditions

PM coming into the modeling domain
from GEOSCHEM derived boundary
conditions
The CAMx 2011 and 2028 model output was post-processed using a "species definition file"
that cross references raw CAMx output species names with PM species needed for SMAT. The
results of the post-processing are 24-hour average PM species with the "combine file" output
names. These are matched to the SMAT species as shown in Table 4-2.
30

-------
Table 4-2 Matching of CAMx raw output species to SMAT input variables.
SMAT
Species
"Combine
File" Output
Name
Raw CAMx 6.32 Species
Sulfate
PM25_S04
PS04
Nitrate
PM25_N03
PN03
Ammonium
32
PM25_NH4
PNH4
Organic
carbon
PM25_OM
POA+SOA1+SOA2+SOPA+SOA3+SOA4+SOA5+SOA6+SOA7+SOPB
Elemental
carbon
PM25_EC
PEC
Crustal
CRUSTAL
2.2*PAL+2.49*PSI+1.63*PCA+2.42*PFE+1.94*PTI
Coarse PM
PMC_TOT
CCRS+CPRM
PM2.5
PM25_SMAT
CRUSTAL+PS04+PN03+PNH4+PEC+NA+PCL+S0A1+S0A2+S0A3
fSOA4+SOA5+SOA6+SOA7+SOPA+SOPB+POA
4.1 Process for creating PSAT sector contributions for Class I Areas
The PSAT raw "tag" model outputs were post-processed to create SMAT input files. This
involves processing both the 2028 "bulk outputs" and the sector specific source
apportionment outputs. The "bulk outputs" are the total "bulk" PM species concentrations
(e.g. sulfate, nitrate, etc.) that are identical to the total species concentrations from the non-
source apportionment model run for 2028. However, the source apportionment tracking of
PM species uses slightly different variables names for the source apportionment outputs.
Table 4-3 below shows the SMAT species definitions and matching for the 2028 bulk and 2028
source apportionment results.
32 Modeled ammonium concentrations are not used in the post-processing of the 2028 visibility values
because the IMPROVE network does not measure ammonium. The IMPROVE equation assumes that
sulfate and nitrate is fully neutralized by ammonia.
31

-------
Table 4-3 Matching of "bulk raw species, PSAT output species, and SMAT input variables.
SMAT species
2028 Bulk raw species
2028 Source apportionment tag
raw species
Sulfate
PS04
PS4
Nitrate
PN03
PN3
Ammonium33
PNH4
PN4
Organic
carbon
POA + SOA1+SOA2+SOPA+SOA3+
SOA4+SOA5+SOA6+SOA7+ SOPB+
SOAH
POA
Crustal
FCRS
PFC
Coarse PM
CPRM
PCS
PM2.534
PS04+PN03+PNH4+P0A+PEC+FCRS
PS4+PN3+PN4+POA+PEC+PFC
Elemental
carbon
PEC
PEC
The "SMAT species" are the standard PM species needed as input to SMAT. The "Bulk raw
species" is the CAMx v6.32 raw output species (from the 2028 "bulk" results) variables that
were matched to the SMAT species. The "2028 source apportionment tag raw species" is the
CAMx v6.32 raw source apportionment tag output species variables (these are the default raw
tag species names in CAMx) that were matched to the SMAT species.
SMAT input files for the 2028 bulk species and sector tag species were created as a first step in
calculating the PM and visibility contributions from each tag/sector. The 2028 bulk species
SMAT input files contain the 24-hr average daily modeled species concentrations for each grid
cell. The "sector tag" SMAT input files contain the 24-hr average daily modeled species
concentrations for each sector tag, for each grid cell. The sector tag SMAT input files are
created as the difference between the baseline 2028 bulk model species concentrations and
the concentration from each sector tag group such that the "sector tag" SMAT input files are
33	Modeled ammonium concentrations are not used in the post-processing of the 2028 visibility source
apportionment results because the IMPROVE network does not measure ammonium and the IMPROVE
equation assumes that sulfate and nitrate is fully neutralized by ammonia.
34	Note that total PM2.5 concentration data is needed as a SMAT input variable, but it is not used in the
visibility calculations for regional haze. Visibility calculations only use the species specific model outputs
32

-------
2028 baseline concentrations minus 2028 sector tag concentrations.
The SMAT input files for the 2028 bulk case and the 2028 sector tags were then used to
calculate sector tag extinction fractions using the following process:
1) Regional haze SMAT was run for the 2028 future case using "standard" 2011 and 2028
SMAT input files. In this SMAT run, the advanced option "Create forecast IMPROVE
visibility file" was invoked (see picture below). This creates an output file with future
year (2028) daily species extinction values at each IMPROVE monitor for each of the
20% best and most impaired days (based on 2011 ambient data). These are the
extinction values that can be added and averaged to get the 2028 base case projected
deciview values for each site. SMAT generates a new output file called "scenario_name
Forecast IMPROVE Daily Data.csv" that can be re-used to calculate the sector tag
fractions.
File • Analysis • Data Viewer Expand Viewer DataError-Checking
Haze Visibility Analysis
Start Page
o©
40 Choose Desired Output


40 Data Input


V.I Filtering
lO«/Msg

Data Input
IMPROVE Monitor Data - New Algorithm
a
I Cassia reas_N E Wl MPRO VE ALG_2000to2015 _2017april2 7 j

Model Data

Baseline File

|mats_small.PM.12US2.2011eLcb6r4_v6_llg.csv

Forecast File
|mats_small.PM.12US2.2028el_cb6r4_v6_llg.csv
Using Model Data
Temporal adjustment at monitor 3*3
Q Advanced Option
Create forecast IMPROVE visibility fill
C Forecast IMPROVE daily dalalile
Clas5larea5_NEWlMPROVEALG_2QQ0to2Q15_20l7april27
Gear	Save Project & Run	Save Project
Figure 4-1 SMAT advanced option "Create forecast IMPROVE visibility file".
Running Messages
33

-------
2) SMAT was then run again for each sector tag (18 tags plus boundary conditions), using
the "advanced options" shown below. For each SMAT run, the "Forecast IMPROVE
Daily Data" file (created as an output file from step 1 above) is used as the "advanced
option" input file, the 2028 bulk SMAT input file is used as the "Baseline file", and each
2028 sector tag SMAT input file is used as the "Forecast file". For each sector tag, this
creates sector tag species specific RRFs that are multiplied by the 2028 forecast
extinction data for each IMPROVE site.
SMAT-CE 1.0.2	- ~ X
File " Analysis * Data Viewer Expand Viewer DataError-Checking Start Page
Haze Visibility Analysis
& &
¥i Choose Desired Output
4|) Data Input
-lit Filtering
Data Input
iMKKUVt Monitor uata - New Aigoritnm
Oj
Using Model Data
Temporal adjustment at monitor 3x3
o ®
Log/Msg
\Sf
Classlareas_NEW!MPROVEALG_2000to2015_2017april27

Vlodel Data

Baseline File

mats_small.PM.12US2.2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llg.csv

Forecast File

small.PM.12US2.2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llg_tag0|D3.csv

0 Advanced Option
O Create forecast IMPROVE visibility file
ft Forecast IMPROVE daily data file
f RH-2028el-small - Forecast IMPROVE Daily Data
JH-i
Clear
Save Project & Run
Back Next
Save Project
Name
Running Messages
Figure 4-2 SMAT advanced option "Forecast IMPROVE daily data file".
3) The total extinction (on the 20% most impaired days) for each sector tag is calculated
from the SMAT bulk output file and each of the sector tag output files. The total
extinction variable (20% most impaired days) from the bulk file (tbext_g90_f) is
subtracted from the total extinction variable from each sector tag output file. The
difference is the contribution from the sector tag on the 20% most impaired days (at
each IMPROVE site/Class I area). The same calculation can be done for the 20%
clearest days by subtracting the total extinction variable on the 20% clearest days
34

-------
(tbext_glO_f) from both files.
4) As a final step, there are several other extinction components that are calculated
separately. Rayleigh scattering is constant and is added to the sector tag totals at each
site. Next, the measured extinction from sea salt (E_sea_salt_g90_f) is added directly
from the bulk SMAT output file (sea salt is held constant between years and was not
tracked by source apportionment). The last PM species that needs to be accounted for
is secondary organic aerosol (SOA). SOA was not tracked in PSAT (due to resource
constraints), but since every other component of visibility extinction is accounted for in
the above calculations, SOA is calculated as the difference between the bulk 2028 total
extinction and the sum of all of the tagged sectors (plus Rayleigh and sea salt).
The individual sector tags have been summed into categories and summarized in "Class I area
summary plots", contained in Appendix B. The emissions summary categories are shown in
table 4-4.
Table 4-4 Source apportionment emissions summary categories.
Emissions
Summary
Category
Emissions Sectors (PSAT tags)
Notes
U.S.
Anthropogenic
On-road mobile, Non-road mobile, EGUs,
NonEGU point, Oil and Gas, Nonpoint
(area), Commercial marine (onshore),
Prescribed fires, Ag fires, Rail, Residential
Wood combustion (RWC)
Most certain contributors to U.S.
anthropogenic visibility.
International
Anthropogenic Canada and Mexico
Contribution from Canadian and
Mexican emissions within the 12km
CONUS domain
Natural
Biogenic, Wildfires (domainwide), Sea
salt
Most certain contributors to natural
visibility
"Mixed"
Boundary conditions, Fugitive dust,
Offshore (commercial marine and oil
platforms), Secondary organics
Each of these sectors are particularly
uncertain regarding their representation
in the model, including their relative
contribution of natural vs. international
vs. U.S. anthropogenic sources. Need
further discussion and assessment to
improve our understanding of the
contributions.
35

-------
The summary plots also list the largest U.S. anthropogenic sector contributions for each
IMPROVE site (in a pie plot). See Appendix B for the summary plots, including a detailed
explanation of the plots.
4.2 Sector Tag Results
The sector tag modeling results were evaluated to better understand the individual source
sector contributions to regional haze at Class I areas. See Appendix B for individual IMPROVE
site summary plots which contain model performance, 2028 projection, and 2028 source
apportionment information. The sector results can also be examined by individual PM species
to learn more about which species are the largest contributors to regional haze. Although PM
concentration does not linearly correspond to visibility impairment, it is a good surrogate for
examining sector contributions to visibility. A convenient way to examine the sector tag results
is to look at spatial maps of the raw source apportionment outputs (in modeled concentration
units). Below are example plots of monthly average concentrations (in |-ig/m3) for several
source example sector tags. Additional examples of monthly average source sector tag spatial
plots are contained in Appendix D.
The sector source apportionment tag results show that boundary conditions account for the
largest contribution to visibility at many Class I areas. Figure 4-3 below shows the 2028 January
monthly average nitrate contribution from boundary conditions. This shows a large
contribution to nitrate (up to 6.9 |-ig/m3 monthly average) in the northern plains, coming from
the northern modeling boundary. This is presumably from high modeled nitrate in Canada from
the GEOS-Chem model.
IC/BC January Avg Nitrate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 6.946 at (152,245)
data = [3]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llg_tagicbc. PM.12 US2_25.monthlya v g. n cf. 01
Figure 4-3 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from boundary
conditions.
36

-------
Relatively high sulfate concentrations can also be seen coming from the boundaries. Figure 4-4
shows the 2028 July monthly average sulfate contribution from boundary conditions. Even
though the average sulfate concentration in the contiguous U.S. is generally < 1 |ig/m3, this can
be a large percentage of the total modeled sulfate concentrations, especially in the West. This
is illustrated in Figure 4-5, which shows the fraction of total July monthly average sulfate from
boundary conditions. For example, the orange color is a fraction of > 0.75 which means that
more than 75% of the total modeled July average sulfate concentration is coming from
boundary conditions.
7/1/201112:00:00 AM
data = [2l2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_llg_tagicbc. PM.12 US2_25.monthlya u g. n cf. 0 7
IC/B C J u ly Avg S u If ate
Figure 4-4 July 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in ng/m3) from boundary conditions.
Figure 4-5 July 2028 monthly average sulfate fraction (1.0 = 100%) from boundary conditions
data
Min = 0.00E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.995 at (183,2)
= [212028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_H£_tagicbc.PM.12US2_25.monthlyavg.ncf.07
lily Avg Sulfate- Percent from IC/BC
7/1/201112:00:00 AM
37

-------
Below are several additional example spatial plots. Figure 4-6 shows the 2028 July monthly
average sulfate contribution from EGU emissions. The largest impacts from EGUs are
concentrated in the area of highest EGU emissions, centered in the Ohio Valley. Impacts in the
West are much lower (the gray color on the scale is a monthly average concentration of < 0.05
|ig/m3, but), but EGUs in the West can still be a relatively large fraction of the modeled U.S.
anthropogenic visibility impacts.
EGU July Avg Sulfate
Min = 0.00E+0 at (1,1), Max = 2.054 at (282,122)
data = [5]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llg_tag009.PM. 12US2_25.monthlyavg.ncf.07
Figure 4-6 July 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in ng/m3) from EGU emissions
Figure 4-7 shows the 2028 January monthly average nitrate concentrations from offshore
marine emissions (commercial marine vessals and offshore platforms). The largest impacts are
focused off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, and California, near large ports and ship channels.
Offshore Jan Avg Nitrate
Min = 0.00E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.502 at (40,97)
data = [9]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llg_tag018.PM.12US2_25.monthlyavg.ncf.01
Figure 4-7 July 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in jj.g/m3) from offshore emissions
38

-------
Figure 4-8 shows the 2028 July monthly average organic carbon concentrations from U.S.
wildfire emissions. The impacts are large where wildfires occurred in July of 2011 and are
relatively low elsewhere. The impacts from fires are highly spatially variable, depending on
where and when large fires occurred in 2011.
Wildfires July Avg Primary Organic Carbon
—ft


I
I
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
<0.25
Min = 0.00E+0 at (1,1), Max = 41.473 at (43,120)
data = [7]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llg^_tag010.PM.12US2_25.monthlyavg.ncf.07
Figure 4-8 July 2028 monthly average organic carbon contribution (in jj.g/m3) from U.S. wildfire
emissions
Additional example monthly average spatial plots for the other sector tags can be found in
Appendix E.
5.0 Summary
The goal of the modeling was to project 2028 visibility conditions and source sector
contribution information for each mandatory Class I federal area/IMPROVE site. The EPA
conducted this preliminary visibility modeling with the intention of informing the regional haze
state implementation plan (SIP) development process for the second implementation period.
Visibility at most eastern Class I areas on the 20% most anthropogenically impaired days is
projected to be below the unadjusted glidepath in 2028, with a relatively higher percentage of
the light extinction due to domestic anthropogenic sources. At many western Class I areas,
visibility is projected to be above the unadjusted glidepath. However, at most of the western
areas, the projections relative to the unadjusted glidepath are uncertain because of greater
uncertainties associated with certain sources of the light extinction (in particular, boundary
conditions) and in some cases, poor model performance.
39

-------
Based on our assessment of these results, we identified a number of uncertainties and model
performance issues that should be addressed in future EPA, state, multistate, or stakeholder
modeling that may be used in SIP development. We have identified several aspects of this initial
modeling that should be improved upon through coordination with interested stakeholders.
These include, but are not limited to:
•	Expanded domain size to reduce the impact of the boundary conditions assumptions on
predictions, especially near the domain edge.
o The boundary conditions were found to be the largest contributor to visibility at
many Class I areas, especially those near the edge of the modeling domain.
Expanding the regional photochemical modeling domain will potentially reduce
the influence from global or hemispheric model derived boundary conditions.
Those models have much coarser grid resolution and use global emissions
inventories which may not be year specific or up to date.
o There may also be recirculation of U.S. emissions in boundary conditions derived
from global models, especially where the boundary is very close to the U.S.
mainland. Moving the domain boundary further from the contiguous U.S. will
minimize this issue.
•	Updated emission inventory and projections for certain sectors
o More recent nationwide photochemical modeling has incorporated updates in
future year emissions inventories that should be considered for 2028.
¦	Remove the Clean Power Plan and Texas regional haze FIP from the EGU
assumptions.
¦	Updates to the oil and gas emissions projections.
¦	New Canadian base and future year emissions.
¦	Other emissions updates based on more recent information.
•	Updated boundary conditions based on more recent modeling of international emissions
as well as additional modeling to help quantify and distinguish anthropogenic and
natural international contributions.
o The 2011 boundary conditions used for the regional haze modeling came from
an older version of GEOS-Chem which did not contain the latest international
emissions estimates for 2011.
o In addition to projecting U.S. emissions to 2028, international emissions are
changing between 2011 and 2028 as well. Consideration should be given to
estimating future year global emissions to provide an alternate estimate of
future year boundary conditions.
40

-------
o Global or hemispheric models can potentially be used to adjust the visibility
glidepath for impacts from international anthropogenic sources. Sensitivity runs
and additional refinements to international inventories may be needed in order
to provide more confidence in the model results.35
•	Improved treatment of fire and fugitive dust emissions in the model.
o The current CAMx modeling platform does not include estimates of natural
windblown dust emissions. Windblown dust (primarily contributing to coarse
mass) is an important component of regional haze in some Class I areas,
o The current modeling used year-specific fire emissions from 2011 which may not
be representative of a "typical year" or multi-year period. The IMPROVE
measurements used to establish both the base period impairment
measurements and progress towards natural conditions, use a five-year average
of IMPROVE measurements. Therefore, alternative estimates of fire emissions,
which may better represent a longer term average, may be more appropriate for
use in visibility projections,
o Further refinements of fire emissions may also allow exploration of possible
adjustments of the glidepath for prescribed fire impacts.
•	Treatment of secondary organic aerosols (SO A) should be reviewed.
o In many locations, there is relatively high modeled SOA as a fraction of total
organic aerosols. Using the RRF approach, this apportions the modeled SOA as a
fraction of the measured total organics. There is considerable uncertainty in the
modeled SOA concentrations, which therefore translates into uncertainty in the
apportioned SOA mass,
o Additional information can be gained by running PSAT with SOA source
apportionment turned on.
•	Estimation of "natural visibility conditions" used in the glidepath framework should be
further reviewed.
o Further refinements in the draft methodology can be explored,
o Further analysis of the IMPROVE data combined with modeled source
apportionment information may be useful in evaluating the natural conditions
estimates.
35Because boundary conditions in this modeling cannot be separated between anthropogenic and
natural sources and because the modeling domain boundary is quite close to the U.S. border in some
locations, such that recirculation of U.S. emissions back into the U.S. could not be explicitly
distinguished, it is not possible to use these modeling results to adjust the glidepath for international
anthropogenic impacts even as a pro forma analysis. We also recommend against attempting to use
these modeling results to adjust the glidepath for prescribed fire impacts due to the uncertainties
described in this TSD.
41

-------
References
Gilliam, R.C. and J.E. Pleim, 2010. Performance Assessment of New Land Surface and
Planetary Boundary Layer Physics in the WRF-ARW. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 49, 760-774.
Hand, J. L., and W. C. Malm (2006), Review of the IMPROVE equation for estimating
ambient light extinction coefficients, CIRA Report, ISSN: 0737-5352-71, Colo. State Univ., Fort
Collins.
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/016 IMPRQVEeqReview/IMPRQV
EeqReview.htm
Henderson, B.H., F. Akhtar, H.O.T. Pye, S.L. Napelenok, W.T. Hutzell, 2014. A Database
and Tool for Boundary Conditions for Regional Air Quality Modeling: Description and
Evaluations, Geoscientific Model Development, 7, 339-360.
Hong, S-Y, Y. Noh, and J. Dudhia, 2006. A New Vertical Diffusion Package with an Explicit
Treatment of Entrainment Processes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 134, 2318-2341.
Houyoux, M.R., Vukovich, J.M., Coats, C.J., Wheeler, N.J.M., Kasibhatla, P.S.,2000.
Emissions Inventory Development and Processing for the Seasonal Model for Regional Air
Quality. (SMRAQ) project, Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, 105(D7), 9079-9090.
lacono, M.J., J.S. Delamere, E.J. Mlawer, M.W. Shephard, S.A Clough, and W.D. Collins,
2008. Radiative Forcing by Long-Lived Greenhouse Gases: Calculations with the AER
RadiativeTransfer Models, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D13103.
Kain, J.S., 2004. The Kain-Fritsch Convective Parameterization: An Update, J. Appl.
Meteor.,43,170-181.
Ma, L-M. and Tan Z-M, 2009. Improving the Behavior of Cumulus Parameterization
forTropical Cyclone Prediction: Convective Trigger, Atmospheric Research, 92, 190-211.
Morrison, H.J., A. Curry, and V.I. Khvorostyanov, 2005. A New Double-Moment
Microphysics Parameterization for Application in Cloud and Climate Models. Part I: Description,
J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 1665-1677.
Morrison, H. and A. Gettelman, 2008. A New Two-Moment Bulk Stratiform Cloud
Microphysics Scheme in the Community Atmosphere Model, version 3 (CAM3). Part I:
Description and Numerical Tests, J. Climate, 21, 3642-3659.
Pleim, J.E. and A. Xiu, 2003. Development of a Land-Surface Model. Part II:
DataAssimilation, J. Appl. Meteor., 42, 1811-1822
Pleim, J.E., 2007a. A Combined Local and Nonlocal Closure Model for the Atmospheric
Boundary Layer. Part I: Model Description and Testing, J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 46, 1383-
1395.
42

-------
Pleim, J.E., 2007b. A Combined Local and Nonlocal Closure Model for the Atmospheric
Boundary Layer. Part II: Application and Evaluation in a Mesoscale Meteorological Model,
J.Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 46, 1396-1409.
Ramboll Environ, 2016. User's Guide Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
version 6.30, www.camx.com. Ramboll Environ International Corporation, Novato, CA.
Ramboll Environ, 2014. wrfcamx version 4.3 Release Notes. December 17,
2014.www.camx.com. Ramboll Environ International Corporation, Novato, CA.
Skamarock, W.C., J.B. Klemp, J. Dudhia, et al., 2008. A Description of the Advanced
Research WRF Version 3. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-475+STR.
http://wwww.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/docs/arw v3.pdf
Simon, H., K.R. Baker, and S.B. Phillips, 2012. Compilation and Interpretation of
Photochemical Model Performance Statistics Published between 2006 and 2012, Atmospheric
Environment, 61, 124-139.
Stammer, D., F.J. Wentz, and C.L. Gentemann, 2003. Validation of Microwave Sea
Surface Temperature Measurements for Climate Purposes, J. of Climate, 16(1), 73-87.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014a. Meteorological Model Performance for
Annual 2011 Simulation WRF v3.4, Research Triangle Park, NC.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/reports/MET TSD 2011 final ll-26-14.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014b. Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, Research Triangle Park,
NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft Q3-PM-RH Modeling Guidance-
2014.pdf
Xiu, A., and J.E. Pleim, 2001, Development of a Land Surface Model. Part I: Application in
a Meso scale Meteorological Model, J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 192-209.
Yantosca, B. 2004. GEOS-CHEMv7-01-02 User's Guide, Atmospheric Chemistry
ModelingGroup, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Yarwood, G., R.E. Morris, G.M. Wilson. 2004. Particulate Matter Source Apportionment
Technology (PSAT) in the CAMx Photochemical Grid Model. Proceedings of the 27th
NATO/ CCMS International Technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modeling and
Application. Springer Verlag (Available from
http://camx.com/publ/pdfs/yarwood itm paper.pdf).
43

-------
Appendix A
Model Performance Evaluation
A-l

-------
1. Model Evaluation Statistics and Regions
In order to estimate the ability of CAMx to replicate the 2011 base year concentrations of PM2.5 and its
speciated components, an operational model performance evaluation was conducted. For this
evaluation, mean bias and normalized mean bias, mean error and normalized mean error, and Pearson's
correlation coefficient were used.
Mean bias (MB) is the average difference between predicted (P) and observed (O) concentrations for a
given number of samples (n):
MB^gm-3)= -Yn (Pf - Of)
nZ_ij=1
Mean error (ME) is the average absolute value of the difference between predicted and observed
concentrations for a given number of samples:
ME (jig m-3) = -V"
nZ_ij=1
Normalized mean bias (NMB) is the sum of the difference between predicted and observed values
divided by the sum of the observed values:
X?(P - 0)
NMB (%) = ^	* 100
Normalized mean error (NME) is the sum of the absolute value of the difference between predicted and
observed values divided by the sum of the observed values:
Ei IP -01
NME (%) =	'*100
Pearson's correlation coefficient is defined as:
Z?=1 (Pi - P)(.°i - 0)
Model predictions were paired in space and time with observational data from the IMPROVE, CSN, and
CASTNET monitoring networks. These results were organized by network, season (winter (DJF), spring
(MAM), summer (JJA), and fall (SON)), and NOAA climate region (Figure 1).
A-2

-------
U.S. Climate Regions
Figure 1. Climate regions used for aggregating model performance. Source:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/inonitoring-references/mai3s/us-climate-regions.php
2. PM2.5 Sulfate
Table 2-1 summarizes model performance statistics for PM2.5 sulfate. Boxplot comparisons of model
predictions and observations (IMPROVE, CSN, and CASTNET) by month for each climate region are
shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Nationwide spatial plots of NMB and NME for each season are shown in
Figures 4 and 5.
Sulfate performance across seasons, networks, and regions is generally mixed. A notable
underprediction of sulfate is observed across rural locations in the southwest and most of California
during the summer. NMBs range from -57.5% to -45.1% in the west during the summer and -50.4% to -
48.1% in the southwest during the summer. This underprediction is also noticeable during the fall,
though the magnitude of the underprediction is less. Sulfate is also underpredicted in the east in the
summer, with notable overpredictions in the northeast across all seasons. Sulfate is also overpredicted
in the northwest in all seasons, with a smaller overprediction occurring in the summer.
A-3

-------
Table 2-1. Model performance statistics for PM2.5 sulfate by region, network, and season.
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
nv3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


Winter
368
1.23
1.48
0.75
19.9
39.7
0.25
0.49


Spring
413
1.18
1.79
0.58
51.0
61.8
0.60
0.73

IMPROVE
Summer
373
1.78
1.91
0.72
7.0
48.6
0.13
0.87


Fall
371
1.23
1.53
0.79
24.7
43.1
0.30
0.53


All
1525
1.35
1.68
0.69
24.2
48.6
0.33
0.66


Winter
677
1.99
2.12
0.58
6.2
34.7
0.12
0.69


Spring
717
1.85
2.13
0.73
15.0
33.3
0.28
0.62
Northeast
CSN
Summer
720
3.07
2.71
0.84
-11.8
30.0
-0.36
0.92


Fall
685
1.71
1.91
0.83
12.0
32.0
0.21
0.55


All
2799
2.16
2.22
0.78
2.7
32.2
0.06
0.70


Winter
170
1.79
1.75
0.83
-2.0
21.5
-0.04
0.38


Spring
193
1.82
1.96
0.68
7.6
25.9
0.14
0.47

CASTNET
Summer
186
2.84
2.32
0.88
-18.3
26.2
-0.52
0.74


Fall
197
1.66
1.74
0.86
5.2
18.9
0.09
0.31


All
746
2.02
1.95
0.83
-3.9
23.6
-0.08
0.48


Winter
263
1.63
2.06
0.66
26.1
40.4
0.43
0.66


Spring
266
2.28
2.34
0.50
2.4
40.1
0.06
0.92

IMPROVE
Summer
277
3.27
2.41
0.72
-26.4
35.0
-0.87
1.15
Southeast

Fall
267
1.63
1.85
0.70
13.3
38.4
0.22
0.63


All
1073
2.22
2.17
0.64
-2.3
37.9
-0.05
0.84


Winter
435
1.82
2.25
0.65
23.8
37.7
0.43
0.69

CSN
Spring
454
2.58
2.53
0.48
-2.1
36.1
-0.05
0.93


Summer
471
3.34
2.42
0.59
-27.7
36.4
-0.92
1.22
A-4

-------
IE
Lg
3)
55~
.85
,39
77~
38~
.51
,77
,51
~S2
30~
,65
,82
,69
!oo~
20~
,58
,87
,48
57~
33~
,44
,70
,61
45~
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(Hg
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
NMB
NME
Fall
442
1.63
1.82
0.67
11.5
33.5
All
1802
2.36
2.26
0.57
-4.4
36.1
Winter
138
1.96
2.02
0.66
3.3
20.1
Spring
146
2.68
2.12
0.35
-21.0
28.5
CASTNET
Summer
147
3.49
2.12
0.82
-39.2
39.5
Fall
150
1.86
1.63
0.61
-12.4
27.2
All
581
2.50
1.97
0.63
-21.2
30.6
Winter
181
1.96
2.05
0.84
4.6
26.0
Spring
205
2.37
2.33
0.60
-1.9
34.7
IMPROVE
Summer
196
3.66
2.64
0.78
-28.0
35.4
Fall
196
1.75
1.89
0.70
8.0
36.7
All
778
2.45
2.23
0.73
-8.7
33.7
Winter
588
2.23
1.98
0.72
-11.3
30.8
Spring
625
2.68
2.88
0.65
7.5
37.2
CSN
Summer
649
3.90
3.24
0.80
-17.0
30.7
Fall
611
1.94
1.90
0.79
-2.0
29.8
All
2473
2.71
2.52
0.76
-7.1
32.2
Winter
201
2.37
2.16
0.83
-9.0
20.2
Spring
214
2.70
2.34
0.64
-13.3
21.0
CASTNET
Summer
207
4.21
2.93
0.79
-30.5
31.5
Fall
214
2.12
1.93
0.80
-8.6
20.7
All
836
2.85
2.34
0.81
-17.9
24.6
IMPROVE
Winter
Spring
183
174
1.20
1.43
1.29
1.61
0.55
0.81
7.9
13.1
50.9
31.4
A-5

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


Summer
190
1.43
1.35
0.80
-5.9
37.9
-0.08
0.54


Fall
193
1.00
1.16
0.80
15.7
40.3
0.16
0.40


All
740
1.26
1.35
0.72
6.9
39.7
0.09
0.50


Winter
334
1.66
1.56
0.66
-6.1
37.9
-0.10
0.63


Spring
337
1.92
2.53
0.73
32.1
43.7
0.62
0.84

CSN
Summer
335
2.42
2.14
0.77
-11.6
32.7
-0.28
0.79


Fall
340
1.53
1.62
0.81
5.8
32.0
0.09
0.49


All
1346
1.88
1.96
0.71
4.3
36.5
0.08
0.69


Winter
56
1.49
1.34
0.79
-10.3
22.4
-0.15
0.33


Spring
62
1.61
1.81
0.87
12.4
20.7
0.20
0.33

CASTNET
Summer
65
1.85
1.61
0.91
-12.6
18.2
-0.23
0.34


Fall
62
1.51
1.53
0.89
1.2
20.9
0.02
0.32


All
245
1.62
1.58
0.84
-2.6
20.4
-0.04
0.33


Winter
231
1.21
1.28
0.73
5.4
39.9
0.07
0.48


Spring
238
1.83
1.38
0.67
-24.9
38.8
-0.46
0.71

IMPROVE
Summer
258
2.16
1.17
0.72
-45.6
47.0
-0.98
1.01


Fall
250
1.21
1.16
0.80
-4.4
29.5
-0.05
0.36


All
977
1.61
1.24
0.66
-22.9
40.1
-0.37
0.65
South

Winter
222
1.80
1.93
0.64
7.4
38.2
0.13
0.69


Spring
248
2.56
2.20
0.72
-14.0
31.7
-0.36
0.81

CSN
Summer
253
2.51
1.54
0.72
-38.5
42.5
-0.97
1.06


Fall
238
1.71
1.80
0.71
5.6
32.8
0.10
0.56


All
961
2.16
1.87
0.66
-13.5
36.5
-0.29
0.79

CASTNET
Winter
70
1.76
1.50
0.80
-14.5
22.0
-0.26
0.39
A-6

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


Spring
85
2.58
1.73
0.72
-32.8
34.7
-0.85
0.89
Summer
87
2.45
1.18
0.62
-51.8
53.0
-1.27
1.30
Fall
77
1.69
1.36
0.64
-19.5
27.3
-0.33
0.46
All
319
2.15
1.44
0.62
-32.9
36.7
-0.71
0.79
Southwest
IMPROVE
Winter
846
0.35
0.50
0.53
44.2
64.0
0.15
0.22
Spring
871
0.65
0.51
0.48
-22.6
43.0
-0.15
0.28
Summer
865
0.90
0.45
0.59
-49.7
50.9
-0.45
0.46
Fall
856
0.62
0.48
0.65
-23.2
36.2
-0.15
0.23
All
3438
0.63
0.48
0.48
-23.4
47.0
-0.15
0.30
CSN
Winter
185
0.69
0.66
0.43
-5.1
44.1
-0.03
0.30
Spring
190
0.73
0.64
0.58
-12.5
36.3
-0.09
0.26
Summer
192
0.99
0.52
0.45
-48.1
50.0
-0.48
0.50
Fall
186
0.75
0.58
0.50
-22.5
34.7
-0.17
0.26
All
753
0.79
0.60
0.42
-24.6
42.0
-0.20
0.33
CASTNET
Winter
94
0.36
0.47
0.62
31.2
41.0
0.11
0.15
Spring
102
0.66
0.50
0.52
-24.8
35.9
-0.16
0.24
Summer
102
0.78
0.38
0.67
-50.4
50.4
-0.39
0.39
Fall
101
0.62
0.44
0.64
-29.4
34.3
-0.18
0.21
All
399
0.61
0.45
0.42
-26.5
40.9
-0.16
0.25
N. Rockies
& Plains
IMPROVE
Winter
471
0.46
0.51
0.70
12.1
56.5
0.06
0.26
Spring
525
0.67
0.73
0.61
9.2
47.7
0.06
0.32
Summer
520
0.59
0.52
0.67
-12.0
36.1
-0.07
0.21
Fall
503
0.43
0.54
0.58
24.9
46.4
0.11
0.20
All
2019
0.54
0.58
0.63
6.9
45.9
0.04
0.25
A-7

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


Winter
66
1.02
1.02
0.56
0.3
50.8
0.00
0.52


Spring
70
1.51
1.43
0.80
-5.1
33.6
-0.08
0.51

CSN
Summer
72
1.34
1.20
0.78
-10.6
36.8
-0.14
0.49


Fall
69
0.85
0.95
0.77
12.2
35.8
0.10
0.30


All
277
1.18
1.15
0.75
-2.6
38.4
-0.03
0.46


Winter
77
0.54
0.53
0.76
-1.5
36.3
-0.01
0.20


Spring
76
0.90
0.80
0.83
-10.5
22.6
-0.09
0.20

CASTNET
Summer
88
0.77
0.51
0.82
-33.5
35.2
-0.26
0.27


Fall
89
0.58
0.55
0.83
-5.7
21.6
-0.03
0.13


All
330
0.70
0.59
0.79
-14.6
28.6
-0.10
0.20


Winter
398
0.24
0.49
0.49
100.0
121.0
0.24
0.30


Spring
469
0.41
0.58
0.72
41.5
56.9
0.17
0.23

IMPROVE
Summer
407
0.62
0.64
0.59
3.3
41.4
0.02
0.26


Fall
420
0.43
0.66
0.45
55.6
76.6
0.24
0.33


All
1694
0.43
0.59
0.56
39.4
64.9
0.17
0.28


Winter
166
0.72
0.99
0.48
37.3
62.6
0.27
0.45
Northwest

Spring
167
0.60
0.83
0.67
37.8
46.1
0.23
0.28

CSN
Summer
172
0.97
1.05
0.51
8.5
43.4
0.08
0.42


Fall
166
0.73
1.08
0.38
47.6
65.1
0.35
0.48


All
671
0.76
0.99
0.49
30.4
53.6
0.23
0.41


Winter
12
0.26
0.54
0.45
108.0
112.0
0.28
0.29

CASTNET
Spring
13
0.47
0.59
0.77
25.4
30.1
0.12
0.14


Summer
13
0.77
0.78
0.41
1.4
26.9
0.01
0.21


Fall
13
0.51
0.73
0.57
43.3
55.4
0.22
0.28
A-8

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


All
51
0.51
0.66
0.65
30.6
45.2
0.16
0.23


Winter
407
0.30
0.43
0.49
47.0
80.5
0.14
0.24


Spring
456
0.64
0.60
0.38
-6.7
48.1
-0.04
0.31

IMPROVE
Summer
441
0.98
0.54
0.16
-45.1
58.7
-0.44
0.57


Fall
441
0.69
0.53
0.50
-22.9
46.6
-0.16
0.32


All
1745
0.66
0.53
0.34
-19.8
55.1
-0.13
0.36


Winter
225
0.73
0.74
0.27
1.2
56.0
0.01
0.41


Spring
242
1.02
0.87
0.41
-15.1
42.7
-0.15
0.44
West
CSN
Summer
247
1.78
0.91
0.51
-48.9
53.3
-0.87
0.95


Fall
228
1.52
0.92
0.75
-39.1
48.5
-0.59
0.74


All
942
1.27
0.86
0.55
-32.2
50.1
-0.41
0.64


Winter
69
0.39
0.42
0.49
5.8
41.1
0.02
0.16


Spring
73
0.82
0.58
0.46
-29.1
38.8
-0.24
0.32

CASTNET
Summer
77
1.09
0.46
0.26
-57.5
59.0
-0.63
0.64


Fall
77
0.82
0.48
0.54
-41.8
46.5
-0.34
0.38


All
296
0.79
0.48
0.39
-38.7
48.4
-0.31
0.38
A-9

-------
IMPROVE S04 for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE S04 for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE
-a 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
i	1	1	1	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
o
cn
IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
~i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	T"
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
IMPROVE S04 for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE S04 for EastNorlhCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
IMPROVE
2011el_cb6r4_v6^11g_12US2
1
•Ji
m
JL
-*
M*"
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011	01 2011_03 2011.05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-10

-------
IMPROVE S04 for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE S04 for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
O
cn
m—• IMPROVE
D 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2:
-A.
Tm
m
i	1	1	1	1	r~
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
o
cn
¦	• IMPROVE:
ED---* 2011el_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2
1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	T"
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
IMPROVE S04 for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE S04 for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
• IMPROVE
> 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
¦
"I	1	1	1	T
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-ll

-------
IMPROVE S04 for West - 1/2011 to 12/2011
¦—• IMPROVE
2011el_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2
2.0
1.5
O)
1.0
0.5
¦
¦
-8
0.0
2011_07
2011_01
2011_03
2011_05
2011_09
2011_11
Months
Figure 2. Boxplot comparisons of model predictions and IMPROVE sulfate observations for each climate
region by month.
A-12

-------
CSN S04 for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN S04 for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
1	1	1	1	1	1	1-
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
o
C/) 2
m—• csn
2011el_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2
o - -E	-fc 3 8
"I	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	T"
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CSN S04 for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN S04 for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 gj 2US2
Ti
~1	1	1	T
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
o
C0 2
CSN
2011 el_cbj6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
ML

¥
¦
in

	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011	01 2011_03 2011.05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-13

-------
CSN S04 for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
O
cn
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
/

i	1	1	1	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
E
3 1.0
O
cn
CSN S04 for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN
¦ 2011el_cb6r4_v6 11g_12US2
¦
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	T"
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CSN S04 for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN S04 for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
2011el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2^
~i	1	I	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
~i	i	i	1	1	1	1	1	1	r
2011	01 2011_03 2011.05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-14

-------
CSN S04 for West - 1/2011 to 12/2011
¦—• CSN
O - 2011 el_cb6r4_v6j_11 g_12U: I
2.0
1.5
O)
1.0
w
0.5
0.0
2011_07
2011_01
2011_03
2011_05
2011_09
2011_11
Months
Figure 3. Boxplot comparisons of model predictions and CSN sulfate observations for each climate
region by month.
A-15

-------
CASTNet S04 for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' CASTNET-
> 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
CASTNet S04 for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
O
cn






4-

-i-
-\	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CASTNET
a 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2
~i	1	1	1	1	1	r
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CASTNet S04 for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNet S04 for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNET
20J4el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
2011 11
CASTNET
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
¦¦
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011J
Months
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011	01 2011_03 2011.05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-16

-------
CASTNet S04 for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNet S04 for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNET
201lei cb6r4 v6 11g 12US2

o -| S3 SI 8
i	1	1	1	1	r
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
o
C/)
¦—• CASTNET
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2

1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1-
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CASTNet S04 for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNet S04 for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' CASTNET
¦ 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	I	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	I	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CASTNET
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
l	1	1	1	1	r
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-17

-------
CASTNet S04 for West - 1/2011 to 12/2011
2 o - ¦—• CASTNET
~ - - a 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
O
C/)
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
Figure 4. Boxplot comparisons of mode! predictions and CASTNet sulfate observations for each climate
region by month.
S04 NMB (%) for run 201 Iel_cb6r4_v6_l 1g_12US2 for December to February 2011
SO< NMB {%> tef run20H>l,Ctofc4.»« t1fl,12U9a Mtreh K> May 2011
coverage limit = 75%
V. 2 t
CIRCLE=IMPROvE: TRIANGLE=GSN; SQUARE=CASTNET;
SO* NMB (%.) for run 2011 «H cb
-------
CIRCLE-IMPflOVE; TR1AM3LE-CSN: SQUARE-CASTNET.
SO* WiME (%] for run 20nrt cb6r4 llg j2USa tar Seplwnbef lo Novwnbec?On
SO* NME C%) tot run ?Q11>Hct>6<4 v6 1 tfl_iiUS2 tor M»rch to Way ?0i 1
CIRCLE-5MPA0VE. TfBANGLE-CSN; SQUARE«CASTN€T:	CIRCLE-IMPROVE; TRIANGLE-CSN; SQUARE-CASTKET;
Figure 6. Spatial plots of sulfate NME by season and network.
3. PM2.s Nitrate
Table 3-1 summarizes model performance statistics for PM2.5 nitrate. Boxplot comparisons of model
predictions and observations (IMPROVE, CSN, and CASTNET) by month for each climate region are
shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9. Nationwide spatial plots of NMB and NME for each season are shown in
Figures 10 and 11.
Nitrate in general is significantly underpredicted at many Class I areas, especially in the western US
during the summer months. NMBs range from -95.6 to -78.1% in the western US during the summer and
-96.4 to -90.1% in the southwestern US. Underpredictions of nitrate persist across all seasons, though
the magnitude is less. Significant overpredictions of nitrate are observed in the northern rockies and
plains, northwest, northeast, and southeast, especially during Winter, Spring, and Fall months when
observed nitrate is highest.
Table 3-1. Model performance statistics for PM2.5 nitrate by region, network, and season.
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(^g
nr3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(ng
nr3)


Winter
368
0.56
0.88
0.74
57.5
79.9
0.32
0.45
Northeast
IMPROVE
Spring
412
0.27
0.45
0.51
65.4
109.0
0.18
0.30


Summer
373
0.16
0.13
0.57
-20.0
78.9
-0.03
0.13


Fall
371
0.26
0.41
0.66
55.8
101.0
0.15
0.27
A-19

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


All
1524
0.31
0.47
0.70
49.1
91.1
0.15
0.28


Winter
677
2.08
2.03
0.63
-2.6
41.9
-0.05
0.87


Spring
717
1.03
1.03
0.60
-0.2
55.6
0.00
0.57

CSN
Summer
720
0.50
0.32
0.52
-37.2
71.7
-0.19
0.36


Fall
685
0.83
0.98
0.69
19.0
63.1
0.16
0.52


All
2799
1.10
1.07
0.70
-2.1
52.6
-0.02
0.58


Winter
170
1.21
1.22
0.69
0.5
39.5
0.01
0.48


Spring
193
0.58
0.80
0.61
39.2
70.4
0.23
0.41

CASTNET
Summer
186
0.17
0.17
0.32
-2.8
83.0
0.00
0.14


Fall
197
0.52
0.66
0.63
25.9
62.3
0.14
0.33


All
746
0.61
0.70
0.71
15.6
55.4
0.09
0.34


Winter
263
0.58
0.66
0.29
12.8
82.0
0.07
0.48


Spring
266
0.38
0.40
0.25
4.6
89.9
0.02
0.34

IMPROVE
Summer
277
0.18
0.14
0.25
-21.9
88.0
-0.04
0.16


Fall
267
0.25
0.39
0.41
53.3
113.0
0.14
0.29


All
1073
0.35
0.39
0.36
13.3
90.5
0.05
0.31


Winter
435
0.90
1.10
0.41
22.0
78.1
0.20
0.70
Southeast

Spring
454
0.53
0.57
0.40
8.7
75.4
0.05
0.40

CSN
Summer
471
0.27
0.17
0.18
-36.0
71.4
-0.10
0.19


Fall
442
0.35
0.62
0.45
80.1
122.0
0.28
0.42


All
1802
0.51
0.61
0.49
20.2
83.8
0.10
0.42


Winter
138
1.00
0.77
0.52
-22.4
50.2
-0.22
0.50

CASTNET
Spring
146
0.74
0.46
0.31
-37.5
62.4
-0.28
0.46


Summer
147
0.36
0.20
0.62
-43.3
60.9
-0.15
0.22
A-20

-------
IE
Lg
3)
33~
,37
,97
^82~
16~
.49
,60
,19
~04~
35~
,56
,78
,00
78~
^23~
,35
,59
,95
^60~
19~
,51
,56
,29
^95~
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(Hg
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
NMB
NME
Fall
150
0.54
0.46
0.34
-15.7
60.0
All
581
0.65
0.47
0.52
-28.2
57.2
Winter
181
1.92
1.59
0.71
50.6
-17.2
Spring
205
0.82
1.33
0.74
100.0
62.5
IMPROVE
Summer
196
0.23
0.12
0.60
70.4
-45.7
Fall
196
0.50
0.76
0.71
97.9
53.6
All
778
0.85
0.94
0.68
71.5
11.7
Winter
588
2.91
2.41
0.75
41.1
-17.2
Spring
625
1.60
2.08
0.74
65.2
30.1
CSN
Summer
649
0.54
0.34
0.53
66.0
-37.2
Fall
611
0.92
1.05
0.65
61.2
14.7
All
2473
1.46
1.45
0.74
53.2
-1.1
Winter
201
2.55
1.79
0.81
39.1
-29.9
Spring
214
0.94
1.45
0.70
82.6
53.9
CASTNET
Summer
207
0.34
0.25
0.49
67.7
-27.0
Fall
214
0.75
0.92
0.78
47.3
23.0
All
836
1.13
1.10
0.72
51.9
-2.8
Winter
183
2.19
2.04
0.71
-6.7
43.5
Spring
174
1.35
1.61
0.89
19.2
44.5
IMPROVE
Summer
190
0.23
0.28
0.72
26.5
84.6
Fall
192
0.68
1.13
0.92
64.9
74.5
All
739
1.09
1.25
0.82
14.2
51.0
CSN
Winter
Spring
334
337
3.41
2.23
2.71
2.45
0.77
0.81
-20.7
10.0
37.9
42.8
A-21

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


Summer
335
0.59
0.41
0.45
-30.9
68.9
-0.18
0.41


Fall
340
1.29
1.67
0.82
29.5
56.7
0.38
0.73


All
1346
1.88
1.81
0.79
-3.7
45.0
-0.07
0.85


Winter
56
2.16
1.82
0.79
-15.7
29.1
-0.34
0.63


Spring
62
0.88
1.31
0.74
47.8
69.2
0.42
0.61

CASTNET
Summer
65
0.25
0.28
0.69
11.6
66.3
0.03
0.17


Fall
62
0.83
1.11
0.73
33.7
52.5
0.28
0.44


All
245
0.99
1.10
0.78
10.9
45.6
0.11
0.45


Winter
231
1.37
0.93
0.60
-32.5
58.0
-0.45
0.80


Spring
238
0.74
0.56
0.90
-24.4
54.6
-0.18
0.40

IMPROVE
Summer
258
0.26
0.05
0.22
-82.7
89.9
-0.22
0.24


Fall
250
0.35
0.30
0.59
-13.9
76.9
-0.05
0.27


All
977
0.66
0.44
0.74
-33.1
62.9
-0.22
0.42


Winter
222
1.88
1.58
0.51
-15.9
60.9
-0.30
1.15


Spring
248
0.92
0.75
0.80
-19.3
64.0
-0.18
0.59
South
CSN
Summer
253
0.34
0.09
0.30
-72.8
86.5
-0.25
0.29


Fall
238
0.56
0.58
0.64
2.3
73.6
0.01
0.42


All
961
0.90
0.72
0.69
-19.6
66.2
-0.18
0.60


Winter
70
1.72
1.19
0.83
-30.6
43.5
-0.53
0.75


Spring
85
1.10
0.63
0.67
-43.1
66.3
-0.47
0.73

CASTNET
Summer
87
0.61
0.04
0.27
-94.0
94.0
-0.57
0.57


Fall
77
0.59
0.32
0.61
-46.2
64.7
-0.27
0.38


All
319
0.98
0.51
0.78
-47.3
62.0
-0.46
0.61
Southwest
IMPROVE
Winter
845
0.34
0.09
0.60
-72.7
81.7
-0.25
0.28
A-22

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


Spring
871
0.20
0.02
0.24
-88.5
91.8
-0.18
0.19


Summer
865
0.17
0.01
0.27
-95.6
95.6
-0.16
0.16


Fall
856
0.14
0.03
0.45
-78.4
88.4
-0.11
0.12


All
3437
0.21
0.04
0.56
-82.0
88.0
-0.17
0.19


Winter
185
3.37
0.92
0.64
-72.6
73.4
-2.45
2.47


Spring
190
0.64
0.22
0.64
-65.2
68.2
-0.41
0.43

CSN
Summer
192
0.31
0.03
0.63
-90.1
90.2
-0.28
0.28


Fall
186
0.81
0.21
0.70
-74.6
74.7
-0.61
0.61


All
753
1.27
0.34
0.71
-73.1
74.0
-0.93
0.94


Winter
94
0.22
0.10
-0.14
-56.3
95.3
-0.13
0.21


Spring
102
0.30
0.04
0.06
-86.1
90.0
-0.26
0.27

CASTNET
Summer
102
0.23
0.01
0.09
-96.4
96.4
-0.22
0.22


Fall
101
0.17
0.04
-0.03
-77.6
93.5
-0.13
0.16


All
399
0.23
0.05
-0.05
-80.4
93.5
-0.19
0.22


Winter
469
0.35
0.55
0.49
56.8
112.0
0.20
0.39


Spring
524
0.37
0.55
0.74
48.8
92.0
0.18
0.34

IMPROVE
Summer
518
0.11
0.05
0.44
-56.4
84.1
-0.06
0.09


Fall
503
0.13
0.24
0.74
74.7
131.0
0.10
0.18
N. Rockies

All
2014
0.24
0.34
0.64
42.7
103.0
0.10
0.25
& Plains

Winter
66
2.45
1.84
0.68
-24.9
49.2
-0.61
1.21


Spring
70
1.74
1.63
0.90
-6.7
36.9
-0.12
0.64

CSN
Summer
72
0.32
0.18
0.76
-44.2
62.2
-0.14
0.20


Fall
69
0.76
1.04
0.78
37.1
77.3
0.28
0.59


All
277
1.30
1.15
0.82
-10.9
49.9
-0.14
0.65
A-23

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


Winter
77
0.50
0.56
0.85
13.0
52.1
0.06
0.26


Spring
76
0.59
0.68
0.91
14.2
45.4
0.08
0.27

CASTNET
Summer
88
0.24
0.07
0.73
-72.6
77.0
-0.18
0.19


Fall
89
0.27
0.25
0.82
-9.2
55.6
-0.02
0.15


All
330
0.39
0.37
0.88
-4.8
54.5
-0.02
0.21


Winter
392
0.36
0.34
0.36
-5.6
101.0
-0.02
0.36


Spring
467
0.14
0.19
0.65
37.4
95.4
0.05
0.13

IMPROVE
Summer
405
0.13
0.05
0.38
-62.4
83.1
-0.08
0.11


Fall
417
0.18
0.24
0.48
35.5
119.0
0.06
0.21


All
1681
0.20
0.20
0.41
2.7
101.0
0.01
0.20


Winter
166
1.73
1.70
0.32
-1.5
69.1
-0.03
1.19


Spring
167
0.42
0.44
0.47
5.8
58.8
0.02
0.25
Northwest
CSN
Summer
172
0.31
0.15
0.49
-50.7
61.8
-0.16
0.19


Fall
166
0.64
0.87
0.32
35.0
92.0
0.23
0.59


All
671
0.77
0.78
0.49
2.0
71.7
0.02
0.55


Winter
12
0.10
0.36
0.78
241.0
241.0
0.25
0.25


Spring
13
0.14
0.23
-0.07
65.0
80.4
0.09
0.11

CASTNET
Summer
13
0.12
0.07
0.23
-41.5
51.6
-0.05
0.06


Fall
13
0.11
0.26
0.03
134.0
157.0
0.15
0.17


All
51
0.12
0.23
0.03
89.0
123.0
0.11
0.15


Winter
401
0.90
0.35
0.71
-60.5
74.6
-0.54
0.67
West
IMPROVE
Spring
456
0.44
0.21
0.51
-53.5
76.3
-0.24
0.34


Summer
441
0.37
0.06
0.03
-84.0
98.7
-0.31
0.36


Fall
438
0.47
0.24
0.70
-47.7
79.3
-0.22
0.37
A-24

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


All
1736
0.53
0.21
0.65
-60.2
80.2
-0.32
0.43


Winter
225
4.85
1.91
0.54
-60.7
69.7
-2.94
3.38


Spring
242
1.74
0.99
0.66
-43.2
58.5
-0.75
1.02

CSN
Summer
247
2.06
0.45
0.77
-78.1
78.9
-1.61
1.62


Fall
228
3.50
1.31
0.81
-62.6
66.9
-2.19
2.34


All
942
2.99
1.14
0.67
-61.8
68.9
-1.85
2.06


Winter
69
0.73
0.22
0.36
-69.3
80.2
-0.50
0.58


Spring
73
0.56
0.14
0.15
-74.9
82.9
-0.42
0.47

CASTNET
Summer
77
0.49
0.02
0.26
-95.4
95.8
-0.47
0.47


Fall
77
0.52
0.13
0.53
-75.5
86.7
-0.39
0.45


All
296
0.57
0.13
0.38
-78.0
85.9
-0.45
0.49
A-25

-------
IMPROVE N03 for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE
¦ 2011eLcb6r4_ve_11g_42US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
IMPROVE N03 for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' IMPROVE:
> 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
Z 2 -
\
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011 01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
IMPROVE N03 for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
-1	1	1	1	1	1	r
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
IMPROVE N03 for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
0 - HB
n	1	1	1	r
2011 01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011 09 2011 11
A-26

-------
IMPROVE N03 for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE N03 for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
~ * 2011el_cb6r-1_v6_11g_12US2
"I	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	l~~
201101 201103 201105 201107 201109 2011_11
Months
2.o - ¦—• IMPROVE
_ --:a 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
E
O)
3, 1.0
co
O
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
IMPROVE N03 for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE N03 for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE
2011el_cb6r4_v6_11g_T2US2
CO
E
D>
3, 1.0
CO
O
•—• IMPROVE
0---* 2011el_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011	01 2011_03 2011.05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-27

-------
IMPROVE N03 for West - 1/2011 to 12/2011
2 0-] ¦—• IMPROVE;
--A 20t1el_cb6r4_v6 11g_12US2
t	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
Figure 7. Boxplot comparisons of model predictions and IMRPOVE nitrate observations for each climate
region by month.
A-28

-------
CSN N03 for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
5 - m—• CSN
D- - A 201:1 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
CSN N03 for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
5 - ¦—• CSN
m--'A 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	
2011_05 2011_07
2011_01
	1	1	1	
2011_05 2011_07

Months
Months
CSN N03 for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN N03 for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' CSN
• 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
m
—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CSN
201;1el_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2
n	1	1	r
2011 01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011 09 2011 11
A-29

-------
CSN N03 for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN N03 for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
>	CSN
>	2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
' CSN
¦ 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	I	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CSN NQ3 for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN N03 for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
2011 1
~1	1	I	1	T
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011J
Months
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
n	1	1	1	r~
~i	1	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-30

-------
CSN N03 for West - 1/2011 to 12/2011
¦—• CSN
Q * 2011e1_cb6r-1_v6_11g_12US2
2011_01 2011 03 2011_05 20I1_07 2011_09 2011_11
Mortlhs
Figure 8. Boxplot comparisons of model predictions and CSN nitrate observations for each climate
region by month.
A-31

-------
CASTNet N03 for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNet N03 for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
» CASTNET
> 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CASTNET
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CASTNet N03 for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNet N03 for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' CASTNET
' 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
O
Z 4 -
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011JJ5 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
CASTNET
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
i	1	1	r~
2011	01 2011_03 2011.05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-32

-------
CASTNet N03 for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNet N03 tor Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' CASTNEX-
> 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2

	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	T"
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
E
3, 1.0
CO
O
CASTNET
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CASTNet NQ3 for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNet N03 for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' CASTNET
' 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CO
E
O)
,= 1.0 -
CO
o
CASTNET
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011	01 2011_03 2011.05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-33

-------
CASTNet N03 for West - 1/2011 to 12/2011
2.0 H ¦—• CASTNET
201;1 el_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
Figure 9. Boxplot comparisons of mode! predictions and CASTNet nitrate observations for each climate
region by month.
N03NMB r%)	201»eJ eb6«4 V6JIQ12US2 l»r Ooc*n*tx>f to Fepfunry apn
N03 NMB (%) for run 2011el_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2 for March to May 2011

CIRCLE^MWtOVE: TRIANGLE-CSN:
N03 NMB (%) for run 2Cllel_cb6r4_v6_iig_i2US2 for June to August 2011
CIRCLE=IMPROVE; TRIANGLE=CSN;
WQ3 NMB	run iflH«6r4*<11flJ 2V9? iQf SjptnHM* to Howmftf 2011
units =%
coverage limit = 75%
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
CIRCLE=IMPROVE; TRIANGLE=CSN;
CIRCLE«JMPROV£: TRIANGLE-CSN.
Figure 10. Spatial plots of nitrate NMB by season and network.
A-34

-------
N03 NME (%) (or run 2011 el_cbSr4j/6_11 g_12US2 lor June to August 201 •
NQ3 NME (%) for run 201 iel_ob6r4j/6j lg_i2US2 for March to May 201 •
HQ3 NME <%> tor run g01l*_cb6M_v6_ng_i2U53 (or Qtytombm to Hwwmw 2011
NQ3 NME [%) la* run 201i*l_eb&4_*t_Ug 12USS tor Dwwntoer to February am
CIRCLE=IMPROVE: TRIANGLE=CSN:	CIRCLE-IMPROVE, TfUANGLE-CSN:
Figure 11. Spatial plots of nitrate NMB by season and network.
4. PM2.5 Ammonium
Table 4-1 summarizes model performance statistics for PM2.5 ammonium. Boxplot comparisons of model
predictions and observations (CSN and CASTNET) by month for each climate region are shown in Figures
12 and 13. Nationwide spatial plots of NMB and NME for each season are shown in Figures 14 and 15
(note that the IMPROVE network does not measure ammonium).
Ammonium is generally underpredicted across the western US in all seasons, with the exception of the
northwestern US where a moderate to significant overprediction persists across all seasons. In the
eastern US, ammonium is generally overpredicted during the spring and fall, with a slight overprediction
observed during the summer and winter months.
Table 4-1. Model performance statistics for PM2.5 ammonium by region, network, and season
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
nr3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nr3)
ME
(ng
nr3)


Winter
677
1.16
1.28
0.63
9.9
39.4
0.12
0.46


Spring
717
0.78
0.93
0.71
19.9
43.7
0.16
0.34
Northeast
CSN
Summer
720
0.92
0.89
0.78
-3.5
39.4
-0.03
0.36


Fall
685
0.56
0.86
0.77
52.8
66.1
0.30
0.37


All
2799
0.85
0.99
0.71
15.5
44.7
0.13
0.38
A-35

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)

CASTNET
Winter
170
0.86
0.86
0.81
0.5
23.6
0.00
0.20
Spring
193
0.66
0.78
0.81
17.4
28.4
0.12
0.19
Summer
186
0.97
0.71
0.87
-26.0
29.6
-0.25
0.29
Fall
197
0.62
0.68
0.67
9.2
28.0
0.06
0.18
All
746
0.77
0.76
0.75
-2.2
27.5
-0.02
0.21
Southeast
CSN
Winter
435
0.73
0.97
0.59
33.4
54.1
0.24
0.39
Spring
454
0.77
0.85
0.57
10.4
46.7
0.08
0.36
Summer
471
0.81
0.79
0.65
-3.0
36.4
-0.02
0.30
Fall
442
0.36
0.72
0.63
99.2
105.0
0.36
0.38
All
1802
0.67
0.83
0.58
24.0
53.1
0.16
0.36
CASTNET
Winter
138
0.71
0.71
0.83
-0.3
21.9
0.00
0.16
Spring
146
0.75
0.66
0.70
-12.8
27.9
-0.10
0.21
Summer
147
1.04
0.63
0.85
-39.4
40.2
-0.41
0.42
Fall
150
0.58
0.55
0.72
-5.9
30.6
-0.03
0.18
All
581
0.77
0.63
0.73
-17.8
31.3
-0.14
0.24
Ohio
Valley
CSN
Winter
588
1.51
1.38
0.73
-8.4
38.4
-0.13
0.58
Spring
625
1.23
1.56
0.70
26.4
47.5
0.33
0.59
Summer
649
1.13
1.12
0.78
-1.3
32.3
-0.02
0.37
Fall
611
0.68
0.93
0.76
37.1
54.5
0.25
0.37
All
2473
1.13
1.24
0.71
9.7
41.7
0.11
0.47
CASTNET
Winter
201
1.44
1.19
0.84
-17.6
26.7
-0.25
0.39
Spring
214
1.05
1.19
0.67
13.0
32.2
0.14
0.34
Summer
207
1.37
0.95
0.67
-31.2
33.8
-0.43
0.46
Fall
214
0.79
0.87
0.55
9.7
33.4
0.08
0.26
A-36

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


All
836
1.16
1.05
0.63
-9.7
31.2
-0.11
0.36


Winter
334
1.48
1.37
0.69
-7.7
43.7
-0.11
0.65


Spring
337
1.21
1.57
0.75
29.7
45.4
0.36
0.55

CSN
Summer
335
0.74
0.85
0.76
15.9
47.7
0.12
0.35


Fall
340
0.68
1.05
0.82
54.0
61.7
0.37
0.42
Upper

All
1346
1.03
1.21
0.74
17.9
47.9
0.18
0.49
Midwest

Winter
56
1.06
0.95
0.83
-10.1
22.2
-0.11
0.24


Spring
62
0.76
0.97
0.84
28.8
36.2
0.22
0.27

CASTNET
Summer
65
0.67
0.63
0.86
-5.5
19.3
-0.04
0.13


Fall
62
0.67
0.82
0.81
22.1
31.0
0.15
0.21


All
245
0.78
0.84
0.78
7.5
26.9
0.06
0.21


Winter
222
0.97
1.03
0.57
6.1
48.7
0.06
0.47


Spring
248
0.90
0.85
0.79
-5.6
37.2
-0.05
0.34

CSN
Summer
253
0.61
0.51
0.73
-16.3
40.9
-0.10
0.25


Fall
238
0.51
0.71
0.61
39.5
61.8
0.20
0.31
South

All
961
0.74
0.77
0.67
3.3
45.6
0.02
0.34


Winter
70
0.94
0.81
0.73
-13.7
32.5
-0.13
0.30


Spring
85
0.76
0.71
0.68
-7.4
37.0
-0.06
0.28

CASTNET
Summer
87
0.70
0.39
0.65
-44.6
47.6
-0.31
0.33


Fall
77
0.56
0.52
0.52
-8.4
32.4
-0.05
0.18


All
319
0.74
0.60
0.68
-19.0
37.6
-0.14
0.28


Winter
185
1.16
0.48
0.62
-58.3
67.1
-0.68
0.78
Southwest
CSN
Spring
190
0.33
0.24
0.55
-24.8
46.9
-0.08
0.15


Summer
192
0.31
0.17
0.37
-45.5
54.1
-0.14
0.17
A-37

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


Fall
186
0.36
0.24
0.59
-33.1
47.0
-0.12
0.17


All
753
0.53
0.28
0.63
-47.1
58.7
-0.25
0.31


Winter
94
0.15
0.17
0.25
9.8
44.8
0.01
0.07


Spring
102
0.21
0.15
0.30
-28.4
40.1
-0.06
0.08

CASTNET
Summer
102
0.30
0.12
0.60
-58.2
58.2
-0.17
0.17


Fall
101
0.24
0.15
0.60
-35.9
40.3
-0.09
0.10


All
399
0.23
0.15
0.22
-34.4
47.0
-0.08
0.11


Winter
66
0.91
0.89
0.61
-1.5
51.5
-0.01
0.47


Spring
70
0.93
0.99
0.88
6.4
33.1
0.06
0.31

CSN
Summer
72
0.34
0.47
0.82
40.2
57.8
0.14
0.20


Fall
69
0.35
0.63
0.71
82.5
102.0
0.29
0.35
N. Rockies

All
277
0.63
0.74
0.78
19.0
52.4
0.12
0.33
& Plains

Winter
77
0.29
0.33
0.89
13.6
35.3
0.04
0.10


Spring
76
0.41
0.47
0.93
15.6
27.0
0.06
0.11

CASTNET
Summer
88
0.29
0.19
0.77
-32.6
39.2
-0.09
0.11


Fall
89
0.24
0.26
0.74
8.9
35.1
0.02
0.08


All
330
0.30
0.31
0.87
1.5
33.7
0.00
0.10


Winter
166
0.56
0.83
0.38
48.8
99.3
0.27
0.55


Spring
167
0.15
0.32
0.59
110.0
124.0
0.17
0.19

CSN
Summer
172
0.21
0.31
0.61
53.5
69.1
0.11
0.14
Northwest

Fall
166
0.20
0.53
0.23
167.0
193.0
0.33
0.39


All
671
0.28
0.50
0.46
79.0
114.0
0.22
0.32

CASTNET
Winter
12
0.11
0.22
0.88
98.1
98.1
0.11
0.11


Spring
13
0.13
0.18
0.57
44.0
50.8
0.06
0.06
A-38

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
nv3)
ME
(Hg
nv3)


Summer
13
0.24
0.23
0.62
-4.2
20.7
-0.01
0.05


Fall
13
0.14
0.24
0.25
69.0
76.3
0.10
0.11


All
51
0.15
0.22
0.44
39.9
52.8
0.06
0.08


Winter
225
1.56
0.76
0.53
-51.1
67.1
-0.80
1.05


Spring
242
0.62
0.47
0.61
-25.1
56.4
-0.16
0.35

CSN
Summer
247
0.86
0.30
0.74
-64.8
68.9
-0.56
0.59


Fall
228
1.34
0.63
0.77
-53.0
63.6
-0.71
0.85
West

All
942
1.08
0.53
0.65
-50.7
64.9
-0.55
0.70


Winter
69
0.28
0.19
0.42
-31.4
62.5
-0.09
0.17


Spring
73
0.25
0.19
0.08
-24.0
53.3
-0.06
0.13

CASTNET
Summer
77
0.39
0.12
0.05
-69.8
70.6
-0.27
0.28


Fall
77
0.35
0.18
0.39
-48.9
58.2
-0.17
0.20


All
296
0.32
0.17
0.25
-47.3
62.1
-0.15
0.20
A-39

-------
CSN NH4 for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN NH4 tor Southeast - 1/2011 to 122011
CSN
Lv6_11g_12US2
CO 3"


E





3





X


z 2-

\


\
A


•-
1 -

¦¦
1	1	i	i	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 201t_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CSN NH4 for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' CSN
> 2011el_cb6r4_v6 11g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011 01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
5 -| ~	• CSN
- - * 2011 &l_cb6r'1_v6_11 a_12US2
X
Z 2 H
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 201103 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Monlhs
CSN NH4 for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
n	1	1	1	1	r
2011 01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011 09
A-40

-------
CSN NH4 for South - 1/2011 to 12'2011
CSN NH4 for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
5 -J ~—• CSN
2011 el c±6rl v6_11 g_12US2
-fc
	1	1	1	1	1	1	i	1	1	1	1	T~
201101 201103 201105 2011_07 2011_09 201111
Months
x
z
' CSN
> 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	i	1	1	1	1	i	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CSN NH4 tor WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 122011
CSN NH4 for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
X
Z
S—• CSN
E» - a 2011el_cb6f4_v6_11gLl2US2
T	1	1	1	1	1	1	T~
201101 201103 201105 2011_07 201109 2011_11
Months
• CSN
' 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
0 - -« -»
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
A-41

-------
CSN NH4 for Wesl -1/2011 to 12-2011
s
4
3
2
0
2011_01
2011_03
2011_05
2011_07
2011_09
2011	11
Monlhs
Figure 12. Boxplot comparisons of model predictions and CSN ammonium observations for each climate
region by month.
A-42

-------
CASTNet NH4 for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNet NH4 for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
> CASTNET
¦ 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
• CASTNET
¦ 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CASTNet NH4 for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNet NH4 for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' CASTNET
• 2011el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
CO 3 -
E
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
' CASTNET
¦ 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09
Months
A-43

-------
CASTNet NH4 for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNet NH4 for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
X
z 2 H
> CASTNET
¦ 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
o - s a s
—i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
' CASTNET
' 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CASTNet NH4 for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNet NH4 for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
E
3- i.o
¦—• CASTNET
D--A 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
' CASTNET
¦ 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-44

-------
X
z
CASTNet NH4 for West - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CASTNET
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_l 2US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
Figure 13. Boxplot comparisons of mode! predictions and CASTNet ammonium observations for each
climate region by month.
coverage limit = 75%
100
3
J
^70
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
<-100
Figure 14. Spatial plots of ammonium NMB by season and network.
2011el cb6r4 v6 11 g 12US2 for December
NH4 NMB (%) for run 201 Iel_eb6r4_v6_l 1 g_i 2US2 for March to May 2011
CIRCLE=CSN: TRIANGLE=CASTNET;
WH4 wwe 1%) tot mn »1t«i_ca6f4_vg 11a_iausa tor Juno lo Amym M11
CIRCLE=CSN; TRIANGLE=CASTNET;
»l m cMrt HB 12U82 tor Saptfntof to NownHnr 201 •
CIRCLE-CSN TRIANGLE-CASTNET.
A-45

-------
2011el cb6r4 v6 11g 12US2 tor Docamber Iq February 2011
coverage limit = 75%
> too

Figure 15. Spatial plots of ammonium NME by season and network.
5. PMzsOC
Table 5-1 summarizes model performance statistics for PM2.5 organic carbon (OC). Boxplot comparisons
of model predictions and observations (IMPROVE, CSN and CASTNET) by month for each climate region
are shown in Figures 16 and 17. Nationwide spatial plots of NMB and NME for each season are shown in
Figures 18 and 19.
OC is generally overpredicted across most regions and seasons. Some exceptions are noted in the
Northern Rockies and Plains during the winter and spring, and the Northeast and Upper Midwest in the
summer, where slight underpredictions are observed. Organic carbon is significantly overpredicted in
the Northwest, Upper Midwest, and the Northeast in the winter, where NMBs range at CSN sites range
from 85 to 165%.
Table 5-1. Model performance statistics for PM2.5OC by region, network, and season.
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(Hg
m3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(ng
nr3)
ME
(ng
nr3)


Winter
354
0.94
1.81
0.66
92.1
99.3
0.87
0.93
Northeast
IMPROVE
Spring
388
0.65
0.88
0.52
35.3
63.9
0.23
0.42


Summer
356
1.47
1.29
0.59
-12.5
36.3
-0.18
0.54


Fall
365
0.99
1.19
0.70
20.3
40.2
0.20
0.40
A-46

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


All
1463
1.01
1.28
0.55
27.5
56.2
0.28
0.57
CSN
Winter
637
1.61
4.26
0.63
165.0
167.0
2.65
2.69
Spring
681
1.09
1.94
0.47
78.1
93.1
0.85
1.01
Summer
696
2.07
2.10
0.61
1.5
31.1
0.03
0.64
Fall
622
1.42
2.29
0.74
61.5
69.5
0.87
0.99
All
2636
1.55
2.63
0.52
69.4
84.8
1.08
1.31
Southeast
IMPROVE
Winter
292
1.53
2.14
0.61
39.8
65.4
1.19
1.54
Spring
316
2.02
1.85
0.32
-8.6
53.1
-0.17
1.07
Summer
308
2.13
2.37
0.45
11.1
55.6
0.24
1.18
Fall
300
1.51
1.84
0.41
22.0
66.0
0.33
1.00
All
1216
1.80
2.05
0.39
13.4
59.0
0.24
1.06
CSN
Winter
415
2.11
3.30
0.61
56.7
73.3
1.19
1.54
Spring
429
1.93
2.59
0.63
34.3
52.8
0.66
1.02
Summer
458
2.67
4.06
0.35
51.8
73.0
1.38
1.95
Fall
421
1.72
2.81
0.65
63.5
74.3
1.09
1.28
All
1723
2.12
3.20
0.55
51.3
68.8
1.09
1.46
Ohio
Valley
IMPROVE
Winter
193
1.35
1.74
0.63
28.5
53.3
0.39
0.72
Spring
207
1.41
1.31
0.65
-6.8
41.2
-0.10
0.58
Summer
195
1.84
1.90
0.67
3.4
31.5
0.06
0.58
Fall
206
1.21
1.40
0.75
15.3
38.9
0.19
0.47
All
801
1.45
1.58
0.67
9.01
40.4
0.13
0.59
CSN
Winter
574
1.56
2.96
0.55
89.9
96.6
1.40
1.51
Spring
601
1.46
1.85
0.65
26.5
46.7
0.39
0.68
Summer
658
2.27
2.41
0.63
6.2
28.9
0.14
0.66
A-47

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


Fall
610
1.47
1.95
0.71
32.7
46.2
0.48
0.68


All
2443
1.70
2.28
0.58
34.1
50.9
0.58
0.87


Winter
199
0.66
1.15
0.60
74.9
83.9
0.49
0.55


Spring
211
0.78
0.92
0.63
19.5
54.3
0.15
0.42

IMPROVE
Summer
203
1.49
1.35
0.57
-9.5
34.7
-0.14
0.52


Fall
202
1.76
2.31
0.71
31.6
85.5
0.56
1.50
Upper

All
815
1.17
1.43
0.70
22.4
63.7
0.26
0.74
Midwest

Winter
324
1.27
3.11
0.55
146.0
149.0
1.85
1.89


Spring
330
1.09
1.99
0.52
81.5
90.5
0.89
0.99

CSN
Summer
332
1.91
1.97
0.59
3.2
31.7
0.06
0.60


Fall
333
1.37
2.13
0.57
55.4
64.8
0.76
0.89


All
1319
1.41
2.30
0.43
62.7
77.0
0.89
1.09


Winter
223
0.83
1.23
0.41
48.9
75.8
0.41
0.63


Spring
237
1.51
1.39
0.60
-7.7
54.3
-0.12
0.82

IMPROVE
Summer
241
1.56
2.16
0.61
38.4
55.5
0.60
0.87


Fall
222
1.00
1.27
0.69
26.3
53.4
0.26
0.54
South

All
923
1.24
1.53
0.58
23.3
58.0
0.29
0.72


Winter
219
1.89
2.96
0.43
56.8
79.7
1.07
1.51


Spring
250
2.08
1.97
0.25
-5.2
53.0
-0.11
1.10

CSN
Summer
257
1.81
3.07
0.54
70.1
84.7
1.27
1.53


Fall
239
1.67
2.72
0.63
62.7
75.8
1.05
1.27


All
965
1.86
2.68
0.29
43.6
72.4
0.81
1.35
Southwest
IMPROVE
Winter
894
0.53
0.60
0.40
13.5
70.6
0.07
0.37


Spring
930
0.43
0.47
0.35
7.7
59.9
0.03
0.26
A-48

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


Summer
955
1.02
1.20
0.41
16.7
68.5
0.17
0.70


Fall
918
0.63
0.89
0.45
41.2
79.9
0.26
0.50


All
3697
0.66
0.79
0.39
20.4
70.2
0.13
0.46


Winter
181
2.14
4.19
0.33
95.9
112.0
2.05
2.40


Spring
184
0.66
1.86
0.43
184.0
189.0
1.21
1.24

CSN
Summer
194
1.33
1.74
0.34
30.6
66.2
0.41
0.88


Fall
188
1.34
2.62
0.43
95.6
102.0
1.28
1.37


All
747
1.36
2.59
0.42
89.7
107.0
1.22
1.46


Winter
485
0.31
0.29
0.45
-7.3
54.2
-0.02
0.17


Spring
537
0.36
0.28
0.69
-24.3
51.0
-0.09
0.19

IMPROVE
Summer
526
1.03
1.09
0.41
5.2
55.2
0.05
0.57


Fall
520
1.05
1.19
0.67
13.7
59.7
0.14
0.63
N. Rockies

All
2068
0.69
0.71
0.60
3.1
56.2
0.02
0.39
& Plains

Winter
63
2.98
1.51
-0.15
-49.3
101.0
-1.47
3.01


Spring
58
1.00
0.99
0.58
-1.3
66.2
-0.01
0.66

CSN
Summer
70
1.44
1.29
0.57
-10.5
38.2
-0.15
0.55


Fall
68
1.74
1.64
0.56
-5.9
57.4
-0.10
1.00


All
259
1.80
1.37
0.17
-23.8
71.9
-0.43
1.29


Winter
393
0.66
0.98
0.34
48.1
108.0
0.32
0.72


Spring
457
0.34
0.69
0.65
103.0
150.0
0.35
0.51
Northwest
IMPROVE
Summer
425
0.77
0.99
0.42
28.5
77.4
0.22
0.60


Fall
430
1.47
2.34
0.52
59.2
104.0
0.87
1.52


All
1705
0.81
1.25
0.51
54.7
103.0
0.44
0.83

CSN
Winter
166
4.28
7.91
0.44
84.9
112.0
3.63
4.78
A-49

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


Spring
162
0.79
3.92
0.59
397.0
397.0
3.13
3.13


Summer
154
1.03
2.45
0.23
138.0
148.0
1.42
1.53


Fall
159
2.55
5.49
0.56
115.0
126.0
2.94
3.22


All
641
2.19
4.99
0.58
128.0
146.0
2.80
3.19


Winter
460
0.76
0.63
0.88
-18.0
47.2
-0.14
0.36


Spring
468
0.53
0.38
0.45
-28.3
58.3
-0.15
0.31

IMPROVE
Summer
469
1.15
1.15
0.64
0.1
58.0
0.00
0.67


Fall
500
1.05
1.20
0.57
14.9
59.0
0.16
0.62
West

All
1897
0.88
0.85
0.62
-3.3
56.1
-0.03
0.49


Winter
219
3.67
3.82
0.68
4.1
44.0
0.15
1.61


Spring
235
1.31
2.00
0.47
53.4
69.5
0.70
0.91

CSN
Summer
242
1.65
1.67
0.56
1.4
31.2
0.02
0.52


Fall
225
2.74
3.04
0.58
11.1
37.0
0.30
1.01


All
921
2.31
2.60
0.70
12.8
43.2
0.29
1.00
A-50

-------
IMPROVE OC for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' IMPROVE
> 201Tel_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2
IMPROVE OC for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
O
o
¦
	1	1	1	i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
o
o
¦—• IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
JL
¦
8
i	1	1	1	1	r
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
IMPROVE OC for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE OC for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
O
o
IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
O
O
~i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r
2011 01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2J-
n	1	1	1	1	r
2011 01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011 09 2011 11
A-51

-------
IMPROVE OC for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE OC tor Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
O
o
IMPROVE
2011el_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2
~l	1	i	i	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
5 ~	• IMPROVE
- - 2011 el_cb6M_vS_11 g_12US2
O
O

£ f	£ 5	1 I
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 201103 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Monlhs
IMPROVE OC for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE OC for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
O
o
IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
T	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1-
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
o
o
s ^ B	* IMPROVE
~ - - ± 2011 el_cb6M_v6_11 g_l 2U32
2011_01 201103 201105 2011_07 2011_Q9 2011_11
Months
A-52

-------
IMPROVE OC for West - 1/2011 to 12/2011
s
4
3
2
0
2011_01
2011_03
2011_05
2011_07
2011_09
2011	11
Monlhs
Figure 16. Boxplot comparisons of model predictions and IMPROVE organic carbon observations for
each climate region by month.
A-53

-------
CSN OC tor Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN OC for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
10 - O— CSN
~ a 2011el_cb6M_v6_11g_12US2

i i i i i i i i i i i r~
201101 201103 201105 2011_07 2011_09 201111
Months
O
O
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
n	i	1	1	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CSN OC for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN OC for EastNorlhCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
O
o
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
10 - ~—• CSN
~ - * 201 lBl_cb6f1_v6_11g_12US2

« S
8 -6 & & R -fe
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011_01 201103 2011_&5 2OI1_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-54

-------
CSN OC for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
O
o
¦—• CSN
D--a 2011el_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2
1	1	1	1	r
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
o
o
CSN OC for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' CSN
> 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CSN OC for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN OC for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
-|	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
O
O
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
8 B 8 S -8
n	1	1	1	1	r
2011 01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011 09 2011 11
A-55

-------
CSN OC for West - 1/2011 to 12/2011
10
8
6
4
2
0
2011_01
2011_03
2011_05
2011_07
2011_11
2011_09
Months
Figure 17. Boxplot comparisons of mode! predictions and CSN organic carbon observations for each
climate region by month.
OC NMB (%) for run 2011el cb6r4 v6 11q 12US2 for December lo February 2011	OC NMB for run 2011o< cb6r4 v6_11g 12US2 lor March lo M»y 2011
CIRCLE=IMPROVE; TRIANGLE=CSN;
OC NMB <%¦> lor mn 2011a! cO«r4 it 11q 12U82 hx Jun« lo August 2011
CfRCLE-IMPROVE. TWANGLE-CSN
OC NMB (%) lot run 2011«l_c*>»4 »«11q12US2 tor 3*p<«wto
-------
CIRCLE-tMPBOVE; TflJANCLE-CSN
CIRCLE-IMPROVE: TR1ANGLE-CSN:
Figure 19. Spatial plot of organic carbon NME by season and network.
6. PM2,5 EC
Table 6-1 summarizes model performance statistics for PM2.5 elemental carbon (EC). Boxplot
comparisons of model predictions and observations (IMPROVE, CSN and CASTNET) by month for each
climate region are shown in Figures 20 and 21. Nationwide spatial plots of NMB and NME for each
season are shown in Figures 22 and 23.
EC is generally overpredicted across most seasons and all regions. Significant overpredictions are
observed across the northwest where NMBs range from 32.7% to 247%. The most significant
overprediction occurs during the winter and spring in the central and eastern US. The period of least
overprediction is observed during the summer across the country.
Table 6-1. Model performance statistics for PM2.5 EC by region, network, and season.
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
nv3)
Avg,
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(ng
m"3)
ME
(ng
m3)


Winter
355
0.22
0.36
0.62
62.3
83.5
0.14
0.19


Spring
390
0.13
0.20
0.53
55.6
76.7
0.07
0.10
Northeast
IMPROVE
Summer
357
0.21
0.21
0.71
0.23
36.6
0.00
0.08


Fall
366
0.22
0.26
0.66
21.9
46.1
0.05
0.10


All
1468
0.19
0.26
0.64
32.8
59.4
0.06
0.12
PC NME  for ran S0lH»l ct3^r4 v€H9 12US2 tor CWoiibw to fgfeniary £011
OCNMe<%)lor rmiaoni c*>6«.v6 11g i?U9? tor Sopmntx* to Nowntoor ?QH
A-57

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


Winter
643
0.70
1.21
0.36
72.8
89.9
0.52
0.63


Spring
686
0.48
0.73
0.49
44.4
74.2
0.25
0.35

CSN
Summer
697
0.76
0.79
0.58
3.4
43.0
0.03
0.33


Fall
625
0.72
0.96
0.66
33.4
58.5
0.24
0.42


All
2651
0.66
0.92
0.58
38.0
64.8
0.25
0.43


Winter
292
0.40
0.53
0.810
35.2
56.9
0.14
0.23


Spring
316
0.40
0.39
0.51
-1.45
49.2
-0.01
0.20

IMPROVE
Summer
305
0.35
0.33
0.77
-5.74
42.5
-0.02
0.15


Fall
301
0.34
0.38
0.82
12.3
44.5
0.04
0.15
Southeast

All
1214
0.37
0.41
0.69
10.0
48.5
0.04
0.18


Winter
417
0.72
0.93
0.55
30.7
60.2
0.22
0.43


Spring
430
0.57
0.69
0.43
21.1
56.1
0.12
0.32

CSN
Summer
460
0.62
0.71
0.18
13.2
56.3
0.08
0.35


Fall
423
0.59
0.77
0.49
29.0
59.2
0.17
0.35


All
1730
0.62
0.77
0.45
23.5
58.0
0.15
0.36


Winter
193
0.31
0.44
0.65
40.1
53.7
0.13
0.17


Spring
207
0.28
0.31
0.57
13.4
44.3
0.04
0.12

IMPROVE
Summer
195
0.32
0.27
0.69
-16.0
28.9
-0.05
0.09
Ohio
Valley

Fall
206
0.29
0.35
0.69
19.6
38.8
0.06
0.11

All
801
0.30
0.34
0.60
14.0
41.3
0.04
0.12


Winter
579
0.56
1.00
0.44
79.9
93.0
0.45
0.52

CSN
Spring
605
0.57
0.79
0.55
37.5
58.0
0.22
0.33


Summer
658
0.84
0.88
0.53
4.4
36.6
0.04
0.31


Fall
611
0.68
0.91
0.62
33.2
53.8
0.26
0.37
A-58

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


All
2453
0.67
0.89
0.51
33.6
56.6
0.22
0.38


Winter
200
0.15
0.26
0.67
71.7
79.3
0.11
0.12


Spring
211
0.16
0.21
0.73
34.7
56.2
0.05
0.09

IMPROVE
Summer
203
0.21
0.18
0.72
-13.6
35.1
-0.03
0.07


Fall
202
0.25
0.48
0.71
94.2
116.0
0.24
0.29
Upper

All
816
0.19
0.28
0.65
48.0
74.2
0.09
0.14
Midwest

Winter
326
0.40
0.90
0.54
125.0
127.0
0.50
0.51


Spring
330
0.41
0.74
0.60
80.0
86.7
0.33
0.36

CSN
Summer
333
0.61
0.67
0.61
10.6
38.2
0.06
0.23


Fall
340
0.52
0.82
0.73
57.0
63.5
0.30
0.33


All
1329
0.49
0.78
0.54
61.0
73.4
0.30
0.36


Winter
224
0.21
0.32
0.40
55.6
76.1
0.12
0.16


Spring
237
0.26
0.31
0.66
16.2
55.3
0.04
0.15

IMPROVE
Summer
239
0.21
0.22
0.48
3.0
47.7
0.01
0.10


Fall
222
0.21
0.27
0.55
24.4
49.6
0.05
0.11
South

All
922
0.22
0.28
0.53
23.8
56.9
0.05
0.13


Winter
221
0.66
1.02
0.43
54.7
80.8
0.36
0.53


Spring
250
0.52
0.74
0.30
41.0
68.4
0.21
0.36

CSN
Summer
257
0.47
0.72
0.43
55.2
77.7
0.26
0.36


Fall
240
0.61
0.92
0.59
51.7
70.8
0.32
0.43


All
968
0.56
0.84
0.43
50.7
74.4
0.28
0.42


Winter
910
0.17
0.21
0.70
19.8
63.1
0.03
0.11
Southwest
IMPROVE
Spring
933
0.09
0.14
0.63
54.9
92.2
0.05
0.08


Summer
952
0.15
0.20
0.42
28.5
89.7
0.04
0.14
A-59

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


Fall
918
0.17
0.21
0.72
21.8
68.1
0.04
0.12


All
3713
0.15
0.19
0.63
28.0
76.1
0.04
0.11


Winter
181
1.05
1.31
0.52
25.1
54.3
0.26
0.57


Spring
187
0.35
0.75
0.72
115.0
118.0
0.40
0.41

CSN
Summer
195
0.46
0.72
0.41
56.7
74.9
0.26
0.34


Fall
189
0.72
1.03
0.65
41.8
58.4
0.30
0.43


All
752
0.64
0.95
0.63
48.0
67.9
0.31
0.43


Winter
497
0.07
0.08
0.45
13.4
62.4
0.01
0.04


Spring
545
0.07
0.08
0.66
13.1
56.5
0.01
0.04

IMPROVE
Summer
526
0.13
0.16
0.34
29.7
75.9
0.04
0.10


Fall
522
0.16
0.23
0.53
45.3
80.6
0.07
0.13
N. Rockies

All
2090
0.11
0.14
0.47
30.1
72.2
0.03
0.08
& Plains

Winter
63
0.76
0.57
-0.22
-25.6
110.0
-0.20
0.84


Spring
60
0.33
0.42
0.41
26.4
84.1
0.09
0.28

CSN
Summer
70
0.41
0.46
0.53
12.0
57.4
0.05
0.24


Fall
69
0.50
0.62
0.04
24.8
83.8
0.12
0.42


All
262
0.50
0.52
0.00
3.74
87.5
0.02
0.44


Winter
427
0.14
0.27
0.85
91.7
122.0
0.13
0.17


Spring
480
0.07
0.23
0.77
211.0
241.0
0.16
0.18

IMPROVE
Summer
432
0.13
0.34
0.75
160.0
189.0
0.21
0.25
Northwest

Fall
437
0.21
0.55
0.58
162.0
185.0
0.34
0.39


All
1776
0.14
0.34
0.63
151.0
179.0
0.21
0.24

CSN
Winter
167
1.49
1.98
0.47
32.7
71.3
0.49
1.07


Spring
162
0.35
1.23
0.49
247.0
251.0
0.88
0.89
A-60

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


Summer
156
0.39
1.13
0.38
193.0
198.0
0.74
0.77


Fall
160
0.92
1.72
0.43
87.1
101.0
0.80
0.93


All
645
0.80
1.52
0.49
90.9
115.0
0.72
0.92


Winter
467
0.18
0.16
0.91
-7.1
46.2
-0.01
0.08


Spring
469
0.09
0.11
0.68
17.3
64.6
0.02
0.06

IMPROVE
Summer
471
0.16
0.21
0.57
35.7
76.3
0.06
0.12


Fall
502
0.20
0.25
0.72
25.6
60.9
0.05
0.12
West

All
1909
0.16
0.18
0.68
17.9
61.2
0.03
0.10


Winter
221
1.37
1.10
0.69
-19.7
39.2
-0.27
0.54


Spring
235
0.47
0.73
0.69
54.8
70.4
0.26
0.33

CSN
Summer
244
0.50
0.71
0.79
42.0
49.4
0.21
0.25


Fall
226
0.99
1.06
0.62
7.4
35.2
0.07
0.35


All
926
0.82
0.89
0.70
9.1
44.2
0.07
0.36
A-61

-------
IMPROVE EC for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE EC for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE
> 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2

	1	1	1	1	1	i	i	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
3,0 -J 13	• IMPROVE
- - * 2011 el_cb6M_v6J 1 g_12US2
& -f -4	^ -t i?
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 201103 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Monlhs
IMPROVE EC for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE EC for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
> IMPROVE
• 2011el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011 01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
' IMPROVE
¦ 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011 01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011 09 2011 11
A-62

-------
IMPROVE EC for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE EC for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
3.0 ~	• IMPROVE
B * 2011el cb6r-1v6_11g_12US2
0.0 -	Sttl
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	(—
201101 201103 201105 201107 201109 2011_11
Months
IMPROVE EC for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
' IMPROVE
> 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	i	1	1	1	1	i	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
IMPROVE EC for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
3.0 - Q—• IMPROVE
D - - * 2011 eJ_cb6r.1_v6_11 g_12US2

	1	i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 201103 201105 20I1_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-63

-------
IMPROVE EC for West - 1/2011 to 12'2011
¦—• IMPROVE
O - * 2011 Bl_cb6r-1_vS_11 g_t 2US2
Monlhs
Figure 20. Boxplot comparisons of model predictions and IMPROVE elemental carbon observations for
each climate region by month.
A-64

-------
CSN EC for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN EC for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
¦—• CSN
D - - a 2011 ei_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
e—• CSN
Q--A 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
2011_01
2011_03 2011_05 2011_07
2011_11
Months
Months
CSN EC for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
' CSN
• 2011el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
CSN EC for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
• CSN
¦ 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	
2011_05 2011_07
Months
—I	1	1—
2011_05 2011_07
Months
A-65

-------
CSN EC for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN EC for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
5 - ~—• CSN
~ a 2011 el_cb6M_v6_11 g_12US2
IS * 8 8
~8 ft 8	* R £
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
201101 201103 201105 2011_07 201109 201111
Months
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CSN EC for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN EC for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN
¦ 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011 07 2011 09 2011_11
5 _| Q—* CSN
~ - a 2011 e3_cb6r'1_v6_11 g_12US2
	1	i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 201103 201105 20I1_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-66

-------
CSN EC for West - 1/2011 to 12/2011
a—• csn
S - - * 2011 Bl_cb&r-1_v6_11 g_12US2
2011_05 20I1_07 2011_09
Mortlhs
Figure 21. Boxplot comparisons of model predictions and CSN elemental carbon observations for each
climate region by month.
coverage limit = 75°,
EC NMB |%) for run 2011el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2 for December to February 2011
EC NMB (%) lor tun 2011el_cbSr4_v6_11g_12US2 tor March to May 2011
EC NMB tor run 20H«l_
-------
2011el cb6r4 v6 11 g 12US2 for December to February 201'
coverage limit = 75%
> 100
CIHCLE=IMPROVE; TRI ANGLE=CSN;
Figure 23. Spatial plot of elemental carbon NME by season and network,
7. Total PM2.5
Table 7-1 summarizes model performance statistics for total PM2.s. Boxplot comparisons of model
predictions and observations (IMPROVE and CSN) by month for each climate region are shown in Figures
24 and 25. Nationwide spatial plots of NMB and NME for each season are shown in Figures 26 and 27.
PM2.5 is generally overpredicted across most regions during the winter season and underpredicted
across most regions during the summer season. Model performance varies across regions during the
spring and fall seasons, though a moderate overprediction is observed most often.
Table 7-1. Model performance statistics for PM2.5 by region, network, and season.
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(ng
rrr3)
ME
(ng
nrr3)


Winter
380
4.50
7.23
0.78
60.7
67.1
2.73
3.02


Spring
412
3.90
5.23
0.62
34.2
49.3
1.33
1.92
Northeast
IMPROVE
Summer
394
6.71
5.40
0.72
-19.5
34.4
-1.31
2.31


Fall
391
4.63
5.41
0.67
16.7
35.4
0.78
1.64


All
1577
4.93
5.80
0.61
17.7
44.9
0.87
2.21

CSN
Winter
674
10.90
15.20
0.63
39.8
53.4
4.34
5.81
A-68

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


Spring
712
7.93
9.33
0.59
17.7
38.4
1.40
3.05
Summer
719
12.70
9.69
0.72
-23.8
32.4
-3.02
4.12
Fall
683
8.46
9.88
0.57
16.7
38.5
1.42
3.25
All
2788
10.00
11.00
0.58
9.7
40.4
0.97
4.04
Southeast
IMPROVE
Winter
287
6.53
9.48
0.73
45.3
58.1
2.96
3.79
Spring
295
8.39
8.56
0.53
2.0
39.4
0.17
3.30
Summer
300
11.40
8.99
0.57
-20.8
37.3
-2.36
4.23
Fall
290
6.36
7.80
0.70
22.7
44.3
1.44
2.81
All
1172
8.19
8.71
0.57
6.3
43.2
0.52
3.54
CSN
Winter
437
9.93
12.6
0.67
26.6
40.6
2.65
4.03
Spring
458
11.2
10.8
0.31
-3.4
30.9
-0.38
3.46
Summer
473
15.6
12.7
0.52
-18.4
32.1
-2.87
5.02
Fall
445
8.74
10.40
0.67
18.4
35.6
1.61
3.11
All
1813
11.40
11.60
0.57
1.7
34.2
0.19
3.92
Ohio
Valley
IMPROVE
Winter
161
7.83
9.32
0.71
19.0
35.7
1.49
2.79
Spring
176
7.80
8.42
0.56
8.0
41.2
0.62
3.21
Summer
167
11.40
8.51
0.73
-25.4
30.3
-2.90
3.46
Fall
176
6.50
7.64
0.72
17.5
36.9
1.14
2.40
All
680
8.35
8.45
0.62
1.2
35.5
0.10
2.96
CSN
Winter
586
11.80
13.40
0.64
13.7
33.4
1.62
3.94
Spring
626
10.70
12.20
0.62
14.2
36.6
1.51
3.91
Summer
651
15.3
11.9
0.69
-22.2
28.8
-3.40
4.42
Fall
612
8.98
10.00
0.66
11.7
34.7
1.05
3.11
All
2475
11.70
11.90
0.61
1.1
32.8
0.13
3.85
A-69

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


Winter
171
6.15
7.32
0.69
19.0
42.6
1.17
2.62


Spring
183
5.49
6.55
0.82
19.4
37.3
1.06
2.05

IMPROVE
Summer
173
6.59
5.75
0.81
-12.8
27.4
-0.85
1.80


Fall
173
5.28
7.22
0.66
36.7
57.6
1.94
3.04
Upper

All
700
5.87
6.71
0.66
14.2
40.4
0.83
2.37
Midwest

Winter
333
11.10
13.30
0.68
20.4
37.1
2.26
4.10


Spring
337
9.30
12.30
0.78
32.0
39.2
2.98
3.65

CSN
Summer
333
11.70
9.43
0.66
-19.4
31.0
-2.27
3.63


Fall
340
8.27
10.70
0.78
29.9
39.4
2.47
3.26


All
1343
10.10
11.40
0.67
13.6
36.3
1.37
3.66


Winter
219
5.83
6.91
0.56
18.5
41.4
1.08
2.41


Spring
243
8.40
7.52
0.62
-10.5
40.2
-0.88
3.38

IMPROVE
Summer
249
8.99
6.75
0.65
-25.0
33.6
-2.25
3.03


Fall
222
5.20
5.67
0.58
9.0
35.5
0.47
1.85
South

All
933
7.19
6.73
0.59
-6.5
37.4
-0.47
2.69


Winter
223
10.90
13.20
0.40
20.3
47.5
2.22
5.20


Spring
248
12.60
10.10
0.26
-19.5
41.0
-2.46
5.15

CSN
Summer
253
12.40
10.60
0.68
-14.5
29.2
-1.80
3.61


Fall
238
9.30
11.40
0.53
22.0
43.3
2.05
4.03


All
962
11.30
11.20
0.36
-0.75
39.5
-0.08
4.48


Winter
901
2.51
2.50
0.50
-0.4
49.5
-0.01
1.24
Southwest
IMPROVE
Spring
936
4.27
2.52
0.46
-41.1
51.2
-1.75
2.19


Summer
953
5.61
3.49
0.50
-37.9
45.6
-2.13
2.56


Fall
905
3.56
3.04
0.62
-14.6
38.9
-0.52
1.38
A-70

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


All
3695
4.01
2.89
0.51
-28.0
46.3
-1.12
1.86


Winter
183
11.90
11.90
0.32
-0.3
54.8
-0.03
6.53


Spring
189
6.09
6.76
0.32
11.0
46.5
0.67
2.83

CSN
Summer
188
7.96
6.13
0.29
-23.0
37.9
-1.84
3.02


Fall
186
7.50
8.37
0.33
11.5
45.3
0.87
3.40


All
746
8.34
8.26
0.40
-1.0
47.1
-0.08
3.93


Winter
469
1.86
2.24
0.67
20.4
49.7
0.38
0.93


Spring
497
2.73
2.83
0.67
3.8
44.0
0.10
1.20

IMPROVE
Summer
491
4.09
3.53
0.42
-13.6
43.1
-0.56
1.76


Fall
495
3.65
4.04
0.64
10.5
45.4
0.38
1.66
N. Rockies

All
1952
3.10
3.17
0.59
2.4
44.9
0.07
1.39
& Plains

Winter
67
11.20
8.04
0.02
-28.2
55.3
-3.15
6.19


Spring
68
8.60
7.62
0.73
-11.4
35.7
-0.98
3.07

CSN
Summer
72
9.26
6.21
0.69
-32.9
38.1
-3.05
3.53


Fall
68
9.02
7.97
0.45
-11.7
44.1
-1.05
3.98


All
275
9.51
7.44
0.40
-21.8
43.9
-2.07
4.18


Winter
457
2.05
3.47
0.54
69.1
104.0
1.42
2.14


Spring
511
1.86
2.93
0.59
57.9
84.0
1.08
1.56

IMPROVE
Summer
463
3.27
3.33
0.46
1.9
56.9
0.06
1.86
Northwest

Fall
470
3.89
6.08
0.53
56.5
92.9
2.20
3.61


All
1901
2.75
3.94
0.51
43.2
82.9
1.19
2.28


Winter
164
14.00
21.10
0.52
50.7
72.1
7.11
10.10

CSN
Spring
168
4.75
10.90
0.56
129.0
134.0
6.12
6.37


Summer
171
6.00
8.61
0.20
43.5
70.4
2.61
4.22
A-71

-------
Region
Network
Season
N
Avg.
Obs.
(ng
m"3)
Avg.
Mod.
(Hgm
3)
R
NMB
(%)
NME
(%)
MB
(Hg
m"3)
ME
(Hg
m"3)


Fall
165
8.43
15.80
0.48
87.3
100.0
7.36
8.44


All
668
8.25
14.00
0.59
69.9
87.9
5.77
7.25


Winter
432
3.48
2.62
0.83
-24.6
49.0
-0.86
1.71


Spring
439
3.63
2.53
0.43
-30.3
47.5
-1.10
1.73

IMPROVE
Summer
449
5.47
3.65
0.39
-33.2
53.4
-1.82
2.92


Fall
462
4.52
3.95
0.64
-12.6
43.3
-0.57
1.95
West

All
1782
4.29
3.20
0.59
-25.3
48.5
-1.08
2.08


Winter
221
18.20
12.70
0.47
-30.0
44.8
-5.44
8.14


Spring
242
8.25
8.14
0.55
-1.4
37.2
-0.11
3.01

CSN
Summer
246
10.60
7.06
0.52
-33.4
40.1
-3.54
4.25


Fall
227
14.00
11.30
0.59
-19.7
36.8
-2.77
5.16


All
936
12.60
9.69
0.55
-23.1
40.3
-2.92
5.08
A-72

-------
IMPROVE PM2.5 for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE PM2.5 for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_l 2US2
I	1	1	1	1	1-
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
20 -J ¦—* IMPROVE
- - * 2011 el_cb6r4_w6_11 g_12US2
0-
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 201103 2011_Q5 2011J37 2011_09 2011_11
Monlhs
IMPROVE PM2.5 for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
-
IMPROVE PM2.5 for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 122011
20 - a—* IMPROVE
O - - * 2011 BLcb6r.1_v6_119_12USZ
2
Cl
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months

	1	i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 201103 2011&5 20I1_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-73

-------
IMPROVE PM2.5 for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
20 - EI—• IMPROVE
* 201 tel_cb&r-1_v6_11g_12l)S2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011 03 2011JDS 2O11_07 2011_09 2011_11
Monlhs
IMPROVE PM2.5 lor Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
IMPROVE
2011e1_cb6M_v6_11g_12US2
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011	01 2011 03 2011JDS 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Monlhs
IMPROVE PM2.5 for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
¦ IMPROVE
> 2011 el_cb6r-i_v6 11 g_12US2
IMPROVE PM2.5 for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
Months	Monlhs
A-74

-------
IMPROVE PM2.5 for West - 1/2011 lo 12/2011
20
15
10
S
¦
0
2011_01
2011_03
2011_05
2011_07
2011_09
2011	11
Months
Figure 24. Boxplot comparisons of model predictions and IMPROVE PM2.5 observations for each climate
region by month.
A-75

-------
CSN PM2.5 for Northeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
25 H ¦—• CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
E 15 "
^ 10
Q_
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
E 15-
^ 10
Q_
CSN PM2.5 for Southeast - 1/2011 to 12/2011
>	CSN
>	2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_|2US2

	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
CSN PM2.5 for Central - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN PM2.5 for EastNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
E 15
P
:> 10
¦—• CSN
0---* 2011el_cb6r4_v6^11g_T2US2
-8
E 15
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
~i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-76

-------
CSN PM2.5 for South - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN PM2.5 for Southwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_l 2US2
n	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011	01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
_E 15 -
S to
CSN
2011 el_cb6r4_w6_11 gl2US2
~i	1	1	1	1	r
2011_01 201103 2011_05 2011_07 201109 2011_11
Months
CSN PM2.5 for WestNorthCentral - 1/2011 to 12/2011
CSN PM2.5 for Northwest - 1/2011 to 12/2011
E 15
¦—• CSN
O -A 201;1el_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2
"1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r~
2011_01 2011_03 2011_05 2011_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
E 15
2
CL
CSN
2011 e3_cb6f'1_v6_11 g_12US2
t	1	1	1	1	r~
2011_01 201103 201105 20I1_07 2011_09 2011_11
Months
A-77

-------
CSN PM2.5 for West - 1/2011 to 12/2011
a—• csn
Q A 2011el_cb6r'1_vG_11g_12US2
25
20
15
10
¦
5
0
2011	01
201103
2011_05
20I1_07
2011_09
2011_11
Mortlhs
Figure 25. Boxplot comparisons of modeled predictions and CSN PM2.5 observations by region by month.
coverage limit = 75%
100
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
I <-100
ClftO-E-IMPftOVE; TRIANGLE-CSN;	CIRCLE=IMPROVE; TRIANGLE=CSN;
Figure 26. Spatial plot of PM2.5 NMB by season and network.
PM_TOT NMB (%) tor run 20nel_cb6r4_v6_11g_12US2 for September to November 2011
PM_TOT NMB 1%) tor run 2011 el_cb6r4_v6_n g_12US2 for December to February 2311
PM_T0T NMB (%) tor run 201 Iel_cb6r4_v6_11 g_12US2 for Marcti
CIRCLE=IMPROVE; TRIANQLE=CSN;	CIRGLE=IM PROVE; TRIANGLE=CSN;
A-78

-------
rage limit - 75%
> 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 27. Spatial plot of PM2.s NME by season and network.
8. Performance on 20% Most-Impaired Days
Spatial plots summarizing IMPROVE observations and model NMB on the 20% most-impaired days are
shown in Figures 28 through 34.
For ammonium sulfate, predictions are biased low across all regions, with the most significant
percentage underpredictions occurring in the southwest and western US regions. Some isolated
overpredictions are observed in a few Class I areas near the outer domain boundaries.
Predictions of ammonium nitrate are significantly underpredicted across most of the western US,
especially in the Southwest. However, the model significantly overpredicts ammonium nitrate across an
isolated area of the Northern Plains and Northwest, primarily in WA, OR, MT, and the Dakotas. In the
eastern US, performance is mixed with a high positive bias in the northeast and a negative bias in the
southeast.
A moderate to high positive bias of OC is observed across most regions, with the exception of the west
and Northern Plains, where moderate underpredictions are shown. The model performs similarly for EC,
though the model shows a slight underprediction in the southwestern US.
On the 20% most-impaired days, model performance for total PM2.5 is overall biased low across most
regions (corresponding closely to the sulfate performance). A slight overprediction of PM2 s on those
days is observed in the Northern Plains and Upper Midwest, primarily along the Canadian border
(corresponding closely to the nitrate performance).
Crustal PM2.5 is generally overpredicted in the east and underpredicted in the western US. Coarse PM is
generally underpredicted across much of the country. However, some overpredictions are observed in
portions of the desert southwest (NM) and northwest (OR and WA).
CIRCLE=IMPROVE; TRIANGLE=CSN;
CIRCLE=IMPROVE; TRIANGLE=CSN;
•#
ClfiCtE-IMPROVE; TRIANGLE»CSN,
Cl RCL E= IM P ROVE; TRIANGLE=CSN:
A-79

-------
IMPAIRED AMM S04 OBS
0.59 0.77 1 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.8 6.3 8.2
micrograms/m**3 (0.79, 8.16)
IMPAIRED AMM S04 NMB
-100 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 100
NMB% (-76.2, 32.2)
Figure 28. Observed ammonium sulfate (top) and modeled NMB (bottom) for ammonium sulfate on the
20% most-impaired days at IMPROVE monitor locations.
A-80

-------
IMPAIRED AMM N03 OBS
••
• «
• •
0.0059 0.44 0.86 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.6 3 3.4 3.9 4.3
micrograrns/m**3 (0.0575, 4.3)
IMPAIRED AMM N03 NMB
-100 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30
NMB% (-97.3, 182)
50
70
100
Figure 29. Observed ammonium nitrate (top) and modeled NMB (bottom) for ammonium nitrate on the
20% most-impaired days at IMPROVE monitor locations.
A-81

-------
IMPAIRED OMC OBS
0.2 0.64 1.1
1.5 2 2.4 2.9 3.3
micrograrris/m**3 (0.197, 3.52)
IMPAIRED OMC NMB
3.8 4.2
4.7
-100 -70
-50
-30 -10 10 30
NMB% (-66.8, 98.4)
50
70
100
Figure 30. Observed OC (top) and modeled NMB (bottom) for OC on the 20% most-impaired days at
IMPROVE monitor locations.
A-82

-------
IMPAIRED EC OBS

• •
• •
o.c







51
133 0.09 0.15 0.21 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.44 0.49 0.55 0.<
micrograms/m**3 (0.0326, 0.501)
IMPAIRED EC NMB
o o
O •
9*
• o
-100 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 100
NMB% {-63.8, 130)
Figure 31. Observed EC (top) and modeled NMB (bottom) for EC on the 20% most-impaired days at
IMPROVE monitor locations.
A-83

-------
IMPAIRED PM25 OBS
••
• •
• •
• e
1.4 2.6 3.8 5 6.2 7.3 8.5 9.7 11 12 13
nnicrograms/m**3 (2, 13.3)
IMPAIRED PM25 NMB
NMB% {-78, 50.3)
Figure 32. Observed PM2.5 (top) and modeled NMB (bottom) for PM2.5 on the 20% most-impaired days at
IMPROVE monitor locations.
A-84

-------
IMPAIRED CRUSTAL OBS
0.043 0,47 0.89
1.3 1.7 2.2 2.6 3
micrograms/m**3 (0.123, 4.28)
IMPAIRED CRUSTAL NMB
-100 -70
-50
-30 -10 10 30
NMB% (-95.8, 160)
50
70
100
Figure 33. Observed Crustal PM2.5(top) and modeled NMB (bottom) for the 20% most-impaired days at
IMPROVE monitor locations.
A-85

-------
IMPAIRED CM OBS
0.74 3.5 6.2
9 12 15 17 20
micrograms/m**3 (0.74, 15.2)
IMPAIRED CM NMB
23 26
28
%	G
-100 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30
NMB% (-86.5, 111)
50
70 100
Figure 34. Observed Coarse PM (top) and modeled NMB (bottom) for the 20% most-impaired days at
IMPROVE monitor locations.
A-86

-------
9. PM2.5 Composition and Contributions to Light Extinction
Figures 35 - 138 display stacked bar charts detailing the composition of PM2.5 on the 20% most impaired,
worst, and clearest days for both modeled and observed concentration (ng/m3) and light extinction
(bext_1) at each IMPROVE monitoring site. The plots on the left display the amount of total particle mass
using concentrations of coarse mass, crustal (soil), ammonium nitrate (N03), ammonium sulfate (S04),
elemental carbon (EC), organic mass carbon (OMC), and sea salt. The amount of light extinction due to
each aforementioned species is displayed in the rightmost plot.
Note that in all of the plots, sea salt is the observed value at the IMPROVE site (modeled sea salt was not
used) and the Rayleigh scattering in the extinction plots is site specific Rayleigh scattering for that site,
which does not vary by day (not modeled or observed).
A-87

-------
Northwest
•	Mount Rainier National Park (WA)(MORAl)
•	Glacier Peak Wilderness (WA) and North Cascades National Park (WA)(NOCAl)
•	Olympic National Park (WA)(OLYMl)
•	Pasayten Wilderness (WA)(PASA1)
•	Alpine Lake Wilderness (WA)(SNPA1)
•	Goat Rocks Wilderness (WA) and Mount Adams Wilderness (WA)(WHPA1)
A-88

-------
Mount Rainier National Park, WA (MORA1)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT


T3
o	* SEA_SALT observed
IE	RAYLEIGH - elevation
	Mount Rainier National Park, WA (MQRA1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
TJ
O
S
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
¦¦
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 35: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Mount Rainier National Park (WA) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Worth Cascades National Park, WA (NOCAl)	North Cascades National Park, WA (NOCAi)
¦ ' | |
| Obs Impaired Days|
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
HI
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04

EC

OMC
¦¦
SEA_SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
uu
CRUSTAL
uu
AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC
¦¦
OMC
¦¦
SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 36: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Glacier Peak Wilderness (WA) and North Cascades National
Park (WA) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-89

-------
Olympic National Park, WA (OLYM1)
Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT


	Olympic National Park, WA (OLYM1)
|Qbs Impaired Days|
Obs Worst Days	Obs Clearest Days
5
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
¦¦
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
* SEA_5ALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 37: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Olympic National Park (WA) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
m 5
*
E
Ts i
E
C» J
O
U
E2
1
	Pasayten Wilderness, WA (PASA1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
HI
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04

EC

OMC
¦¦
SEA_SALT
35
30
25
£
20
^5 15
10
	Pasayten Wilderness, WA (PASA1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
o
-Q
o
TJ
O

CM
uu
CRUSTAL
uu
AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC
¦¦
OMC
¦¦
SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 38: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Pasayten Wilderness (WA) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-90

-------
Alpine Lake Wilderness, WA (SNPA1)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT


Alpine Lake Wilderness, WA (SNPA1)
|Obs Impaired Days] |Obs Worst Days'] |Qbs Clearest Days|
s
¦ SEAJiALT • observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
¦¦
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
* SEA_5ALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 39: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Alpine Lake Wilderness (WA) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
	Mount Adams Wilderness, WA (WHPA1)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
35
15
| Obs Impaired Days[
Mount Adams Wilderness, WA (WHPA1)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
"O
o
TJ
O
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 40: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Goat Rocks Wilderness (WA) and Mount Adams Wilderness
(WA) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-91

-------
Oregon and Northern California
•	Desolation Wilderness (CA) and Mokelumne Wilderness (CA)(BLIS1)
•	Crater Lake National Park (OR), Diamond Peak Wilderness (OR), Gearhart Mountain Wilderness (OR), and
Mountain Lakes Wilderness (OR)(CRLAl)
•	Kalmiopsis Wilderness (OR)(KALMl)
•	Lava Beds National Monument (CA) and South Warner Wilderness (CA)(LABE1)
•	Caribou Wilderness (CA), Lassen Volcanic National Park (CA), and Thousand Lakes Wilderness (CA)(LAV01)
•	Mount Hood Wilderness (0R)(M0H01)
•	Redwood National Park (CA)(REDW1)
•	Mount Jefferson Wilderness (OR), Mount Washington Wilderness (OR), and Three Sisters Wilderness
(OR)(THSIl)
•	Marble Mountain Wilderness (CA) and Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness (CA)(TRIN1)
A-92

-------
	Desolation Wilderness, CA (BLIS1)	
|Qbs Impaired Days| I [Obs Worst Days| I |Qbs Clearest PayT[
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Desolation Wilderness, CA (BLIS1)
SEA SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
| Obs Impaired Pays]
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
SEA salt observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 41: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Desolation Wilderness (CA) and Mokelumne Wilderness (CA)
on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
	Crater Lake National Park, OR (CRLA1)
Obs Clearest Days
Obs Worst Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
SEAJ»ALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
X 20
| Obs Impaired Days|
Crater Lake National Park, OR (CRLA1)
Obs Worst Days
jD
O
TJ
O
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJN03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
_Q
O
• SEAjjALT ¦ observed
•• RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 42: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Crater Lake National Park (OR), Diamond Peak Wilderness
(OR), Gearhart Mountain Wilderness (OR), and Mountain Lakes Wilderness (OR) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20%
clearest days.
A-93

-------
Kalmiopsis Wilderness, OR (KALM1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Kalmiopsis Wilderness, OR (KALM1)
TJ
o
S
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 43: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Kalmiopsis Wilderness (OR) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
10
8
m
#
*
E 6
iA
E
| Obs Impaired Days|
Lava Beds National Monument, CA (LABE1)
Obs Worst Days
| Obs Clearest Days|
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
jD
O
TJ
O
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
35
15
| Obs Impaired Days[
Lava Beds National Monument, CA (LABE1)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
O
JD
O
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 44: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Lava Beds National Monument (CA) and South Warner
Wilderness (CA) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-94

-------
Vo canic
Nationa Park
(LAVOl)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
AMM N03
AM M SO 4
rrI 10
SEA SALT
30
i
Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA (LAVQ1)
| Obs Impaired Days| | Obs Worst Days"

¦ SEA_SALT • observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
TJ	£	T3
O^O
SOS
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 45: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Caribou Wilderness (CA), Lassen Volcanic National Park (CA),
and Thousand Lakes Wilderness (CA) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Mount Hood Wilderness, OR (MOHOl)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
	Mount Hood Wilderness, OR (MQHQ1)
| Obs Impaired Days| [Obs Worst Days J	|Obs Clearest Days|
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
~
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJY03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 46: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Mount Hood Wilderness (OR) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-95

-------
Redwood National Park, CA (REDW1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
30
i
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Redwood National Park, CA (REDW1)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 47: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Redwood National Park (CA) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Mount Washington Wilderness, OR (THSIl)	
30

m
t 20
E
"la
i15
IT3
| Obs Impaired Days|
Obs Worst Days
Tf
O
£
| Obs Clearest Days|
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
160
140
120
"sT 100
•e*
Z-' 80
j 60
40
20
0
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
	Mount Washington Wilderness, OR (THSIl)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
-Q
O
"O
o
-Q
o
T3
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 48: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Mount Jefferson Wilderness (OR), Mount Washington
Wilderness (OR), and Three Sisters Wilderness (OR) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-96

-------
Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness, CA (TRIN1)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness, CA (TR1N1)
|Qbs Impaired Days| |Qbs Worst Days'] |Obs Clearest Days
3h
sea_salt - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
TJ	£	T5
O	5	O
Z	O	^
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
¦ sea_salt - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 49: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Marble Mountain Wilderness (CA) and Yolla Bolly Middle Eel
Wilderness (CA) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-97

-------
California Coast
•	Pinnacles National Monument (CA) and Ventana Wilderness (CA)(PINN1)
•	Point Reyes NS (CA)(POREl)
•	San Rafael Wilderness (CA)(RAFA1)
A-98

-------
Pinnacles National Monument, CA (PINN1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
30
i
Pinnacles National Monument, CA (PlNNl)
| Obs Impaired Days| | Obs Worst Days"
:
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAY LEIGH
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
73
0	£
S	O
TJ
o
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 50: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Pinnacles National Monument (CA) and Ventana Wilderness
(CA) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
2*10
| Obs Impaired Days|
Point Reyes NS, CA (PORE1)

Obs Worst Days
| Obs Clearest Days|
TJ	£	T3
o	£	o
2	O	£
Point Reyes NS, CA (PORE1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM _N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
o	* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•• RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 51: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Point Reyes NS (CA) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-99

-------
|Obs Impaired Daysj

I


i	i
~
~
San Rafael Wilderness, CA (RAFA1)
Obs worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
San Rafael Wilderness, CA (RAFA1)
|Obs Impaired Daysj
|Obs Worst Days|
|Obs Clearest Days|
.
5

5
— _
¦ sea_salt - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ	W
O	-O
S	o
TJ	^
O	-Q
Z	O
T3
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
¦ sea_salt - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 52: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the San Rafael Wilderness (CA) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-100

-------
Sierra Nevada
•	Dome Land Wilderness (CA)(D0ME1)
•	Hoover Wilderness (CA)(HOOVl)
•	Ansel Adams Wilderness (Minarets) (CA), John Muir Wilderness (CA), and Kaiser Wilderness (CA)(KAIS1)
•	Kings Canyon National Park (CA) and Sequoia National Park (CA)(SEQU1)
•	Emigrant Wilderness (CA) and Yosemite National Park (CA)(YOSEl)
A-101

-------
Dome Land Wilderness, CA (DOME1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
30
i
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Dome Land Wilderness, CA (DQME1?
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
T5
O
2
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 53: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Dome Land Wilderness (CA) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Hoover Wilderness, CA (HOOV1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
30
| Obs Impaired Days[
Hoover Wilderness, CA (HQQV1)
-Q
O
5
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
"O
o
TJ
O
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 54: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Hoover Wilderness (CA) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-102

-------
Kaiser Wilderness, CA (KAIS1)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Kaiser Wilderness, CA (KAI51)
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Qbs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_iN03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
h 20
SEA_SALT • observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 55: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Ansel Adams Wilderness (Minarets) (CA), John Muir
Wilderness (CA), and Kaiser Wilderness (CA) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
|Obs Impaired Daysf


¦

¦



u>
-Q
o
=
T3
o
2
Sequoia Mational Park, CA (SEQlll)
Obs Clearest Days
Obs Worst Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
100
80
|Obs Impaired Days]



¦
i i
mm
H
Sequoia National Park, CA (SEQUl)
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
-Q
O
"O
o
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJY03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 56: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Kings Canyon National Park (CA) and Sequoia National Park
(CA) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-103

-------
Yosemite National Pack, CA (YQ5E1)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
<*n in
80
70
60
T 50
Vi
40
J 30
20
10
0
	Yosemite National Park, CA (YOSEl)
|Qbs Impaired Days| |Obs Worst Days| |Obs Clearest Days|
sea_salt - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
T3
O
¦ sea_salt - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 57: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Emigrant Wilderness (CA) and Yosemite National Park (CA) on
the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-104

-------
Southern California
•	Agua Tibia Wilderness (CA)(AGTI1)
•	Joshua Tree National Monument (CA)(JOSHl)
•	Cucamonga Wilderness (CA) and San Gabriel Wilderness (CA)(SAGA1)
•	San Gorgonio Wilderness (CA) and San Jacinto Wilderness (CA)(SAG01)
A-105

-------
Agua Tibia Wilderness, CA (AGTI1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
Agua Tibia Wilderness, CA (AGTI1)
|Obs Impaired Days|
| Obs Worst Days |
|Obs Clearest Days|
¦
-

5

CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAY LEIGH
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
T5
O
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 58: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Agua Tibia Wilderness (CA) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
	Joshua Tree National Monument, CA (JOSH1)
Obs Clearest Days
Obs Worst Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
50
40
Joshua Tree National Monument, CA (JQSH1)
|Obs Impaired Days|
|Obs Worst Days|
|Obs Clearest Days[

m
E II
3
r=
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
O
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 59: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Joshua Tree National Monument (CA) on the observed 20%
most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-106

-------
5an Gabriel Wilderness, CA (5AGA1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
	Sari Gabriel Wilderness, CA (5AGA1)
| Obs Impaired Days| |Obs Worst Days| |Obs Clearest Days|
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
h 20
=
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
T5
O
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 60: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Cucamonga Wilderness (CA) and San Gabriel Wilderness (CA)
on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
20
San Gorgonio Wilderness, CA (SAGOl)
| Obs Impaired Days| | Obs Worst Days
| Obs Clearest Days|
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
60
| Obs Impaired Days[
San Gorgonio Wilderness, CA (SAGOl)
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJY03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 61: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the San Gorgonio Wilderness (CA) and San Jacinto Wilderness (CA)
on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-107

-------
Northern Rocky Mountains
•	Bridger Wilderness (WY) and Fitzpatrick Wilderness (WY)(BRID1)
•	Cabinet Mountains Wilderness (MT)(CABI1)
•	Gates of the Mountains Wilderness (MT)(GAM01)
•	Glacier National Park (MT)(GLAC1)
•	Bob Marshall Wilderness (MT), Mission Mountains Wilderness (MT), and Scapegoat Wilderness
(MT)(MONTl)
•	North Absaroka Wilderness (WY) and Washakie Wilderness (WY)(NOABl)
•	Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness (MT) and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (MT)(SULA1)
•	Grand Teton National Park (WY), Red Rock Lakes (WY), Teton Wilderness (WY), and Yellowstone National
Park (WY)(YELL2)
A-108

-------
Bridger Wilderness, WY (BRID1)
|Qbs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
SEA SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
15
Bridger Wilderness, WY (BRID1)
| Obs Impaired Days] |Qbs Worst Days|	|Obs Clearest PayT
5
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
-Q
o
"O
o
n
O
"O
o
-Q
O
TS
O
• SEA salt • observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 62: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Bridger Wilderness (WY) and Fitzpatrick Wilderness (WY) on
the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
	Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, MT (CABil)
Obs Clearest Days
Obs Worst Days
Hi
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL
¦¦
AMM N03

AMM S04
¦¦
EC
Mi
OMC
¦
SEA_SALT
	Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, MT (CABI1)
| Obs Impaired Days
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
¦* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
¦¦
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦¦
EC
¦
OMC

SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
¦ SEAjjALT ¦ observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 63: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness (MT) on the observed 20%
most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-109

-------
Gates of the Mountains Wilderness, MT (GAMQ1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
Gates of the Mountains Wilderness, MT (GAMQ1)
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Qbs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days	Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_iN03
AMM SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
SEA_SALT • observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 64: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Gates of the Mountains Wilderness (MT) on the observed 20%
most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Glacier National Park, MT (GLAC1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
Glacier National Park, MT (GLAC1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM _N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
SEA_SALT ¦ observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 65: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Glacier National Park (MT) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-110

-------
Scapegoat Wilderness, MT (MONTI)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Qbs Impaired Days
Scapegoat Wilderness, MT (MONTI)
Obs Worst
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
T5
O
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 66: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Bob Marshall Wilderness (MT), Mission Mountains Wilderness
(MT), and Scapegoat Wilderness (MT) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
North Absaroka Wilderness. WY (NOABl)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
35
30
25
£
20
^5 15
10
	North Absaroka Wilderness, WY (NQAB1)
| Obs Impaired Days
I
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJY03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
o
-Q
o
TJ
O
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 67: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the North Absaroka Wilderness (WY) and Washakie Wilderness
(WY) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-lll

-------
* e
E
I 6
nj
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness, MT (5ULA1)
|Obs Impaired Days]
EB
!
rst Days |
B

cm
CRUSTAL
H AMM_N03
AMM_S04
mm ec
¦ OMC
SEA_SALT



	TJ
¦R.	°
o	s
T3
O
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
30
i
	Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness, MT (5ULA1)
|Qbs Impaired Days
=
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
TJ
O
s
TJ
o
2
TJ
O
2
* SEA_5ALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 68: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness (MT) and Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness (MT) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
10
	Yellowstone National Park, WY (YELL2)	
|Obs Impaired Days| I |Obs Worst Days| I |Obs Clearest PayT[
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
40
35
30
| 25
—- 20
J 15
10
5
0
Yellowstone National Park, WY (YELL2)
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Ul	"O
£	O
O	s
|Obs Impaired Days|
|Obs Worst Days|
|Obs Clearest Days[
~~
I

	
TJ
O
ul	T3
5	°
O	^
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 69: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Grand Teton National Park (WY), Red Rock Lakes (WY), Teton
Wilderness (WY), and Yellowstone National Park (WY) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-112

-------
Hells Canyon
•	Craters of the Moon National Monument (ID)(CRM01)
•	Hells Canyon Wilderness (OR)(HECAl)
•	Sawtooth Wilderness (ID)(SAWT1)
•	Eagle Cap Wilderness (OR) and Strawberry Mountain Wilderness (OR)(STARl)
A-113

-------
Craters of the Moori National Monument, ID (CRMOl)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Craters of the Moon National Monument, ID (CRMQ1)
|Obs Impaired Days]
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_5ALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 70: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Craters of the Moon National Monument (ID) on the observed
20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days
12
| Obs Impaired Days|
Helis Canyon Wilderness, OR (HECA1)
Obs Worst Days
| Obs Clearest Days|
TJ	£	TJ
o	-a	o
2	O	£
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
60
| Obs Impaired Days[
Hells Canyon Wilderness, OR (HECA1)
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
O
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 71: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Hells Canyon Wilderness (OR) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-114

-------
Sawtooth Wilderness, ID (5AWT1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
40
35
30
sT 25
—' 20
10
5
0
|Qbs Impaired Days]
E=
Sawtooth Wilderness. ID (5AWT1)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJJ03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAY LEIGH
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 72: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Sawtooth Wilderness (ID) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
16
E	if
"D>
i	b
P	6
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, OR (STAR!)
| Obs Impaired Days|
TJ
O
£
Obs Worst Days
| Obs Clearest Days|
T5
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
60
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, OR (STAR1)
| Obs Impaired Days[

Obs Worst Days I
5
Obs Clearest Days
tj
o	^
S	o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 73: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Eagle Cap Wilderness (OR) and Strawberry Mountain
Wilderness (OR) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-115

-------
Great Basin
• Jarbidge Wilderness (NV)(JARB1)
A-116

-------
Jarbidge Wilderness, NV (JARB1)
ubs Impaired Days	Obs Worst Days	Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT

40

35

30
<=¦
25



20



15

10

5

0
	Jarbidge Wilderness, NV (JARB1)
|Qbs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
sea_salt - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
S
T>
O
s
T3
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
¦ sea_salt - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 74: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Jarbidge Wilderness (NV) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-117

-------
Central Rocky Mountains
•	Great Sand Dunes National Monument (CO)(GRSAl)
•	Mount Zirkel Wilderness (CO) and Rawah Wilderness (CO)(MOZIl)
•	Rocky Mountain National Park (C0)(R0M01)
•	Pecos Wilderness (NM) and Wheeler Peak Wilderness (NM)(WHPE1)
•	Eagles Nest Wilderness (CO), Flat Tops Wilderness (CO), Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness (CO), and
West Elk Wilderness (CO)(WHRIl)
A-118

-------
Great Sand Dunes National Monument, CO {GRSA1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Great Sand Dunes National Monument, CO (GRSA1)
| Obs Impaired Days ]

Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
TJ
o
S
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJJ03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 75: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Great Sand Dunes National Monument (CO) on the observed
20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
9
8
7
m
* 6
E
o? 5
o
u 3
£
2
1
0
	Mount Zirkel Wilderness, CO (MQZ11)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
-Q
O
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
25
20
Mount Zirkel Wilderness, CO (MOZ11)
|Obs Impaired Days] [Obs Worst Days|	|Qbs Clearest Day~
i
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
O
-Q
o
T3
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 76: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Mount Zirkel Wilderness (CO) and Rawah Wilderness (CO) on
the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-119

-------
Rocky Mountain National Park, CO (ROMOl)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
AMM N03
AMM SO 4
rrI 10
SEA SALT
Rocky Mountain National Park, CO (ROMOI)
¦ SEA_SALT • observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Qbs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_iN03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
h 20
SEA_SALT • observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 77: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Rocky Mountain National Park (CO) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Wheeler Peak Wilderness, MM (WHPEl)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
rr\ 10
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
40
35
i 15
| Obs Impaired Days[
Wheeler Peak Wilderness, NM (WHPEl)
=
Obs Worst Days I
-Q
O
"O
o
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJY03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
-Q
o
TJ
O
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 78: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Pecos Wilderness (NM) and Wheeler Peak Wilderness (NM) on
the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-120

-------
Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness, CO (WHRI1)
aired
Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness, CO (WHRI1)
|Qbs Impaired Days| __|Qbs Worst Days| |Obs Clearest Days

CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAY LEIGH
sea_salt - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
S
TJ
O
2
T3
O
¦ sea_salt - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 79: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Eagles Nest Wilderness (CO), Flat Tops Wilderness (CO),
Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness (CO), and West Elk Wilderness (CO) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest
days.
A-121

-------
Colorado Plateau
•	Bandelier National Monument (NM)(BAND1)
•	Bryce Canyon National Park (UT)(BRCA1)
•	Arches National Park (UT) and Canyonlands National Park (UT)(CANY1)
•	Capitol Reef National Park (UT)(CAPI1)
•	Grand Canyon National Park (AZ)(GRCA2)
•	Mesa Verde National Park (CO)(MEVEl)
•	San Pedro Parks Wilderness (NM)(SAPE1)
•	Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument (CO), La Garita Wilderness (CO), and Weminuche
Wilderness (CO)(WEMIl)
•	Zion National Park (UT)(ZICA1)
A-122

-------
Bandelier National Monument, NM (BAND1)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT


	Bandelier National Monument, NM (BAND1)
| Obs Impaired Days
50
Obs Worst Days
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
Obs Clearest Days
TJ	£	T3
O^O
SOS
¦¦
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
* SEA_5ALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 80: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Bandelier National Monument (NM) on the observed 20%
most impaired,, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Bryce Canyon National Park. UT (BRCA1)
12
m
i 8
|Obs Impaired Days|
jobs Worst Days|
¦
|Obs Clearest Days|
!h
~~

T3
O
£
-o
o
2
JD
o
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
35
30
25
£
20
^5 15
10
	Bryce Canyon National Park, UT (BRCA1)
| Obs Impaired Days

Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
O
JD
O
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 81: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Bryce Canyon National Park (UT) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-123

-------
* e
E
I 6
nj
Canyonlands National Park, UT (CANY1)
|Obs Impaired Days]

Obs Clearest Days|
Bh
is

T3
o
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
_T 15
i
	Canyonlands National Park, UT (CANY1)
|Qbs Impaired Days
TJ
o
S
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 82: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Arches National Park (UT) and Canyonlands National Park (UT)
on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
10
Capitol Reef National Park, UT (CAPI1)
| Obs Impaired Days| I | Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
jD
O
TJ
O
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
30
| Obs Impaired Days[
Capitol Reef National Park, UT (CAPI1)
Obs Worst Days I

Obs Clearest Days
-Q
O
"O
o
T3
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJY03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 83: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Capitol Reef National Park (UT) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-124

-------
Grand Canyon National Park, AZ (GRCA2)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
rri in
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
	Grand Canyon National Park, AZ (GRCA2)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
TJ
O
s
TJ
o
2
TJ
O
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 84: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Grand Canyon National Park (AZ) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
16
E io
	Mesa Verde National Park. CO (MEVE1)
| Obs Impaired Days|
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
35
15
	Mesa Verde National Park, CO (MEVE1)
| Obs Impaired Days
5
Obs Worst Days I

Obs Clearest Days
"O
o
TJ
O
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 85: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Mesa Verde National Park (CO) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-125

-------
San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM (5APE1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
	San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM (5APE1)
| Obs Impaired Days
5a
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
T5
O
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 86: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the San Pedro Parks Wilderness (NM) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
12
10
m
i s
E
"la
E 6
| Obs Impaired Days|
Weminuche Wilderness, CO (WEMI1)
Bs
Obs Worst Days
T3
O
| Obs Clearest Days|
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
jD
O
T5
O
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
30
| Obs Impaired Days[
Weminuche Wilderness, CO (WEMI1J
2
Obs Worst Days I
5
Obs Clearest Days
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
O
JD
O
T3
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 87: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument (CO), La
Garita Wilderness (CO), and Weminuche Wilderness (CO) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-126

-------
16
14
*
*
E w
*V>
I B
u>
o 6
u
E 4
2
0
|Qbs Impaired Pays)
Zion National Park, UT (ZICA1)
Obs Worst Days

Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
TJ
O
S
TJ
O
s
"O
o * sea_salt - observed
IS	¦• RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Qbs Impaired Days|
Zion National Park, UT (ZICA1)
s
Obs Worst Days
i
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
TJ	w
O	-O
S	o
TJ	w
O	-Q
Z	O
TS
O
¦ sea_salt - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 88: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Zion National Park (UT) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-127

-------
Mogol Ion Plateau
•	Mount Baldy Wilderness (AZ)(BALD1)
•	Bosque del Apache (NM)(BOAPl)
•	Gila Wilderness (NM)(GICL1)
•	Mazatzal Wilderness (AZ) and Pine Mountain Wilderness (AZ)(IKBA1)
•	Petrified Forest National Park (AZ)(PEF01)
•	Sierra Ancha Wilderness (AZ)(SIAN1)
•	Sycamore Canyon Wilderness (AZ)(SYCA2)
•	Superstition Wilderness (AZ)(TONTl)
•	White Mountain Wilderness (NM)(WHIT1)
A-128

-------
Mount Baldy Wilderness, AZ (BALDl)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT


_T 15
i
Mount Baldy Wilderness, AZ (BALDl)
|Obs Impaired Days] |Obs Worst Days'] |Qbs Clearest Days|
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
¦¦
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 89: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Mount Baldy Wilderness (AZ) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
50
40
m
#
*
e30
lA
E
	Bosque del Apache, NM (BOAP1)
| Obs Impaired Days|
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
HI
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
H
EC
Ml
OMC
¦
SEA_SALT
60
	Bosque del Apache, NM (BOAP1)
| Obs Impaired Days|
:=
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
-Q
O
"O
o
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
uu
CRUSTAL
uu
AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC
¦¦
OMC
¦¦
SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 90: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Bosque del Apache (NM) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-129

-------
Gila Wilderness, NM (GICL1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Gila Wilderness, NM (G1CL1)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
TJ
o
S
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_5ALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 91: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Gila Wilderness (NM) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Pine Mountain Wilderness, AZ (IKBA1)	
Obs Clearest Days
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
* 20
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
50
40
| Obs Impaired Days[
Pine Mountain Wilderness, AZ (IKBA1)

=
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJY03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
• SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 92: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Mazatzal Wilderness (AZ) and Pine Mountain Wilderness (AZ)
on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-130

-------
Petrified Forest National Park, AZ (PEFQ1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
20
	Petrified Forest National Park, AZ (PEFQ1)
| Obs Impaired Days
i
Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAY LEIGH
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 93: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Petrified Forest National Park (AZ) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Sierra Ancha Wilderness, AZ (S1AN1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Obs Impaired Days
Sierra Ancha Wilderness, AZ (SIAN1)
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 94: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Sierra Ancha Wilderness (AZ) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-131

-------
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, AZ (SYCA2)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT


30
i
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, AZ (SYCA2)
| Obs Impaired Days
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
¦¦
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
T5
O
2
* SEA_5ALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 95: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness (AZ) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
	Superstition Wilderness, AZ (TONTl)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Clearest Days
Obs Worst Days
HI
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
H
EC
Ml
OMC
¦
SEA_SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
50
40
| Obs Impaired Days[
Superstition Wilderness, AZ (TONTl)
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
O
-Q
o
TJ
O

CM
uu
CRUSTAL
uu
AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC
¦¦
OMC
¦¦
SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 96: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Superstition Wilderness (AZ) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-132

-------
White Mountain Wilderness, NM (WHIT1)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM

CRU5TAL

AMM N03

AMM S04

EC

OMC

SEA_SALT
¦ sea_salt - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Obs Impaired Daysj





~
i—



_Q
O
TJ
O
£
White Mountain Wilderness, NM (WHIT1)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
TJ	£	T5
o	o
Z	O	S

CM

CRU5TAL

AMM N03

AMM S04

EC

OMC

SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
¦ sea_salt - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 97: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the White Mountain Wilderness (NM) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-133

-------
Southern Arizona
•	Chiricahua National Monument (AZ), Chiricahua Wilderness (AZ), and Galiuro Wilderness (AZ)(CHIR1)
•	Saguaro National Monument (AZ)(SAGU1)
A-134

-------
Chiricahua National Monument, AZ (CHIR1)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT


	Chiricahua National Monument, AZ (CH1R1)
| Obs Impaired Days
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Obs Worst Days
h 20
Obs Clearest Days
¦¦
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
T5
O
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 98: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Chiricahua National Monument (AZ), Chiricahua Wilderness
(AZ), and Galiuro Wilderness (AZ) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Saguaro National Monument, AZ (SAGU1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
50
40
Saguaro National Monument, AZ (SAGU1)
|Obs Impaired Days] [Obs Worst Days|	|Qbs Clearest Day~
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
o
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 99: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Saguaro National Monument (AZ) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-135

-------
West Texas
•	Big Bend National Park (TX)(BIBE1)
•	Carlsbad Caverns National Park (TX) and Guadalupe Mountains National Park (TX)(GUM01)
•	Salt Creek (NM)(SACR1)
A-136

-------
Big Bend National Park, TX (BIBEl)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
80
70
60
T 50
— 40
J 30
20
10
0
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Big Bend National Park, TX (BIBE1)
fa

SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
TJ	£	T3
O	5	O
SOS
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 100: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Big Bend National Park (TX) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Guadalupe Mountains National Park. TX {GUMOl)
Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
O 15
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
60
Guadalupe Mountains National Park, TX (GUMOl)
| Obs Impaired Days[
H
Obs Worst Days I
-Q
O
"O
o
Obs Clearest Days
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 101: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Carlsbad Caverns National Park (TX) and Guadalupe
Mountains National Park (TX) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-137

-------
Salt Creek, NM (5ACR1)
ubs Impaired Days
Obs worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM

CRU5TAL

AMM N03

AMM S04

EC

OMC

SEA_SALT
80
70
60
T 50
Vi
40
J 30
20
10
0
|Obs Impaired Daysj











¦


Salt Creek, NM (SACR1)
¦ sea_salt - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
S
Obs worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
sea_salt - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 102: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Salt Creek (NM) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-138

-------
Northern Great Plains
•	Badlands National Park (SD)(BADL1)
•	Lostwood (ND)(LOSTl)
•	Medicine Lake (MT)(MELA1)
•	Theodore Roosevelt National Park (ND)(THR01)
•	ULBend (MT)(ULBE1)
•	Wind Cave National Park (SD)(WICA1)
A-139

-------
Badlands National Park, 5D (BADLI)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT


30
i
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Badlands National Park, SD (BADLI)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
T3
O	£
S	O
T>
O
2
¦¦
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 103: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Badlands National Park (SD) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Lostwood, ND (LQ5T1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
Lostwood, ND (LQST1)
HI
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
H
EC
Ml
OMC
¦
SEA_SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Obs Impaired Days
Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
uu
CRUSTAL
uu
AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC
¦¦
OMC
¦¦
SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 104: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Lostwood (ND) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-140

-------
Medicine Lake, MT (MELA1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Medicine Lake, MT (MELA1)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
CM
CRUSTAl
AMMJJ03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_5ALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 105: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Medicine Lake (MT) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Theodore Roosevelt National Park, ND (THROl)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
Theodore Roosevelt National Park, ND (THROl)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
SEA_SALT ¦ observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 106: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Theodore Roosevelt National Park (ND) on the observed 20%
most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-141

-------
UL Bend, MT (ULBE1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
rri in
UL Bend, MT (ULBE1)
|Obs Impaired Days] |Obs Worst Days'] |Qbs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAY LEIGH
¦ SEA_SALT • observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 107: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the UL Bend (MT) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed
20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Wind Cave National Park, SD (WICA1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
50
40
| Obs Impaired Days[
Wind Cave National Park, SD (WiCAl)
Obs Worst Days I
-Q
O
"O
o
Obs Clearest Days
-Q
o
T3
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 108: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Wind Cave National Park (SD) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-14 2

-------
Mid South
•	Caney Creek Wilderness (AR)(CACR1)
•	Hercules-Glades Wilderness (M0)(HEGL1)
•	Upper Buffalo Wilderness (AR)(UPBU1)
•	Wichita Mountains (0K)(WIM01)
A-143

-------
|Obs Impaired Days
Cariey Creek Wilderness. AR (CACR1)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Caney Creek Wilderness, AR (CACR1)
|Obs Impaired Daysj [Obs Worst Days
HH
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Obs Clearest Days
nS
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SEA SALT ¦ observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 109: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Caney Creek Wilderness (AR) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Hercules-Glades Wilderness, MO (HEGL1)
|Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
SEA SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
120
| Obs Impaired Days|
Hercules-Giades Wilderness, MO (HEGL1)
3l
Obs Worst Days

Obs Clearest Days
S
jQ
O
-o
o
£
n
O
TJ
O
-Q
o
T3
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 110: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Hercules-Glades Wilderness (MO) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-144

-------
Upper Buffalo Wilderness, AR (UPBU1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Upper Buffalo Wilderness, AR (UPBU1)
5H
Obs Worst Days
ii
Obs Clearest Days
3
TJ
O
73
0	£
S	O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
o	• SEA_SALT - observed
2	* • RAYLf IG H - elevation
Figure 111: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Upper Buffalo Wilderness (AR) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Wichita Mountains, OK (WIMOI)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
* 20
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
120
| Obs Impaired Days[
Wichita Mountains, QK (WIMOI)
¦Hc
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
T3	I/)
jQ	O	-Q
O	£	O
TJ	52	T3
o	5	o
s	o	^
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 112: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Wichita Mountains (OK) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-145

-------
' "in !.it V-f ¦}«in".
Boundary Waters Canoe Area (MN)(BOWAl)
Isle Royale National Park (MI)(ISLE1)
Seney (MI)(SENE1)
Voyageurs National Park (MN)(VOYA2)

-------
	Boundary Waters Canoe Area, MN (BQWA1)
|Obs Impaired Days
3
Obs Clearest Days
JD
O
¦o
o
n
O
T3
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, MN (BOWA1)
|Qbs Impaired Days] | Obs Worst Days |	|Obs Clearest Pay7
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SEA SALT ¦ observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 113: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (MN) on the observed 20%
most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
	Isle Royale National Park. Ml (ISLE1)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
J 30
| Obs Impaired Days|
Isle Royale National Park, Ml (ISLE1)

Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
SEA SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
JQ
O
-O
o
£
n
O
TJ
O
-Q
o
T3
O
* SEA SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 114: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Isle Royale National Park (Ml) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-147

-------
Seney, Ml (SENE1)
Obs Impaired
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Qbs Impaired Days]
HM
Seney, Ml (SENE1)
Obs Worst Days
HM
Obs Clearest Days
TJ
o
73
0	£
S	O
TJ
o
2
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 115: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Seney (Ml) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed
20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Voyageurs National Park, MN (VOYA2)
|Obs Impaired Days)
Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
70
[Obs Impaired Days
Voyageurs National Park, MN (VQYA2)

Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
"O
o
TJ
O
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 116: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Voyageurs National Park (MN) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-148

-------
Appalachia
•	Cohutta Wilderness (GA)(C0HU1)
•	Dolly Sods Wilderness (WV) and Otter Creek Wilderness (WV)(D0S01)
•	Great Smoky Mountains National Park (TN) and Joyce-Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness (TN)(GRSM1)
•	James River Face Wilderness (VA)(JARI1)
•	Linville Gorge Wilderness (NC)(LIG01)
•	Shenandoah National Park (VA)(SHEN1)
•	Shining Rock Wilderness (NC)(SHR01)
•	Sipsey Wilderness (AL)(SIPS1)
A-149

-------
Cohutta Wilderness, GA (COHU1)
Obs Impaired Days
Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
140
120
100
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Cohutta Wilderness, GA (CQHUl)
Obs Worst Days

Obs Clearest Days
TJ
o
TJ	£	T3
O	5	O
S	O	s
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 117: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Cohutta Wilderness (GA) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Dolly Sods Wilderness, WV (DOSOl)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
140
120
100
80
| Obs Impaired Days[
Dolly Sods Wilderness, WV (DOSOl)
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
O
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 118: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Dolly Sods Wilderness (WV) and Otter Creek Wilderness (WV)
on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-150

-------
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, TN (GRSM1)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
140
120
100
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, TN (GRSM1)
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Obs Worst Days
HH
Obs Clearest Days
TJ
o
S
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 119: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (TN) and Joyce-Kilmer-
Slickrock Wilderness (TN) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
James River Face Wilderness, VA (JARI1)
Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
140
120
100
80
| Obs Impaired Days[
James River Face Wilderness, VA (JARI1)
Obs Worst Days I

Obs Clearest Days
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ	52	T3
O	5	O
s	o	s:
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 120: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the James River Face Wilderness (VA) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-151

-------
Lirwille Gorge Wilderness, NC (LIGOl)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
Linville Gorge Wilderness, NC (LIGOl)
| Obs Impaired Days| | Obs Worst Days"
HH
MM
Obs Clearest Days
TJ
o
TJ	£	T3
O^O
S	O	s
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 121: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Linville Gorge Wilderness (NC) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Shenandoah National Park, VA (SHEN1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
120
| Obs Impaired Days[
Shenandoah National Park, VA (SHEN1)
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
B
-Q
O
"O
o
TJ
O
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 122: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Shenandoah National Park (VA) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-152

-------
Shining Rock Wilderness, NC (SMROl)
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days

CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT


	Shining Rock Wilderness, NC (SHROl)
| Obs Impaired Days| |Qbs Worst Days']
Obs Clearest Days
¦¦
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
¦
EC

OMC

SEA SALT

RAYLEIGH
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 123: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Shining Rock Wilderness (NC) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
25
20
2*10
| Obs Impaired Days|
Sipsey Wilderness, AL (SIPS1)
Obs Worst Days
Ddis^
| Obs Clearest Days|
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
140
120
100
80
| Obs Impaired Days[
Sipsey Wilderness, AL (SIPS1)
Obs Worst Days I
ii
Obs Clearest Days
E0
10	TJ	W
jQ	o	-D
O	£	O
TJ	f
O	5
S	o
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJY03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
TJ
o	• SEA„SALT ¦ observed
2	• • RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 124: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Sipsey Wilderness (AL) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-153

-------
Ohio River Valley
•	Mammoth Cave National Park (KY)(MACA1)
•	Mingo (MO)(MINGl)
A-154

-------
Mammoth Cave National Park, KY (MACA1)
|Obs Impaired Days]
¦
Obs Clearest Days|

¦ 1
-
¦ ¦
SB
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
TJ	W
o	«g
s	o
"O
o	-Q
£	O
o	¦ SEA_SALT - observed
£	• * RAYLEIGH - elevation
160
140
120
IT loo
80
J 60
40
20
0
	Mammoth Cave National Park, KY (MACA1)
|Qbs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
3
TJ
O
£
TJ
O
£
TJ
O
£
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 125: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Mammoth Cave National Park (KY) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Mingo, mo (MiNGl)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
* 20
EC
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
140
120
100
80
| Obs Impaired Days[
Mingo, MO (MING1)
Obs Worst Days I
hHHf
Obs Clearest Days

CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJY03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
T3	
-------
Southeast
•	Breton (LA)(BRIS1)
•	Chassahowitzka (FL)(CHAS1)
•	Everglades National Park (FL)(EVER1)
•	Okefenokee (GA) and Wolf Island (GA)(OKEFl)
•	Cape Romain (SC)(ROMAl)
•	St. Marks (FL)(SAMA1)
A-156

-------
Breton, LA (BRIS1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
o	* SEA_SALT observed
IE	RAYLEIGH - elevation
140
120
100
|Qbs Impaired Days]
H
Breton, LA (BRIS1)
Obs Worst Days
mm
Obs Clearest Days
TJ
o
TJ	£	T3
O	5	O
S	O	s
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 127: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Breton (LA) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed
20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
20
| Obs Impaired Days|
Chassahowitzka, FL (CHASl!
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
120
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
|Obs Impaired Days
Chassahowitzka, FL (CHASi;
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
ss
TJ
o
-Q
o
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLfIGH - elevation
Figure 128: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Chassahowitzka (FL) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-157

-------
Everglades National Park, FL (EVER1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
	T3
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
	Everglades National Park, FL (EVER1)
|Qbs Impaired Days|
TJ
o
S
Obs Worst Days	Obs Clearest Days
==
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 129: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Everglades National Park (FL) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Okeferiokee, GA (OKEFl)	
30
m
$ 20
| Obs Impaired Days|
Obs Worst Days
c=iS
| Obs Clearest Days|
Tf
O
TJ
O
2
JD
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
140
120
100
80
Qkefenokee, GA (OKEFl)
|Obs Impaired Days|

rst Days |
|Obs Clearest Daysj
¦
1=1
n
¦
-
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 130: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Okefenokee (GA) and Wolf Island (GA) on the observed 20%
most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-158

-------
Cape Romairi, SC (ROMA1)
Obs Impaired Days	Obs Worst Days	Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
¦ SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
140
120
100
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Cape Romain, SC (RQMA1)
Obs Worst Days

Obs Clearest Days
as
TJ
O
TJ
O
2
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
o	• SEA_SALT - observed
2	* • RAYLf IG H - elevation
Figure 131: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Cape Romain (SC) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
20 r
St. Marks. Ft (SAMAi)
| Obs Impaired Days| I |Obs Worst Days |
BlIEB
| Obs Clearest Days|
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
T3
O
~n
o
-Q
O
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
120
| Obs Impaired Days[
St. Marks, FL (SAMAI)
hH
Obs Worst Days I
¦¦
Obs Clearest Days
H0
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
jD
O
"O
o
JD
O
• SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 132: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the St. Marks (FL) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed
20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-159

-------
East Coast
•	Brigantine (NJ)(BRIG1)
•	Swanquarter (NC)(SWAN1)
A-160

-------
Brigantine, NJ (BRIG1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
160
140
120
IT loo
80
J 60
40
20
0
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Brigantine, NJ (BRIG1)
Obs Worst Days
¦ill
Obs Clearest Days
SEA_SALT - observed
¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
s
TJ
O
2
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_SALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 133: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Brigantine (NJ) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed
20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Swanquarter, IMC (SWAN1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
* 20
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
160
140
120
"sT 100
Z-' 80
j 60
40
20
0
| Obs Impaired Days[
Swanquarter, NC (SWAN1)
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
-Q
O
TJ	1/1
0	-Q
1	o
TJ
O	^
S	O
TJ
O
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SELA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 134: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Swanquarter (NC) on the observed 20% most impaired,
observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-161

-------
Northeast
•	Acadia National Park (ME)(ACAD1)
•	Great Gulf Wilderness (NH) and Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness (NH)(GRGU1)
•	Lye Brook Wilderness (VT)(LYEB1)
•	Moosehorn (ME) and Roosevelt Campobello International Park (ME)(MOOSl)
A-162

-------
Acadia National Park, ME (ACAD1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
rri in
¦ SEA_SALT • observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
80
70
60
T 50
— 40
J 30
20
10
0
|Qbs Impaired Days|
Acadia National Park, ME (ACAD1)
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
TJ
o
TJ
O
2
TJ
O
2
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJM03
AMM_SQ4
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
* SEA_5ALT ¦ observed
•* RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 135: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Acadia National Park (ME) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Great Gulf Wilderness, NH (GRGU1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
rr\ 10
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
80
70
60
I 50
40
J 30
20
10
0
| Obs Impaired Days[
Great Gulf Wilderness, NH (GRGU1)
Obs Worst Days I

Obs Clearest Days
B
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_NQ3
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
• SEA_SALT - observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
Figure 136: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Great Gulf Wilderness (NH) and Presidential Range-Dry River
Wilderness (NH) on the observed 20% most impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
A-163

-------
Lye Brook Wilderness, VT (LYEB1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
80
70
60
T 50
— 40
J 30
20
10
0
|Qbs Impaired Days]
Lye Brook Wilderness, VT (LYEB1)
HH
Obs Worst Days
1H
Obs Clearest Days
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMJJ03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAY LEIGH
¦ SEA_SALT • observed
RAYLEIGH - elevation
TJ
O
TJ
O
2
T3
o	• SEA_SALT observed
2	* • RAYLf IG H - elevation
Figure 137: Observed (Obs) and predicted (Mod) concentrations (left) and extinctions (right) at the Lye Brook Wilderness (VT) on the observed 20% most
impaired, observed 20% worst, and observed 20% clearest days.
Moosehom, ME (MOOS1)
| Obs Impaired Days
Obs Worst Days
Obs Clearest Days
HI
CM
¦¦
CRUSTAL

AMM N03

AMM S04
M
EC
Ml
OMC
¦
SEA_SALT
80
70
60
I 50
40
J 30
20
10
0
| Obs Impaired Days[
Moosehorn, ME (MQOS1)
Obs Worst Days I
Obs Clearest Days
• SEA SALT - observed
¦¦ RAYLEIGH - elevation
T3	
-------
Appendix B
IMPROVE Site Summary Plots
B-l

-------
IMPROVE Site Summary Plots
The following plots provide a summary of relevant observational and modeling data at
each IMPROVE station. To help orient the reader, each figure is labeled with the main
Class I area represented by the IMPROVE site and has an inset map with a red dot to
indicate the geographic location of the IMPROVE station.
•	The 2009-2013 observed annual average light extinction values (1/Mm) on the 20%
most impaired days are shown as (up to 5) black dots with the 5-year average as a
horizontal blue line over the same time period.
•	For the 2011 year, the average observed magnitude and composition of extinction
(on the 20% most impaired days) is indicated by the left-most stacked bar. The 2011
observation is broken down into Rayleigh (light blue), sea salt (blue), organic carbon
matter (green), elemental carbon (black), ammonium sulfate (yellow), ammonium
nitrate (red), fine crustal material (purple) and coarse mass (brown). Rayleigh
scattering is site-specific, depending on the site elevation (higher elevation has lower
Rayleigh scattering). It varies between 8 and 12 Mm for all areas and does not vary
by day or year.
•	Also for 2011 year, the second stacked bar shows the CAMx modeled PM light
extinction magnitude and composition on the 20% most impaired days. The
observed sea salt scattering has been copied over to the modeling results (we are
not using modeled sea salt) and the site-specific Raleigh scattering is also used
directly and does not change between the base and future.
•	A species-specific relative response factor was calculated using the raw 2011
simulated PM species concentrations and the raw 2028 simulated PM species
concentrations and used to project observations. The effective net relative change in
extinction between 2011 and 2028 is visualized by the blue dashed line connecting
the 5-year average (solid horizontal blue line) with the top of the 2028 stacked bar
(in some cases, the blue dashed line does not exactly hit the top of the 2028 stacked
bar because the plots are shown in extinction, but the actual 2028 projections are
calculated in deciviews, which is a log function). See the modeling technical support
document (TSD) for more details on the calculations.
•	The shades of grey in the 2028 stacked bar represent source apportionment
emissions summary categories to represent United States Anthropogenic, "Mixed",
International Anthropogenic, and Natural sources. The "Mixed" category is most
often dominated by modeled boundary conditions, which can be a combination of
sources including natural, recirculated U.S. pollution, off-shore activity, and trans-
hemispheric anthropogenic. See Table B-l below for the definition of the "emissions
summary categories" and the modeling TSD for more details.
B-2

-------
Table B-l Source apportionment emissions summary categories
Emissions
Summary Category
Emissions Sectors (PSAT tags)
Notes
US Anthropogenic
On-road mobile, Non-road mobile, EGUs,
NonEGU point, Oil and Gas, Nonpoint (area),
Commercial marine (onshore), Prescribed
fires, Agricultural fires, Rail, Residential
Wood combustion (RWC)
Most certain contributors to US
anthropogenic visibility.
International
Anthropogenic Canada and Mexico
Contribution from Canadian and Mexican
emissions within the 12km CONUS domain
Natural
Biogenic, Wildfires (domainwide), Sea salt
Most certain contributors to natural
visibility
"Mixed"
Boundary conditions, Fugitive dust, Offshore
(commercial marine and oil platforms),
Secondary organics
Each of these sectors are particularly
uncertain regarding their representation in
the model, including their relative
contribution of natural vs. international vs.
US anthropogenic sources. Need further
discussion and assessment to improve our
understanding of the contributions.
•	The "2028 US anthropogenic percentage" is a fraction of the total projected non-
Rayleigh extinction. The U.S. anthropogenic sources are then normalized by this
fraction and further identified in the pie chart, where unique categories total to
>75% and the remaining are indicated as "US Anthro Other." Thus, the sector's
percentage in the pie chart represents that sector's percentage of total U.S.
anthropogenic extinction.
•	The "Range" (the top and bottom of the whisker on the 2028 stacked bar) for 2028
extinction is an attempt to put bounds on projections that result from model skill and
assumptions. We use two alternative projections to bound the projected future: (1)
the boundary conditions are accurate and (2) the boundary conditions will be
reduced by 50% between 2011 and 2028. See the modeling TSD for more details on
the "range" calculations.
B-3

-------
Table B-2 Sector category abbreviations in the summary plots
Summary plot US
anthropogenic sector
abbreviations
Full sector name
EGU
Electric generating units (EGU)
MonEGU_Pt
NonEGU point sources
Oii_Gas
Oil and gas (point and nonpoint)
Ag Fires
Agricultural fires
Rail
Rail
RWC
Residential wood combustion
Non_point
Nonpoint (area) sources
On road
On-road mobile
CMV
Commercial marine vessels (onshore)
Non_road
Non-road mobile
Prescribed_Fires
Prescribed fires
Figure B-l Location of Federal Class I areas
Mandatary Class 1 Areas

UdMnU4
B-4

-------
Figure B-2 Map of IMPROVE network regions used in the summary plots
IMPROVE Aerosol Network
Ator»WeSt
MAKAI J.YM) t ft-^JJpCAl
—			 Nortfwn
O O NOAB1 _
Great Plains
O CRLA1
J™ AflENI aU-Jj
° Central GrcatlPlains
Central Rockies
s- v, 	
a J KAISlO*.
DOME!
CACR1
°GUMC
\ West
\ Texas
CHASV
O IMPROVE Sites
~ IMPROVE Urban Sites
Source: 2011 IMPROVE Report http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/spatial-and-
seasonal-patterns-and-temporal-variability-of-haze-and-its-constituents-in-the-united-
states-report-v-iune-2011
B-5

-------
Northwest
•	Mount Rainier National Park (WA)(M0RA1)
•	Glacier Peak Wilderness (WA) and North Cascades National Park (WA)(N0CA1)
•	Olympic National Park (WA)(0LYM1)
•	Pasayten Wilderness (WA)(PASA1)
•	Alpine Lake Wilderness (WA)(SNPA1)
•	Goat Rocks Wilderness (WA) and Mount Adams Wilderness (WA)(WHPA1)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, organic carbon
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Generally good performance, dominated by sulfate.
Nitrate overpredicted at MORA and WHPA.
Uncertainty in sector contributions
High "mixed" sector contribution percentage (all sites > 60%).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
7-18%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
Residential wood and nonEGU point
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-6

-------
-cT
60
50
40
30
20
10
Mount Rainier National Park, WA (MORA1)
il
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (15%)
US Anthro Other
RWC
NonEGU Pt
On road
Nonpoint
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-3: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Mount Rainier National Park (WA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-7

-------
35
30
25
£ 20
15
10
North Cascades National Park, WA (NOCA1)
il
O O
cm rsi
i/i o
o2
2028 US Anthro (7%)
NonEGU_Pt / 48.1%
19.9%
20.1%
US Anthro Other
Non_point
J
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-4: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Glacier Peak Wilderness (WA) and North Cascades National Park (WA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
B-8

-------
Olympic National Park, WA (OLYM1)
O O
cm cm
l/l O
o§
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
CMV
Nonpoint
:
CO
<~NJ
o
CM
1 1
CM
Hi
CRUSTAL
l l
AMM_N03
IZZI
AMM_S04

EC
i i
OMC

SEA_SALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i i
US Anthro
i	i
Mixed
i—i
International

Natural
H
Range

Glide
• •
Impaired Avg
	
5-year Avg

Progress
Figure B-5: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Olympic National Park (WA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-9

-------
-cT
Pasayten Wilderness, WA (PASA1)
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
Prescribed Fires
2028 US Anthro (8%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
NonEGU Pt
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-6: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Pasayten Wilderness (WA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-10

-------
50
40
30
20
10
Alpine Lake Wilderness, WA (SNPA1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (18%)
US Anthro Other
RWC
17.9%
27.7%
Nonpoint
On road
NonEGU Pt
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-7: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Alpine Lake Wilderness (WA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-ll

-------
-cT
30
25
20
15
10
Mount Adams Wilderness, WA (WHPA1)
* * *
O O
cm rsi
i/i o
o2
RWC
2028 US Anthro (8%)
US Anthro Other
On road
NonEGU Pt
Non_point
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-8: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Goat Rocks Wilderness (WA) and Mount Adams Wilderness (WA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-12

-------

•	Desolation Wilderness (CA) and Mokelumne Wilderness
(CA)(BLIS1)
•	Crater Lake National Park (OR), Diamond Peak Wilderness
(OR), Gearhart Mountain Wilderness (OR), and Mountain Lakes
Wilderness (OR)(CRLAl)
•	Kalmiopsis Wilderness (OR)(KALMl)
•	Lava Beds National Monument (CA) and South Warner
Wilderness (CA)(LABE1)
•	Caribou Wilderness (CA), Lassen Volcanic National Park (CA),
and Thousand Lakes Wilderness (CA)(LAV01)
•	Mount Hood Wilderness (0R)(M0H01)
•	Redwood National Park (CA)(REDW1)
•	Mount Jefferson Wilderness (OR), Mount Washington
Wilderness (OR), and Three Sisters Wilderness (OR)(THSIl)
•	Marble Mountain Wilderness (CA) and Yolla Bolly Middle Eel
Wilderness (CA)(TRIN1)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, organic carbon
High sea salt at REDW1
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Generally good performance, with small biases.
Uncertainty in sector contributions
High "mixed" sector contribution percentage (all sites > 59%).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
5-15%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
Nonpoint, nonEGU point, and Residential wood
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling results (including the
estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary
conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-13

-------
30
25
20
15
10
Desolation Wilderness, CA (BLISi)
o o
cm r\i
Lfi o
oS
2028 US Anthro (9%)
Nonpoint
US Anthro Other
On road
RWC
CO
OsJ
o
CM
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-9: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Desolation Wilderness (CA) and Mokelumne Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-14

-------
-cT
30
25
20
15
10
Crater Lake National Park, OR (CRLA1)

i
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (5%)
US Anthro Other
Non_point
NonEGU Pt
I
On road
RWC
CO
r\i
o
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-10: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Crater Lake National Park (OR), Diamond Peak Wilderness (OR), Gearhart Mountain Wilderness (OR), and
Mountain Lakes Wilderness (OR).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-15

-------
- 20
Kalmiopsis Wilderness, OR (KALM1)
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (7%)
RWC
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
CO
r\i
o
r\i
Non_point
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-ll: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Kalmiopsis Wilderness (OR).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-16

-------
-cT
Lava Beds National Monument, CA (LABE1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (6%)
Non point
/ 24.1%
Ant
18.0% \

"\7.8% 1
\ 22.6% /


20.3% y
RWc\ /


—-^NonEGU
EGU
On road
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-12: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Lava Beds National Monument (CA) and South Warner Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-17

-------
35
30
25
£ 20
a 15
*42)
10
II
o o
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA (LAVOl)
Nonpoint
2028 US Anthro (7%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU IPt
EGU
On road
CO
fN
O
r\i
RWC
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-13: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Caribou Wilderness (CA), Lassen Volcanic National Park (CA), and Thousand Lakes Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-18

-------
Mount Hood Wilderness, OR (MOHOl)
= 20
10
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (15%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
On road
NonEGU Pt
RWC
I
CO
fN
O
CM
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-14: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Mount Hood Wilderness (OR).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-19

-------
50
40
30
20
10

o o
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
Redwood National Park, CA (REDW1)
2028 US Anthro (5%)
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
On road
Nonpoint
RWC
CO
r\i
o
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-15: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Redwood National Park (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-20

-------
-cT
O O
r\i cm
U~) Q
o2
Mount Washington Wilderness, OR (THSI1)
2028 US Anthro (9%)
Nonpoint
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
RWC
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-16: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Mount Jefferson Wilderness (OR), Mount Washington Wilderness (OR), and Three Sisters Wilderness (OR).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-21

-------
35
30
25
£ 20
a 15
*0
10
Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness, CA (TRIN1)
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (7%)
Non_point
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
On road
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-17: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Marble Mountain Wilderness (CA) and Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-22

-------
California Coast
•	Pinnacles National Monument [CA] and Ventana Wilderness [CA](PINN1]
•	Point Reyes NS [CA](P0RE1]
•	San Rafael Wilderness [CA](RAFA1]
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM
species contribution to visibility
(on 20% most impaired days)
Sulfate, nitrate, relatively high sea salt
Model visibility performance
summary (on 20% most impaired
days)
Sulfate underpredicted at PINN1 and RAFA1, nitrate underpredicted at
PORE1 and RAFA1, coarse mass underpredicted at RAFA
Uncertainty in sector contributions
High "mixed" sector contribution percentage (49%-67%).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
14-28%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
Nonpoint, nonEGU point, On-road, and Residential wood
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-23

-------
-cT
60
50
40
30
20
10
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
Pinnacles National Monument, CA (PINN1)
2028 US Anthro (22%)
Non_point
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
RWC
:
CO
r\i
o
r\i
On road
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-18: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Pinnacles National Monument (CA) and Ventana Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-24

-------
-cT
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Point Reyes NS, CA (PORE1)
I
I
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
Non_point
2028 US Anthro (28%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
Non road
On road
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
RWC
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-19: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Point Reyes IMS (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-25

-------
San Rafael Wilderness, CA (RAFA1)
20
NonEGU Pt
r\i rsi
Nonpomt
2028 US Anthro (14%)
US Anthro Other
RWC
Non road
I
CO
fN
O
CM
On road
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-20: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at San Rafael Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
B-26

-------
Sierra Nevada
•	Dome Land Wilderness [CA](D0ME1]
•	Hoover Wilderness [CA](HOOVl]
•	Ansel Adams Wilderness (Minarets] (CA], John Muir Wilderness (CA], and Kaiser Wilderness (CA](KAIS1]
•	Kings Canyon National Park [CA] and Sequoia National Park (CA](SEQU1]
Emigrant Wilderness [CA] and Yosemite National Park (CA](Y0SE1]
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM
species contribution to visibility
(on 20% most impaired days)
Sulfate, nitrate
Model visibility performance
summary (on 20% most impaired
days)
Very large sulfate and nitrate underpredictions, except at HOOV1
SEQU1 is the worst performing site in the country (especially large
underprediction of nitrate)
Uncertainty in sector contributions
High "mixed" sector contribution percentage (49%-67%).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
10-26%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
Nonpoint, nonEGU point, On-road, and Residential wood
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-27

-------
-cT
60
50
40
30
20
10
Dome Land Wilderness, CA (DOME1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (12%)
NonEGU Pt
On road
US Anthro Other
Non road
CO
fN
O
r\i
Nonpoint
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-21: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Dome Land Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-28

-------
25
20
15
10
o o
rM rsi
i/i o
o2
Hoover Wilderness, CA (HOOV1)
2028 US Anthro (5%)
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
EGU
Non_point
On road
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-22: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Hoover Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-29

-------
Kaiser Wilderness, CA (KAIS1)
= 20
NonEGU Pt
r\i rsi
Nonpoint
2028 US Anthro (11%)
US Anthro Other
-RWG-
co
fN
O
r\i
On road
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-23: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Ansel Adams Wilderness (Minarets) (CA), John Muir Wilderness (CA), and Kaiser Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
B-30

-------
120
100
Sequoia National Park, CA (SEQU1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
Nonpoint
2028 US Anthro (26%)
US Anthro Other
On road
Non road
RWC
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
Non EG U Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-24: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Kings Canyon National Park (CA) and Sequoia National Park (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-31

-------
-cT
25
20
15
10
5
0
Yosemite National Park, CA (YOSE1)
2028 US Anthro (10%)
NonEGU Pt
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
Nonpoint
US Anthro Other
RWC
CO
r\i
o
r\i
On road
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-25: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Emigrant Wilderness (CA) and Yosemite National Park (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-32

-------
•	c:;i^iiT::'v	i: -Dviiir
•	Agua Tibia Wilderness (CA] [AGTI1]
•	Joshua Tree National Monument [CA](J0SH1]
•	Cucamonga Wilderness [CA] and San Gabriel Wilderness [CA](SAGA1]
•	San Gorgonio Wilderness [CA] and San Jacinto Wilderness [CA](SAG01]
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, nitrate
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Large nitrate underpredictions, except at SAGA1
Sulfate underpredicted at AGTI1
Uncertainty in sector contributions
Relatively high "mixed" sector contribution percentage (44%-59%).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
20-37%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
Nonpoint, nonEGU point, On-road, and Non-road
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-33

-------
Agua Tibia Wilderness, CA (AGTI1)

* 40
2028 US Anthro (20%)
US Anthro Other
On road
Non road
r\i rN
Non_point
NonEGU Pt

i—i
CM

CRUSTAL

AMM_N03
:
AMM_S04

EC
i i
OMC

SEA_SALT
i—i
RAYLEIGH
i t
US Anthro
i	i
Mixed
i—i
International

Natural
H
Range

Glide
• •
Impaired Avg
	
5-year Avg

Progress
Figure B-26: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Agua Tibia Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-34

-------
-cT
60
50
40
30
20
10
Joshua Tree National Monument, CA (JOSH 1)
2028 US Anthro (22%)
Nonpoint
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
NonEGU Pt
18.5%
27.6%
24.5% 21 ¦2/0
US Anthro Other
Non road
On road
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-27: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Joshua Tree National Monument (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-35

-------
60
50
40
30
20
10
San Gabriel Wilderness, CA (SAGA1)
O O
CM Csl
in o
o9
CO
fN
o
CM
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-28: 2011 IMPROVE observations and 2011 CAMx model predictions at Cucamonga Wilderness (CA) and San Gabriel
Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011.
B-36

-------
-cT
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
San Gorgonio Wilderness, CA (SAGOl)
ill
2028 US Anthro (37%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
16.7%
29.4%
24.1%
Non road
On road
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
Non EG U Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-29: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at San Gorgonio Wilderness (CA) and San Jacinto Wilderness (CA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-37

-------
	i:jri'"i"u'r '	,-»o
•	Bridger Wilderness (WY) and Fitzpatrick Wilderness (WY)(BRID1)
•	Cabinet Mountains Wilderness (MT)(CABI1)
•	Gates of the Mountains Wilderness (MT)(GAM01)
•	Glacier National Park (MT)(GLAC1)
•	Bob Marshall Wilderness (MT), Mission Mountains Wilderness (MT), and Scapegoat Wilderness (MT) (MONTI)
•	North Absaroka Wilderness (WY) and Washakie Wilderness (WY)(N0AB1)
•	Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness (MT) and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (MT)(SULA1)
•	Grand Teton National Park (WY), Red Rock Lakes (WY), Teton Wilderness (WY), and Yellowstone National Park (WY)(YELL2)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, organic carbon, nitrate
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Performance generally good
Large nitrate underprediction at YELL2
Uncertainty in sector contributions
High "mixed" sector contribution percentage (>60% at all sites except
MONTI [52%]).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
4-10%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
Residential wood, Nonpoint, nonEGU point, On-road (at YELL2), EGU
and Oil & gas (at BRID1), Prescribed fires (at CABI1)
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-38

-------
25
20
15
10
Bridger Wilderness, WY (BRID1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (8%)
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
Non_point
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
EGll
Oil Gas
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-30: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Bridger Wilderness (WY) and Fitzpatrick Wilderness (WY).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-39

-------
35
30
25
£ 20
a 15
*42)
10
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, MT (CABI1)
II
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (9%)
Prescribed Fires
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
RWC
CO
fN
O
r\i
Nonpoint
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-31: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Cabinet Mountains Wilderness (MT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-40

-------
Gates of the Mountains Wilderness, MT (GAMOl)
10 -
rsi cm
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-32: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Gates of the Mountains Wilderness (MT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011.
B-41

-------
-cT
60
50
40
30
20
10
Glacier National Park, MT (GLAC1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (9%)
US Anthro Other
Rail
Nonpoint
Prescribed Fires
CO
r\i
o
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-33: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Glacier National Park (MT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-42

-------
35
30
25
£ 20
a 15
*42)
Scapegoat Wilderness, MT (MONTI)
10
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
NonEGU Pt
2028 US Anthro (4%)
US Anthro Other
Prescribed Fires
RWC
CO
fN
O
r\i
Nonpoint
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-34: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Bob Marshall Wilderness (MT), Mission Mountains Wilderness (MT), and Scapegoat Wilderness (MT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-43

-------
North Absaroka Wilderness, WY (NOAB1)
10 -
rsi cm
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-35: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at North Absaroka Wilderness (WY) and Washakie Wilderness (WY).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011.
B-44

-------
-cT
30
25
20
15
10
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness, MT (SULA1)
O O
rM rsi
i/i o
o2
2028 US Anthro (5%)
RWC
Nonpoint
US Anthro Other
Ag_Fires
On road
J
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-36: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness (MT) and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (MT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-45

-------
•* 10
Yellowstone National Park, WY (YELL2)
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
Nonpoint
EGU
RWC
I
CO
r\i
o
r\i
On road
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-37: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Grand Teton National Park (WY), Red Rock Lakes (WY), Teton Wilderness (WY), and Yellowstone National
Park (WY).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-46

-------
-v":~	^-iinr
•	Craters of the Moon National Monument [ID](CRM01]
•	Hells Canyon Wilderness [OR](HECAl]
•	Sawtooth Wilderness [ID][SAWT1]
•	Eagle Cap Wilderness [OR] and Strawberry Mountain Wilderness [OR](STARl]
•	Jarbidge Wilderness [NV] (JARB 1]
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Nitrate, sulfate, organic carbon
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Large nitrate underprediction at CRMOl, HECA1, and STAR1
Much smaller nitrate contribution at SAWT1 and JARB1
Uncertainty in sector contributions
High "mixed" sector contribution percentage (>60% at all sites except
HECA1 [52%]).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
12-23% at CRMOl, HECA1, and STAR1
4% at SAWT1 and JARB1
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
Residential wood, Nonpoint, nonEGU point, On-road (largest
component at CRMOl and HECA1)
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-47

-------
Craters of the Moon National Monument, ID (CRMOl)
2028 US Anthro (19%)
US Anthro Other
On road
NonEGU Pt
r\i rN
Nonpoint
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-38: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Craters of the Moon National Monument (ID).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-48

-------
-cT
Hells Canyon Wilderness, OR (HECA1)
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (23%)
On road
Nonpoint
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
RWC
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-39: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Hells Canyon Wilderness (OR).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-49

-------
-cT
30
25
20
15
10
Sawtooth Wilderness, ID (SAWT1)
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (4%)
Nori_point
24.3%
27.8%
US Anthro Other
On road
23.8% 1 16.3%
RWC	I ^ NonEGU Pt
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-40: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Sawtooth Wilderness (ID).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-50

-------
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, OR (STAR1)
- 20
2028 US Anthro (12%)
US Anthro Other
NontGU Pt
On road
r\i rsi
Nonpoint
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-41: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Eagle Cap Wilderness (OR) and Strawberry Mountain Wilderness (OR).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-51

-------
-«? 10
o o
cm cm
l/l Q
o§
Jarbidge Wilderness, NV (JARB1)
2028 US Anthro (4%)
US Anthro Other
Non_point
NonEGU Pt
20.6%
27.4%
12.9%
23.8% I 15.3%
On road
CO
fNj
O
CM
1 1
CM
Hi
CRUSTAL
l l
AMM_N03
IZZI
AMM_S04

EC
i i
OMC

SEA_SALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i t
US Anthro
i	i
Mixed
i—i
International

Natural
H
Range

Glide
• •
Impaired Avg
	
5-year Avg

Progress
Figure B-42: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Jarbidge Wilderness (NV).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-52

-------
•	Great Sand Dunes National Monument [C0](GRSA1]
•	Mount Zirkel Wilderness [CO] and Rawah Wilderness [C0](M0ZI1]
•	Rocky Mountain National Park [CO] (ROMOl]
•	Pecos Wilderness [NM] and Wheeler Peak Wilderness [NM](WHPE1]
Eagles Nest Wilderness [CO], Flat Tops Wilderness [CO], Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness [CO], and West Elk
Wilderness [C0](WHRI1]
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, organic carbon, coarse mass (at GRSA1)
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Sulfate generally underpredicted, organic carbon overpredicted at
ROMOl, coarse mass underpredicted at GRSA1
Uncertainty in sector contributions
High "mixed" sector contribution percentage (>60% at all sites except
ROMOl [49%]).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
10-17%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
EGU, nonEGU point, Oil & gas
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-53

-------
Great Sand Dunes National Monument, CO (GRSA1)

2028 US Anthro (12%)
US Anthro Other
Ag_Fires
On road
cm CM
NonEGU
Oil Gas
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-43: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Great Sand Dunes National Monument (CO).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-54

-------
25
20
15
10
Mount Zirkel Wilderness, CO (MOZI1)
O O
rM rsi
i/i o
o2
2028 US Anthro (13%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
Oil Gas
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-44: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Mount Zirkel Wilderness (CO) and Rawah Wilderness (CO).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-55

-------
£ 20
Rocky Mountain National Park, CO (ROMOl)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (17%)
US Anthro Other
On road
Oil Gas
RWC
]
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-45: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Rocky Mountain National Park (CO).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-56

-------
•* 10
Wheeler Peak Wilderness, NM (WHPE1)
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (10%)
EGU
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
Oil Gas

CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-46: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Pecos Wilderness (NM) and Wheeler Peak Wilderness (NM).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-57

-------
20
15
10
-cT
Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness, CO (WHRI1)
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
ECU
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
NonEGU Pt
17.3%
29.4%
22.1%
14.7%
Nonpoint
On road
Oil Gas
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-47: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Eagles Nest Wilderness (CO), Flat Tops Wilderness (CO), Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness (CO), and
West Elk Wilderness (CO).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-58

-------
Colorado Plateau
•	Bandelier National Monument (NM)(BAND1)
•	Bryce Canyon National Park (UT)(BRCA1)
•	Arches National Park (UT) and Canyonlands National Park (UT)(CANY1)
•	Capitol Reef National Park (UT)(CAPI1)
•	Grand Canyon National Park (AZ)(GRCA2)
•	Mesa Verde National Park (CO)(MEVEl)
•	San Pedro Parks Wilderness (NM)(SAPE1)
•	Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument (CO), La Garita Wilderness (CO), and Weminuche Wilderness (CO)(WEMIl)
Zion National Park (UT)(ZICA1)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, coarse mass, nitrate (at BRCA1, CANY1, and CAPI1)
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Sulfate underpredicted, nitrate severely underpredicted at most sites,
especially BRCA1, CANY1, CAPI1, GRCA2,
Uncertainty in sector contributions
High "mixed" sector contribution percentage (>58% at all sites).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
7-17%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
EGU, nonEGU point, Oil & gas
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-59

-------
-cT
30
25
20
15
10
Bandelier National Monument, NM (BAND1)
h
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (13%)
EGU
Oil Gas
US Anthro Other
Non_point
RWC
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-48: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Bandelier National Monument (NM).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-60

-------
25
20
15
10
Bryce Canyon National Park, UT (BRCA1)
11
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (13%)
EGU
NonEGU Pt
24.5%
28.8%
21.3%
14.3%
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
:
CO
r\i
o
r\i
H
On road
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-49: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Bryce Canyon National Park (UT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-61

-------
-cT
Canyonlands National Park, UT (CANY1)
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (17%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
On road
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
Oil Gas
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-50: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Arches National Park (UT) and Canyonlands National Park (UT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-62

-------
Capitol Reef National Park, UT (CAPI1)
10
NonEGU Pt
r\i rsi
2028 US Anthro (14%)
US Anthro Other
Oil Gas
Non_point
:
CO
fN
O
CM
On road
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-51: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Capitol Reef National Park (UT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
B-63

-------
•* 10
Grand Canyon National Park, AZ (GRCA2)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
NonEGU Pt
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
EGU
Non road
Nonpoint
J
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
On road
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-52: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Grand Canyon National Park (AZ).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-64

-------
-cT
O O
r\i cm
U~) Q
o2
Mesa Verde National Park, CO (MEVE1)
2028 US Anthro (14%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
NonFGlJ Pt
¦o-
]
CO
r\i
o
r\i
Oil Gas
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-53: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Mesa Verde National Park (CO).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-65

-------
•* 10
San Pedro Parks Wilderness, NM (SAPE1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (10%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
On road
NonEGU Pt

CO
fN
O
r\i
Oil Gas
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-54: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at San Pedro Parks Wilderness (NM).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-66

-------
25
20
15
10
Weminuche Wilderness, CO (WEMI1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (7%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
Oil Gas
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-55: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument (CO), La Garita Wilderness (CO), and Weminuche
Wilderness (CO).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-67

-------
30
25
20
15
10
Zion National Park, UT (ZICA1)
O O
CM Csl
IT) O
o9
CO
<-n
o
CM
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-56: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Zion National Park (UT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011.
B-68

-------
;-C?:r"'u '/.n U.tj':¦ ".-i:,				i'Vr ,	'.n	:
•	Mount Baldy Wilderness (AZ)(BALD1)
•	Bosque del Apache (NM)(BOAPl)	•
•	Gila Wilderness (NM)(GICL1)	•
•	Mazatzal Wilderness (AZ) and Pine Mountain Wilderness	•
(AZ)(I KBA1)
•	Petrified Forest National Park (AZ)(PEF01)	•
•	Sierra Ancha Wilderness (AZ)(SIAN1)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness (AZ)(SYCA2)
Superstition Wilderness (AZ)(TONTl)
White Mountain Wilderness (NM)(WHIT1)
Chiricahua National Monument (AZ), Chiricahua Wilderness (AZ),
and Galiuro Wilderness (AZ) (CHIR1)
Saguaro National Monument (AZ) (SAGU1)
20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, coarse mass, nitrate (at BOAP1 and IKBA1)
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Sulfate underpredicted, nitrate severely underpredicted at most sites,
especially Boapl and IKBAl, coarse mass underpredicted
Uncertainty in sector contributions
High "mixed" sector contribution percentage (>58% at all sites).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
7-12%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
EGU, nonEGU point, Oil & gas, and on-road
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-69

-------
Mount Baldy Wilderness, AZ (BALD1)
10
rsi cm
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM N03
I I AMM S04
ec
1=1 OMC
SEA SALT
I I RAYLEIGH
I 1 US Anthro
I I Mixed
I 1 International
A A Glide
# # Impaired Avg
—	5-year Avg
-	- Progress
Figure B-57: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Mount Baldy Wilderness (AZ).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
B-70

-------
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011,
10
Bosque del Apache, NM (BOAP1)
o o
CM CM
1/1 Q
o§
2028 US Anthro (12%)
EGU
Oil Gas
US Anthro Other
RWC
Onroad
NonEGU Pt
CO
fNJ
o
cm
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEA_SALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-58: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Bosque del Apache (NM).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-71

-------
Gila Wilderness, NM (GICL1)
O o
fM rsi
IT) Q
o9
CO
fN
o
r\i
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-59: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Gila Wilderness (NM).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011.
B-72

-------
£ 20
Pine Mountain Wilderness, AZ (IKBA1)
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
On road
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
Non_point
Non road
EGU
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
Non EGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-60: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Mazatzal Wilderness (AZ) and Pine Mountain Wilderness (AZ).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-73

-------
-cT
30
25
20
15
10
Petrified Forest National Park, AZ (PEFOl)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (11%)
US Anthro Other
EGU
On road
Non_point
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-61: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Petrified Forest National Park (AZ).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-74

-------
30
25
20
15
10
Sierra Ancha Wilderness, AZ (SIAN1)
O O
CM Csl
IT) O
o9
CO
fN
o
CM
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-62: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Sierra Ancha Wilderness (AZ).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011.
B-75

-------
35
30
25
£ 20
a 15
*42)
10
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, AZ (SYCA2)
i.
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
Nori_point
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
On road
EGU
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-63: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Sycamore Canyon Wilderness (AZ).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-76

-------
Superstition Wilderness, AZ (TONT1)
= 20
2028 US Anthro (10%)
On road
US Anthro Other
Non road
NonEGU Pt
r\i rsi
Nonpoint
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-64: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Superstition Wilderness (AZ).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-77

-------
35
30
25
£ 20
a 15
*42)
10
White Mountain Wilderness, NM (WHIT1)
O O
rM rsi
i/i o
o2
2028 US Anthro (11%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
CO
r\i
o
r\i
Oil Gas
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-65: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at White Mountain Wilderness (NM).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-78

-------
-cT
Chiricahua National Monument, AZ (CHIR1)
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (7%)
NonEGU Pt
22.4%
25.6%
25.1%
16.6%
US Anthro Other
On road
EGU
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
Oil Gas
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-66: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Chiricahua National Monument (AZ), Chiricahua Wilderness (AZ), and Galiuro Wilderness (AZ).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-79

-------
Saguaro National Monument, AZ (SAGU1)
rsi cm
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-67: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Saguaro National Monument (AZ).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011.
B-80

-------
West Texas
•	Big Bend National Park (TX)(BIBE1)
•	Carlsbad Caverns National Park (TX) and Guadalupe Mountains National Park (TX)(GUM01)
•	Salt Creek (NM)(SACR1)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, coarse mass, nitrate (at SACR1)
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Sulfate and nitrate underpredicted, coarse mass underpredicted (except
overpredicted at SACR1)
Uncertainty in sector contributions
High "mixed" sector contribution percentage (>56% at all sites).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
6-20%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
EGU, nonEGU point, and Oil & gas
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-81

-------
-cT
60
50
40
30
20
10
Big Bend National Park, TX (BIBE1)
2028 US Anthro (6%)
US Anthro Other
EGU
o o
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
22.0%
39.7%
25.5%
Oil Gas
I
CO
fN
O
CM
NonEGU Pt
1 1
CM

CRUSTAL
i i
AMMM03
IZZI
AMMS04

EC
mm
OMC

SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i i
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
IZZI
International

Natural
H
Range

Glide
• •
Impaired Avg
	
5-year Avg

Progress
Figure B-68: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Big Bend National Park (TX).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-82

-------
-cT
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Guadalupe Mountains National Park, TX (GUMOl)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (11%)
US Anthro Other
EGU
Oil Gas
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-69: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Carlsbad Caverns National Park (TX) and Guadalupe Mountains National Park (TX).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-83

-------
-cT
O O
r\i cm
U~) Q
o2
Salt Creek, NM (SACR1)
2028 US Anthro (20%)
Oil Gas
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
EGU
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-70: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Salt Creek (NM).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-84

-------
Northern Great Plains
•	Badlands National Park (SD)(BADL1)
•	Lostwood (ND)(LOSTl)
•	Medicine Lake (MT)(MELA1)
•	Theodore Roosevelt National Park (ND)(THR01)
•	ULBend (MT)(ULBE1)
•	Wind Cave National Park (SD)(WICA1)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, nitrate
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Sulfate underpredicted, nitrate overpredicted
Uncertainty in sector contributions
High "mixed" sector contribution percentage (63%-68% except 47% at
WICA1 and 54% at BADL1).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
18-19% except 9% at ULBE1
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
EGU, Oil & gas, and nonEGU point
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-85

-------
-cT
Badlands National Park, SD (BADL1)
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (19%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
Ag_Fires
Oil Gas
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-71: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Badlands National Park (SD).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-86

-------
Lostwood, ND (LOST1)
rsi cm
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-72: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Lostwood (ND).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011.
B-87

-------
Medicine Lake, MT (MELA1)
-cT
2028 US Anthro (18%)
US Anthro Other
Oi Gas
NonEGU Pt
r\i rsi
EGU
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-73: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Medicine Lake (MT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-88

-------
£ 40
Theodore Roosevelt National Park, ND (THROl)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (18%)
Oil Gas
US Anthro Other
]
Rail
NonEGU Pt
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-74: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Theodore Roosevelt National Park (ND).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-89

-------
-cT
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
UL Bend, MT (ULBE1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (9%)
EGU
Oil Gas
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
RWC
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-75: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at UL Bend (MT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-90

-------
-cT
Wind Cave National Park, SD (WICA1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (18%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
Rail
Oil Gas
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
NonEGU Pt
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-76: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Wind Cave National Park (SD).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution,
B-91

-------
•	Caney Creek Wilderness (AR)(CACR1)
•	Hercules-Glades Wilderness (M0)(HEGL1)
•	Upper Buffalo Wilderness (AR)(UPBU1)
•	Wichita Mountains (0K)(WIM01)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, nitrate
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Sulfate underpredicted, nitrate underpredicted at HEGL1 and WIMOl
Uncertainty in sector contributions
Relatively low "mixed" sector contribution percentage (26%-44%).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
30-47%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
EGU, nonEGU point, and Oil & gas
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-92

-------
120
100
80
60
40
20
Caney Creek Wilderness, AR (CACR1)
2028 US Anthro (42%)
EGU / 45i6o/o
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
20.3%
24.9%
US Anthro Other
Oil Gas
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-77: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Caney Creek Wilderness (AR).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-93

-------
140
Hercules-Glades Wilderness, MO (HEGL1)
E 80
2028 US Anthro (47%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
On road
r\i rsi
NoriEGll Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-78: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Hercules-Glades Wilderness (MO).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-94

-------
120
100
Upper Buffalo Wilderness, AR (UPBU1)
2028 US Anthro (39%)
US Anthro Other
Non point
Oil Gas
r\i rsi
Non EG U Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-79: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Upper Buffalo Wilderness (AR).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-95

-------
100
Wichita Mountains, OK (WIMOl)
£
40
o o
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (30%)
Oil Gas
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-80: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Wichita Mountains (OK).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-96

-------
Boundary Waters
•	Boundary Waters Canoe Area (M N)(BOWAl)
•	Isle Royale National Park (MI)(ISLE1)
•	Seney (MI)(SENE1)
•	Voyageurs National Park (MN)(VOYA2)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, nitrate
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Performance generally good
Uncertainty in sector contributions
Relatively low "mixed" sector contribution percentage (31%-35%).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
41-50%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
NonEGU point, EGU, and RWC
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-97

-------
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, MN (BOWA1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (41%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
15.7%
29.9%
10.9%
21.4% 112.7%
On road
Nonpoint
:
CO
fN
O
r\i
RWC
1 1
CM

CRUSTAL
i i
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04

EC
mm
OMC

SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i i
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
IZZI
International

Natural
H
Range
"A—A-
Glide
• •
Impaired Avg
—
5-year Avg

Progress
Figure B-81: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Boundary Waters Canoe Area (MN).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
B-98

-------
-cT
Isle Royale National Park, Ml (ISLE1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (42%)
NonEGU Pt
24.3%
27.5%
22.8%
13.9%
US Anthro Other
Non_point
I
CO
r\i
o
r\i
RWC
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-82: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Isle Royale National Park (Ml).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-99

-------
120
100
Seney, Ml (SENE1)
£
St
J
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (50%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
16.3%
29.6%
22.9% 12.0%
On road
Nonpoint

CO
fN
O
r\i
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEA SALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-83: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Seney (Ml).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-100

-------
Voyageurs National Park, MN (VOYA2)
rsi cm
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-84: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Voyageurs National Park (MN).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011.
B-101

-------
•	Cohutta Wilderness [GA] (COHU1]
•	Dolly Sods Wilderness [WV] and Otter Creek Wilderness [WV](D0S01]
•	Great Smoky Mountains National Park [TN] and Joyce-Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness [TN](GRSM1]
•	James River Face Wilderness [VA](JARI1]
•	Linville Gorge Wilderness [NC](LIG01]
•	Shenandoah National Park [VA](SHEN1]
•	Shining Rock Wilderness [NC](SHR01]
•	Sipsey Wilderness [AL](SIPS1]
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Dominated by sulfate, smaller amount of organic carbon
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Performance generally good, but sulfate underpredicted
Uncertainty in sector contributions
Relatively low "mixed" sector contribution percentage (26%-34%).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
42-54%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
EGU and nonEGU point
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-102

-------
100
80
T 60
-= 40
20
Cohutta Wilderness, GA (COHU1)

¦ •
II
O O
rM rsi
i/i o
o2
EGU
2028 US Anthro (42%)
US Anthro Other
11.2%
Non_point
:
CO
fN
O
CM
NonEGU Pt
1 1
CM

CRUSTAL
i i
AMMM03
IZZI
AMMS04

EC
mm
OMC

SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i i
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
IZZI
International

Natural
H
Range

Glide
• •
Impaired Avg
	
5-year Avg

Progress
Figure B-85: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Cohutta Wilderness (GA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
B-103

-------
180
160
140
120
I 100
t 80
60
40
20
0
Dolly Sods Wilderness, WV (DOSOl)
"2f)2S. Anthro (53%)
	
US Antfiro Other ¦
EGU
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
17.9%
54.5%
I
NonEGU Pt
CO
fN
O
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-86: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Dolly Sods Wilderness (WV) and Otter Creek Wilderness (WV).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-104

-------
200
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, TN (GRSM1)
150
g
St
J
100
	 2028 US Anthro (49%)
U5 ArrtbrnQtlaer
O O
rM rsi
1/1 o
o2
Non_point
i
CO
r\i
o
r\i
NoriEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-87: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Great Smoky Mountains National Park (TN) and Joyce-Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness (TN).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-105

-------
180
160
140
120
I 100
t 80
60
40
20
0
James River Face Wilderness, VA (JARI1)
"2028-US. £n thro (46%)
27.1%
r\i rsi
US Anthro Other
Non_point
1
CO
r\i
o
r\i
NoriEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-88: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at James River Face Wilderness (VA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-106

-------
£ 100
rf 80
Linville Gorge Wilderness, NC (LIGOl)
. , 2028 US Anthro (44%)
	-US-Aetbra Other
O O
rM rsi
i/i o
o2
Nonpoint
1
CO
r\i
o
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-89: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Linville Gorge Wilderness (NC).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-107

-------
£ 100
rf 80
Shenandoah National Park, VA (SHEN1)
2028 US Anthro (47%)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
22.7%
28.0%
US Aril fin!? ©the*	
EGU 49.3%
f
NonEGU Pt
CO
r\i
o
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-90: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Shenandoah National Park (VA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-108

-------
Shining Rock Wilderness, NC (SHROl)
£ 50
i 40
rsi cm
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-91: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Shining Rock Wilderness (NC).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011.
B-109

-------
Sipsey Wilderness, AL (SIPS1)
g
St
J
2028 US Anthro (54%)
US Anthro Other
Mon point
CM CM
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-92: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Sipsey Wilderness (AL).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-110

-------
•	Mammoth Cave National Park (KY)(MACA1)
•	Mingo (MO)(MINGl)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Sulfate, nitrate
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Performance generally good, but sulfate underpredicted
Uncertainty in sector contributions
Low "mixed" sector contribution percentage (22%-25%).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
53-61%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
EGU, and nonEGU point
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-lll

-------
200
Mammoth Cave National Park, KY (MACA1)
150
g
St
J
100
2028 US Anthro (61%)
US Anthro Other
Nori_point
r\i rsi
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-93: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Mammoth Cave National Park (KY).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-112

-------
120
100 -
Mingo, MO (MING1)
H
r\i rsi
2028 US Anthro (53%)
US Anthro Other
RWC
]
Nonpoint
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-94: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Mingo (MO).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution,
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
B-113

-------
¦"'I..:::-".;: -J,"
•	Breton (LA)(BRIS1)
•	Chassahowitzka (FL)(CHAS1)
•	Everglades National Park (FL)(EVER1)
•	Okefenokee (GA) and Wolf Island (GA)(OKEFl)
•	Cape Romain (SC)(ROMAl)
•	St. Marks (FL)(SAMA1)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Dominated by sulfate, smaller amount of organic carbon
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Performance generally good, but sulfate underpredicted
Uncertainty in sector contributions
Relatively low "mixed" sector contribution percentage (36%-46%)
except very high at EVER1 (80%).
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
32-43% except 9% at EVER1
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
EGU, nonEGU point, nonpoint (at EVER1)
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-114

-------
120
100 -
Breton, LA (BRIS1)
H
NonEGU Pt
r\i rsi
2028 US Anthro (42%)
US Anthro Other
Noripoint
3
CO
fN
O
r\i
EGU
1 1
CM

CRUSTAL
i i
AMMM03
i=i
AMMS04

EC
mm
OMC

SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i i
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
IZZI
International

Natural
H
Range

Glide
• •
Impaired Avg
	
5-year Avg

Progress
Figure B-95: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Breton (LA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
B-115

-------
120
100
Chassahowitzka, FL (CHAS1)
g
St
J
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
EGU
2028 US Anthro (32%)
US Anthro Other
Non_point
17.3%
42.5%
27.1%
]
CO
fN
O
r\i
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-96: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Chassahowitzka (FL).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-116

-------
-cT
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
o o
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
Everglades National Park, FL (EVER1)
2028 US Anthro (9%)
NonEGU Pt
Non_point
24.0%
24.5%
17.6%
US Anthro Other
W
I
CO
fN
O
r\i
EGU
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-97: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Everglades National Park (FL).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-117

-------
140
120
100
£ 80
Okefenokee, GA (OKEF1)
J
60
40
20
EGU
2028 US Anthro (41%)
US Anthro Other
Non_point
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
J
CO
r\i
o
r\i
NoriEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-98: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Okefenokee (GA) and Wolf Island (GA).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-118

-------
140
Cape Romain, SC (ROMA1)
E 80
2028 US Anthro (43%)
US Anthro Other
Non point
CM CM
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-99: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Cape Romain (SC).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-119

-------
100
80
T 60
-= 40
20
St. Marks, FL (SAMA1)

:[
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
EGU
2028 US Anthro (34%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
NonEGU Pt
:
CO
r\i
o
r\i
1 1
CM

CRUSTAL
i i
AMMM03
IZZI
AMMS04

EC
mm
OMC

SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i i
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
IZZI
International

Natural
H
Range

Glide
• •
Impaired Avg
	
5-year Avg

Progress
Figure B-100: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at St. Marks (FL).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
B-120

-------
•	Brigantine (NJ)(BRIG1)
•	Swanquarter (NC)(SWAN1)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Dominated by sulfate, smaller amounts of organic carbon and nitrate
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Performance generally good, but sulfate underpredicted
Uncertainty in sector contributions
Relatively low "mixed" sector contribution percentage (29%-38%)
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
38-51%
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
EGU, nonEGU point, and nonpoint
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-121

-------
g
St
J
Brigantine, NJ (BRIG1)
2028 US Anthro (51%)
NonEGU Pt
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
EGU
US Anthro Other

RWC
CO
r\i
o
r\i
Nonpoint
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-101: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Brigantine (NJ).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-122

-------
100
Swanquarter, NC (SWANi)
24.4%
32.3%
29.4%
NonEGU Pt
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (38%)
US Anthro Other
]
Non_point
CO
fN
O
r\i
1 1
CM

CRUSTAL
i i
AMMM03
IZZI
AMMS04

EC
mm
OMC

SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i i
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
IZZI
International

Natural
H
Range

Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
—
5-year Avg

Progress
Figure B-102: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Swanquarter (NC).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
A glidepoth could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in the 2000-2004 baseline period.
B-123

-------
Northeast
•	Acadia National Park (ME)(ACAD1)
•	Great Gulf Wilderness (NH) and Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness (NH)(GRGU1)
•	Lye Brook Wilderness (VT)(LYEB1)
•	Moosehorn (ME) and Roosevelt Campobello International Park (ME)(MOOSl)
Regional visibility model performance and contribution summary on the 20% most impaired days
Most important ambient PM species
contribution to visibility (on 20% most
impaired days)
Dominated by sulfate, smaller amount of organic carbon
Model visibility performance summary
(on 20% most impaired days)
Performance generally good, but sulfate underpredicted
Uncertainty in sector contributions
Relatively high "mixed" sector contribution percentage (57%-65%) at
ACAD1 and MOOS1, relatively low (30-34%) at GRGU1 and LYEB1.
2028 US anthropogenic percent
contribution
16-22% at ACAD1 and MOOS1, 30-40% at GRGU1 and LYEB1
Largest US anthropogenic sector
contributions
NonEGU point, EGU, nonpoint, and RWC
Due to uncertainties in the modeling, the 2028 regional haze results should be used with caution. In particular, the modeling
results (including the estimated 2028 US anthropogenic contributions) are most uncertain at sites with poor visibility model
performance and/or high "mixed" (boundary conditions, fugitive dust, offshore, and secondary organics) contributions.
B-124

-------
100
Acadia National Park, ME (ACAD1)
£
40
O O
rM rsi
l/l Q
o2
2028 US Anthro (22%)
NonEGU Pt
EGU
US Anthro Other
fflve
:
CO
r\i
o
r\i
Nonpoirit
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-103: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Acadia National Park (ME).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-125

-------
Great Gulf Wilderness, NH (GRGU1)

2028 US Anthro (30%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
r\i rsi
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-104: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Great Gulf Wilderness (NH) and Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness (NH).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-126

-------
120
100
Lye Brook Wilderness, VT (LYEB1)
g
St
J
O O
rM rsi
1/1 o
o2
2028 US Anthro 140%}-	
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
RWC
Non_point
:
CO
r\i
o
r\i
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-105: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Lye Brook Wilderness (VT).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-127

-------
Moosehorn, ME (MOOS1)
-cT
2028 US Anthro (16%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
Non point
r\i rsi
EGU
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure B-106: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Moosehorn (ME) and Roosevelt Campobello International Park (ME).
This figure reflects EPA's initial 2028 regional haze modeling that contains a number of uncertainties such that the results
should be used with caution.
B-128

-------
Appendix C
"Range" calculation details
C-l

-------
Boundary condition tagged extinction is particularly influential in visibility calculations at
IMPROVE sites. IMPROVE sites are remote and have relatively few proximate large
anthropogenic sources, so sources like wind-blown dust and boundary conditions can be
important. Natural wind-blown dust is missing from the 2011/2028 CAMx modeling platform
and modeled boundary conditions were held constant from 2011 to 2028. These, and other
modeling artifacts, create uncertainty in the future projection and fractional tags in the future.
The RRF approach and fractional tagging employed here have the effect of extrapolating
present day bias correction to future tags. Equation C1-C4 illustrate the steps in this analysis of
projection using RRF (Eq CI), conversion to species-specific extinction (Eq C2), concentration
proportional source attribution (Eq C3), and its net effect of bias correction in future extinction.
Thus, the future tagged extinction effectively assumes that relative bias in the present (Op/Vp,)
reflects a proportional underestimation of all sources, and that the future bias is expected to be
similar.
®Fi = 0PiRRFi = 0Pi —
YPi
bFi = aiOFi
1 _ 7 (t ^Fi~ YFis\ _ , Ypis
b>Fis ~ b>Fi I 1	) — bFi ——
\	rFi '	YFi
u	^ YFi YFis	^ 0Pi
®Fis ~ aiUpi v v — aiiFis v
xPi xFi	xPi
Where:
0 is observed concentration, Zis predicted concentration, b is extinction
Subscripts F is future, P is present, /' is species, and s is source tag, 0, Yare
observations and model predictions
o/ is the species-specific IMPROVE factor for the future
Eq CI
Eq C2
Eq C3
Eq C4
The proportional bias correction has implications that are specific to artifacts in our
modeling. For example, at sites heavily impacted by wind-blown dust, the proportional bias
correction could be growing all sources to correct for the missing source. This is because the
observed dust is likely from a combination of natural and anthropogenic sources, but the only
modeled source of dust is anthropogenic (i.e., the model does not include wind-blown dust).
Therefore, the projection methodology "grows" (see Eq. C4) the impacts of anthropogenic dust.
Additionally, at all sites, boundary conditions were held constant and so biases in the present
are being directly projected to the future. We use two alternative projections to bound the
projected future extinction values, assuming that: (1) the present day simulated boundary
C-2

-------
conditions should not be grown to account for bias or (2) that bias corrected boundary
conditions will reduce by 50 percent between 2011 and 2028.
(1)	In this scenario, the boundary conditions are set to their future simulated value (Ypis)
(and are not bias corrected). The remaining fraction of extinction (1 -Op/Vp,) is
removed from the future projection. This approximates a case where bias correction
of boundary conditions was substituting for a missing controllable source.
(2)	In this scenario, the boundary conditions are bias corrected (Eq C4) and then
reduced by 50%. Holding the boundary conditions constant between 2011 and 2028
assumes emission sources that influence the boundaries are either constant or their
change is not expected to be important. All sources are expected to change (in some
way) in the future, but particularly international and off-shore. Trans-continental
pollution may be decreasing due to a combination of emission controls (van der A et
al. 2017) and transport patterns (Lin et al. 2014). Off-shore marine emissions are
expected to decrease due to implementation of the North American Emission
Control Area (NA ECA) that has been shown to correlate with observed sulfate
decreases at IMPROVE monitors (Kotchenruther et al. 2017). To account for
unknown decreases in extra-domain emissions, we use a simple assumption that
50% of the RRF adjusted boundary condition will be removed in the future.
Considering these two alternative cases provides three possible projected extinction
values. The range represents all three possible values. There are alternative possible projections
and these should be considered.
References
Kotchenruther, R.A., 2017. The effects of marine vessel fuel sulfur regulations on
ambient PM2.5 at coastal and near coastal monitoring sites in the U.S. Atmospheric
Environment 151, 52-61. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.12.012
Lin, M., Horowitz, L.W., Oltmans, S.J., Fiore, A.M., Fan, S., 2014. Tropospheric ozone
trends at Mauna Loa Observatory tied to decadal climate variability. Nature Geoscience 7, 136-
143. doi:10.1038/ngeo2066
van der A, R.J., Mijling, B., Ding, J., Koukouli, M.E., Liu, F., Li, Q., Mao, H., Theys, N., 2017.
Cleaning up the air: effectiveness of air quality policy for SO2 and NOx emissions in China.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 17,1775-1789. doi:10.5194/acp-17-1775-2017
C-3

-------
Appendix D
Emissions Summary by Sector 2011 and 2028
D-l

-------
tag# tag name
2011el Base Case (tons per year)
NH3 NOX	PM2.5 S02 VOC
1
Biogenics

1,690,559


68,816,532
0
1,690,559
0
0
68,816,532
2
Area source
fugitive dust


923,590




1,041,531


3
Agriculture
ammonia*
3,520,078




3,610,183




4
Commercial
Marine-onshore*
232
414,099
18,124
91,209
12,584
237
234,994
6,392
7,649
13,249
5
Non-point *
94,225
719,546
403,887
275,915
3,671,736
94,578
733,131
427,652
95,817
3,452,106
6
Onroad mobile*
120,859
5,708,150
188,925
28,195
2,713,181
82,339
1,294,105
64,138
11,637
733,952
7
Nonroad mobile*
2,615
1,620,441
154,052
4,011
2,049,504
3,426
743,790
66,807
2,487
1,140,497
8
Nonpoint and
Point oil and gas*
5,947
1,176,902
30,268
83,814
2,648,051
5,951
1,221,453
45,550
131,672
2,320,496
9
EGUs*
25,066
2,095,119
208,134
4,670,569
38,063
44,033
827,546
127,329
1,116,509
30,866
10
Wildfires
167,331
165,799
850,662
82,691
2,374,690
167,331
165,799
850,662
82,691
2,374,690
11
Fires in Mexico
and Canada
161,999
167,599
848,892
83,082
2,313,404
161,999
167,599
848,892
83,082
2,313,404
12
Prescribed fires*
28,280
44,537
167,516
13,608
395,801
28,280
44,537
167,516
13,608
395,801
13
Agricultural fires*
3,315
46,021
101,345
17,752
80,514
3,315
46,021
101,345
17,752
80,514
14
Point non-EGU
sources*
65,990
1,213,359
320,737
1,049,287
800,826
66,205
1,211,347
327,466
799,340
805,074
15	Rail*
Residential Wood
16	Combustion*
Canada and
17	Mexico
18	Offshore
* US
anthropogenic
347 791,380 23,963 7,936 40,851
19,745 34,508 381,914 8,964 443,014
532,125 1,851,236 370,048 1,102,930 1,805,184
189 1,096,992 39,667 259,586
88,628
2028el Future Case (tons per year)
NH3 NOX PM2.5 S02 VOC
379 459,501 9,864
18,089 34,814 352,453
367 17,067
7,526 403,145
529,151 1,599,819 387,451 980,958 1,790,593
189 950,907 15,892 60,756 114,454
2011 to 2028 US Anthropogenic Emissions Change +1.7% -50.1% -11.3% -64.0% -23.6%
D-2

-------
Appendix E
Example Sector Tag Spatial Maps
The following plots show examples of the "raw" modeled CAMx PSAT sector tag outputs. Two
example maps are presented for each sector tag. The plots represent modeled monthly
average PM species concentrations for a single month and a single PM species. The month and
species were chosen to represent the time of the year (either January or July) and species
(sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, or coarse mass) when each respective sector has a relatively
large contribution to PM. There may be other months of the year and/or species which have
larger (or at least sizable) contributions.
E-l

-------
Tag 1- Biogenics
Tag 1 Biogenics Jan Nitrate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
>0.40
0.15
<0.05
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.625 at (35/119)
data = [3]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_llg_tag001. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyauf. n cf. 01
Figure E-l January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from biogenics.
Tag 1 Biogenics Jan Sulfate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
>0.40
<0.05
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.228 at (394,81)
data = [3]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_llg_tag001. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyaug. n cf. 01
Figure E-2 January 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in ug/m3) from biogenics.
E-2

-------
Tag 2- Fugitive Dust
Tag 2 Fugitive Dust Jan Coarse
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
<1.00
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 79.617 at (125,69)
data = [9]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_i/ 6_llg_tag002. PM.12 US2 25.monthlyaujj. n cf. 01
Figure E-3 January 2028 monthly average coarse mass contribution (in ug/m3) from fugtive
dust.
Tag 2 Fugitive Dust July Coarse
7/1/201112:00:00 AM

-------
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
Tag 3- Agricultural ammonia
Tag 3 Ag Ammonia Jan NH4
	1/1/201112:00:00 AM
>2.00
I™ 0.50
<0,25
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 1.367 at (288,145)
data = [7]2028el_s ecsa_cb6r4_v6_lli*_tag003. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyavg. n cf. 01
Figure E-5 January 2028 monthly average ammonium contribution (in ug/m3) from ag
ammonia.
Tag 3 Ag Ammonia July NH4
7/1/201112:00:00 AM
>2.00
1.75
150
1.25
1.00
10.50
c0.25
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Ma* = 0.687 at (282,122)
data = [10]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llgr_tag003. PM.120S2_25.monthlyavgr.ncf.07
Figure E-6 July 2028 monthly average ammonium contribution (in ug/m3) from ag ammonia.
E-4

-------
Tag 4- Commercial marine vessels (CMV)- onshore
Tag 4 CMV Jan Nitrate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
H = 0.40
0.35
10.20
0.15
0.10
=0.05
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Ma* = 0.428 at (251,45)
data = [lll2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_llg_tag004.PM.12US2_25.monthlyaYij.ncf. 01
Figure E-7 Jariuay 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from CMV.
Tag 4 CMV July Sulfate
	7/1/201112:00:00 AM	
>0.40
0.35
=0.05
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Man = 0.496 at (32,240)
data = [8]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_llg_tag004.PM.12US2_25.monthlyaug.ncf.07
Figure E-8 July 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in ug/m3) from CMV.
E-5

-------
1
Figure E-9 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from non-
point.
Tag 5 Nonpoint July Sulfate
7/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Ma* = 0.541 at (280,91)
data = [13]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llj»_tag005.PM.12US2_25.monthlyavj*.ncf.07
Figure E-10 July 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in ug/m3) from non-
point.
Tag 5 Nonpoint Jan Nitrate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
H = 0.40
0.35
0.20
0.15
0.10
=0.05
Tag 5- Non-point
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Ma* = 0.877 at (361,163)
data = [12]2028el_setsa_cb6r4_v6_llg_tag005.PM.12US2_25.monthlyavff.ncf.01
E-6

-------
Tag 6- On-road mobile
Tag £ Onroad Jan POA
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
¦ / r
=0.05
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Ma* = 0.391 at (40,99)
data = [14]202Bel_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llff_tag006.PM.12US2_25.monthlifavff.ncf.01
Figure E-ll January 2028 monthly average primary organic carbon contribution (in
ug/m3) from on-road mobile.
Tag 6 Onroad Jan Nitrate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
>0.40

=0.05
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.821 at (35,121)
data = [14)2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llff_tag006.PM.12US2_25.monthliravff.ncf.01
Figure E-12 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from on-
road mobile.
E-7

-------
Tag 7- Non-road mobile
Tag 7 Nonraad Jan Nitrate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Ma* = 0.628 at (36,121)
data = [16]202Bel_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llff_tag007.PM.12US2_25.monthlifavff.ncf.01
Figure E-13 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from non-
road mobile.
Tag 7 Nonroad July POA
7/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.742 at (44,228)
data = [17]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_llj»_tag007.PM.12US2_25.monthliraiij*.ncf.07
Figure E-14 July 2028 monthly average primary organic carbon contribution (in
ug/mB) from non-road mobile.
E-8

-------
Tag 8 Nonpoint and point oil & gas
data =
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.451 at (152,140)
[18]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_ir6_llg_tag008.PM.12US2_25.monthlyaug.ncf.01
Tag 3 Oil and Gas Jan Nitrate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
l >0.40
0.35
Figure E-15 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/rn3) from oil and
gas point and nonpoint.
Tag 8 Oil and Gas Jan Sulfate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.634 at (126,135)
data = [lB]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_llg_tag008. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyavg. n cf. 01
Figure E-16 January 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in ug/m3) from oil and
gas point and nonpoint.
E-9

-------
Tag 9 Electric generating units (EGU)
Tag 9 EGU Jan Nitrate
	1/1/201112:00:00 AM
>0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
<0.05
data =
Min = 0.00 E+O at (1,1), Max = 0.472 at (274,124)
[20]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_llg_tag009. PM.12 US2_25.monthly a vg. n cf. 01
Figure E-17 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from electric
generating units,
Tag 9 EGU July Sulfate
7/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 EtO at (1,1), Ma* = 2.054 at (282,122)
data = [21]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_lljf_tag009. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyavg. n cf. 0 7
Figure E-18 July 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in ug/m3) from electric
generating units.
E-10

-------
4.00
3.00
12.00
B <1.00
Figure E-19 January 2028 monthly average primary organic carbon contribution (in
ug/m3) from U.S. wildfires.
Tag 10 Wildfires July POA
	7/1/201112:00:00 AM	
>0.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
<1.00
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Man = 41.473 at (43,120)
data = [23]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llg_tag010. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyavg. n cf. 0 7
Figure E-20 July 2028 monthly average primary organic carbon contribution (in ug/m3)
from U.S. wildfires.
Tag 10 U.S Wildfires
Tag 10 Wildfires Jan POA
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
>8.00
data =
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Ma* = 6.133 at (225,41)
[22]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_ll£_ta£t)10. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyaug. n tf. 01
E-ll

-------
1.500
L250
LOGO
0.750
Tag 11 Prescribed Fires
Tag 11 Prescribed Fires Jan POA
	1/1/201112:00:00 AM	
¦ >2.00
® 1.75
10.50
<0.25
10.500
<0.250
Min = 0.00 E+O at (1,1), Max = 3.780 at (243,40)
data = [25]2028el_secsa _cb6r4_u6_llif_tag011. PM.12 US2 25.monthlyaug. n cf. 0 7
data
Mill = 0.00 E+O at (1,1), Ma* = 7.482 at (255,43)
[24]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llg_tag011. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyav£. n cf. 01
Figure E-21 January 2028 monthly average primary organic carbon contribution (in
ug/mB) from U.S. prescribed fires.
Tag 11 Prescribed Fires July POA
	7/1/201112:00:00 AM	
>2.000
1.750
Figure E-22 July 2028 monthly average primary organic carbon contribution (in ug/m3)
from U.S. prescribed fires.
E-12

-------
Wildfires- Mexico and Canada
7/1/201112:00:00 AM
Tag 12
data =
Tag 12 Wildfire- Mexico/Canada July POA
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 178.658 at (230,243)
[27]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llff_tag012. PM.12 US2_25.monthlya«f. n cf. 0 7
=2.00
=:0.25
Figure E-23 July 2028 monthly average primary organic carbon contribution (in ug/m3)
from wildfires in Mexico and Canada.
Tag 12 Wildfire- Mexico/Canada Jan POA
	1/1/201112:00:00 AM	
>2.000
1.750
1500
1*250
1.000
0.750
0.500
c0.250
Figure E-24 January 2028 monthly average primary organic carbon contribution (in
ug/m3) from wildfires in Mexico and Canada.
data
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Man = 0.443 at (164,15)
[26]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_llg_tag012. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyaug. n cf .01
E-13

-------
Tag 13 Agricultural Fires
Tag 13 Ag Fires July POA
7/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 1.029 at (212,140)
data = [29]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llff_tag013. PM.12 0S2_25.monthlyavg. n cf.0 7
10.15
0.10
.-n.ns
Figure E-25 July 2028 monthly average primary organic carbon contribution (in ug/m3)
from U.S. agricultural fires.
Tag 13 Ag Fires Jan POA
	1/1/201112:00:00 AM	
l >0.40
Figure E-26 January 2028 monthly average primary organic carbon contribution (in
ug/m3) from U.S. agricultural fires.
data
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.037 at (44,209)
[28]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llg_tag013. PM.12 US2_25.monthljFaug. n cf .01
E-14

-------
Tag 14 NonEGU Point
Tag 14 NonEGU Point Jan Nitrate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.670 at (291,148)
data = [30]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_llg_tag014.PM.120S2_25.monthlyavg.ncf.01
Figure E-27 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from nonEGU
point sources.
Tag 14 NonEGU Point July Sulfate
7/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Ma* = 1.335 at (267,154)
data = [31]2028el_setsa_cb6r4_if6_ll£_tag014. PM.120S2_25.monthlyairg. n cf. 0 7
Figure E-28 July 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in ug/m3) from nonEGU
point sources.
E-15

-------
Tag 15 Rail
Tag 15 Rail Jan Nitrate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM

>0.40
=0.05
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.299 at (227,129)
data = [32]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_u6_llg_tag015. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyairff. n tf. 01
Figure E-29 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from rail.
Tag 15 Rail July EC
	7/1/201112:00:00 AM	
h-J
/ / ^
"Tr—

f

i w \
V* \ /
i \l
J 		hA J \ 7 J
t h	VVrrVV
4

n

i
T—
y~y f
xi

v

V
r~

I
>0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
<0.05
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 0.126 at (175,147)
data = [33]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_ll£_ta£015. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyavff.ncf. 07
Figure E-30 July 2028 monthly average elemental carbon contribution (in ug/m3) from
rail.
E-16

-------
Tag 16 Residential wood combustion
data =
Tag 16 RWCJan POA
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 14.210 at (71,183)
[34]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_ir6_llg_tag016. PM.12 0S2_25.monthly a vs. n cf. 01
>2.00
1-75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
<0.25
Figure E-31 January 2028 monthly average primary organic carbon contribution (in
ug/m3) from residential wood combustion.
Tag 16 RWCJan EC
	1/1/201112:00:00 AM
Li

I
J
rr
>2.00

i -Mfy).
sO.25
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Ma* = 0.881 at (71,183)
data = [34]2028elsecsacb6r4u6 11gtagO16. PM.12US2 25.monthlyavg. n cf. 01
Figure E-32 January 2028 monthly average elemental carbon contribution (in ug/m3)
from residential wood combustion.
E-17

-------
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
Tag 17 Canada and Mexico (anthropogenic)
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
Tag 17 Canada/Mexico Jan Nitrate
10.100
<0.050
P 0.400
0.350
data
Mill = 0.00E+0 at (1,1), Man = 1.172 at (347,201)
[36l2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llg_tag017. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyaug. n cf. 01
Figure E-33 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from Mexico
and Canada.
7/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Ma* = 4.000 at (317,177)
data = [37]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llg_tasO17. PM.12 US2_25.monthlyavg. n cf. 0 7
Tag 17 Canada/Mexico July Sulfate
Figure E-34 July 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in ug/m3) from Mexico and
Canada.
E-18

-------
Tag 18 Offshore (commercial marine and offshore oil and gas)
Tag 18 Offshore Jan Nitrate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
>0.40
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Man = 0.502 at (40,97)
data = [30]202eel_secsa_cb6r4_v6_llf_tag018. PM.12 US2_25.monthlvauj. n cf.01
Figure E-35 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/rn3) from offshore
emissions.
Tag IS Offshore July Sulfate
	7/1/201112:00:00 AM	
>0.40
H
jU
\
7:
A
:0.05
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Man = 0.341 at (49,40)
data = [39]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_ir6_ll£_tag018. PM.12 US2_25.monthlya«f. n tf. 0 7
Figure E-36 July 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in ug/m3) from offshore
emissions.
E-19

-------
Tag 19 Initial and Boundary Conditions
Tag IC/BC ian Nitrate
1/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 6.946 at (152,245)
data = [41]2028el_secsa_cb6r4_ir6_llE_tagicbc. PM.12 US2_25.monthlya v g. n cf. 01
Figure E-37 January 2028 monthly average nitrate contribution (in ug/m3) from initial
and boundary conditions.
Tag Ic/BC July Sulfate
7/1/201112:00:00 AM
Min = 0.00 E+0 at (1,1), Max = 2.543 at (395,178)
data = [40]2028elsecsacb6r4v6 11gtagicbc. PM.12 US2_25.monthlya if g. n cf. 0 7
Figure E-38 July 2028 monthly average sulfate contribution (in ug/m3) from initial and
boundary conditions.
E-20

-------