tfฃD S7^
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
iฎ.
| RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
OCT 1 9 2017
OFFICE OF
AIR QUALITY PLANNING
AND STANDARDS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Availability of Modeling Data and Associated Technical Support Document for
the EPA's Preliminary 2028 Visibility Air Quality Modeling
CUu^J2
Assessmen
TO: Regional Air Division Directors
FROM: Richard A. Wayland
Director, Air Quality Assessment Division
Through this memorandum, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards is communicating the availability of preliminary 2028 visibility
modeling data and results, providing an associated technical support document (TSD), and
explaining the limitations of these modeling results. The goal of this 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.1 As discussed in more detail below, there are a number of
uncertainties associated with these modeling results, but we are releasing this information as the
next step towards informing the technical basis for future regional haze SIPs.
Summary of Preliminary Modeling Results
The attached TSD details the EPA's modeling platform, modeling results, model performance
issues, and uncertainties in these modeling results. Specifically, the document contains
information on the 2011 base year model performance, 2028 projected visibility impairment,
comparison of the 2028 projected visibility impairment with the unadjusted uniform rate of
progress line (glidepath),2 and 2028 source apportionment results. The TSD includes the
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, but did not change the dates for the beginning and end of the implementation period.
The second implementation period ends in 2028.
2 The TSD compares the projected 2028 visibility level to the unadjusted glidepath for each Class 1 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
Internet Address (URL) http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable .Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
-------
modeling results for each Class I area (represented by IMPROVE sites) to provide an
understanding of the unique situation in each area.
One overarching observation from this modeling is the small magnitude of both observed and
predicted light extinction on the 20% most anthropogenically impaired days and the 20% clearest
days in certain areas, particularly areas in the western U.S. In assessing model performance, the
EPA observed that the model bias is highly variant across the continental U.S. For example,
nitrate is generally overpredicted in the northern states and underpredicted in the southern states.
Despite this variability in model performance, we observed that the model bias is generally
smaller (better performance) on the 20% most anthropogenically impaired days when compared
with the 20% haziest days. This is as expected, since a focus on the 20% most anthropogenically
impaired days avoids days highly affected by wildfires and dust storms, the impacts of which can
be more challenging to model.
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)3 and in
some cases, poor model performance.
Limitations of The Preliminary Model Results
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. Despite these uncertainties, the EPA is releasing
this information to begin the necessary collaborative work with states, tribes, multi-jurisdictional
organizations, and federal land managers. The EPA's goal is that this information, along with
future collaborative work, will improve the technical foundation of air quality modeling so that it
may be useful in regional haze SIP development for the second implementation period. For
example, model performance is relatively good and model uncertainty is relatively low for some
Class I areas, particularly in the eastern US. The modeling results for some of these sites may
provide a reasonably accurate initial assessment of 2028 visibility levels and source sector
Rule. The relevance of this comparison to SIP development is beyond the scope of this modeling, and stakeholders
with questions about this should consult the January 10, 2017, Federal Register notice and their Regional Office for
more details. For the purpose of this comparison, we have used values of natural visibility conditions 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-
technica 1-suppo rt-document-and-data-fi le. Thus, these values of natural visibility conditions and the associated
glidepaths are not themselves products of this modeling effort.
3Because 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 places 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 recommend
against attempting to use these modeling results to adjust the glidepath for prescribed fire impacts due to the
uncertainties described in this memo and the TSD.
2
-------
contributions. For most Class I areas; however, we recommend using this initial modeling only
as a first step in the process of evaluating the technical support needed to develop technically
sound regional haze SIPs for the second implementation period. States should consult with their
EPA Regional Office to determine the usefulness of the model results for any particular Class I
area.
Next Steps
While the EPA cannot at this time commit to resolving all of the identified issues and re-running
this modeling, the EPA is committed to participating in collaborative discussions with interested
stakeholders to work together to improve the scientific foundation necessary to support regional
haze 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.
Updated emission inventory and projections for certain sectors (e.g., remove Clean
Power Plan assumptions from emission inputs, update oil and gas projections, etc.).
Updated boundary conditions based on more recent information about international
emissions as well as additional modeling to help quantify and distinguish anthropogenic
and natural international contributions.
Improved treatment of fire andfugitive dust emissions in the model.
Treatment of secondary organic aerosols (SOA) should be reviewed and SO A tagged
separately in the source apportionment modeling.
Estimation of "natural visibility conditions " used in the glidepath framework should be
further reviewed and can be informed by the findings of further modeled source
apportionment modeling.
Given the multiple areas needing improvement, we reiterate our commitment to work
collaboratively with interested stakeholders to build upon this initial step in informing second
implementation period regional haze SIPs. We look forward to continuing to work with the EPA
regional offices; state, local, and tribal air agencies; and other interested stakeholders to improve
upon this initial modeling as part of future collaborative efforts.
The TSD is available electronically on the EPA's SCRAM website
(https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/reports/2028 Regional Haze Modeling-TSD.pdf). A summary map
and set of site-specific summary plots from the TSD is also attached to this memo. Questions and
requests for the detailed data used to generate summary plots (Excel spreadsheets) should be sent
to Brian Timin of the EPA's Air Quality Modeling Group at timin.brian@epa.eov. The EPA will
also provide all associated inputs and outputs for this initial modeling via hard drives to those
who request it (total file size of approximately 19 TB).
3
-------
2028 Glidepath Deviation Map and IMPROVE Site
Summary Plots
2028 Glidepath Deviation Map
Air quality modeling was used to project 2028 visibility levels at individual Class I areas
(represented by Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments [IMPROVE]
monitoring sites) and to estimate emissions sector contributions to 2028 PM
concentrations and visibility. The projected 2028 PM concentrations were converted
to light extinction coefficients and then to deciviews to then evaluate visibility
progress. The future year 2028 deciview projections can be compared to the
unadjusted visibility "glidepath" at each Class I area.1
The 2028 visibility contribution information by major emissions source sector was
calculated using CAMx particulate source apportionment technology (PSAT). The
sector contribution information helps to better understand the sources of future
visibility impairment (including domestic anthropogenic, domestic natural, and
international anthropogenic and natural sources).
Figure A-l below combines 2011 model performance information, a representation of
the deviation (in deciviews) from the 2028 unadjusted glidepath, and an uncertainty
calculation. The map 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 projected 2028 deciview
values compared to the glidepath.
The size of each colored dot (blue, red) is sized inversely proportional to the root
mean square error (RMSE) for averaged extinction by species (as the blue/red
gets smaller, the grey gets larger).2 RMSE ranks sites by magnitude and
composition skill using extinction weighted predictions and observations, and is
used in a qualitative sense for comparing site model performance.
1 While the regional haze rule requires future year projected visibility impairment be compared
to the glidepath, it does not require the reasonable progress goals (RPGs) be on or below the
glidepath. However, the rule has different requirements depending on whether the projected
RPG value is above or below the glidepath. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) and (iii) for more
information.
2 See the modeling TSD for more details on the calculation.
1
-------
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 the modeling TSD for more details on the
"range" calculations).
A relatively large boundary contribution and/or poor model performance will lead to
a relatively large 2028 range of uncertainty. The range is relatively small (and
therefore less uncertain) if model performance is generally good and the boundaries
contribution is small. When the site range crosses the glidepath, the uncertainty is
sufficient to change the sign of the deviation (i.e., blue vs red) and a vertical bar is
overlaid on the IMPROVE sites circle.
Figure A-l- Map of deviation from the 2028 glidepath at IMPROVE sites3, with additional
2011 model performance and uncertainty information.
5 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.
2
-------
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), model 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 Southern California are projected to be
below the glidepath, have low model skill, and are also 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.
3
-------
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 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 1 below for the definition of the "emissions
summary categories" and the modeling TSD for more details.
4
-------
Table 1 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
percentages in the pie chart represent 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.
5
-------
Table 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 A-2 Location of Federal Class I areas
6
-------
Figure A-3 Map of IMPROVE network regions used in the summary plots
Source: 2011 IMPROVE Report http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/spatial-and-
seasonal-patterns-and-temporal-variabilitv-of-haze-and-its-constituents-in-the-united-
states-report-v-iune-2011
7
-------
Northwest
Mount Rainier National Park (WA)(M0RA1)
Glacier Peak Wilderness (WA) and North Cascades National Park (WA)(N0CA1)
Olympic National Park (WA)(OLYMl)
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.
8
-------
H
-CT
60
50
40
30
20
10
Mount Rainier National Park, WA (MORA1)
il
O O
cm rsi
in o
o9
2028 US Anthro (15%)
US Anthro Other
RWC
NonEGU Pt
On road
Nonpoint
i
CO
(-NJ
o
rM
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 1: 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.
9
-------
North Cascades National Park, WA (NOCA1)
ฃ 20
2028 US Anthro (7%)
US Anthro Other
Non_point
I
CO
CM
O
CM
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
IZZI
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 2: 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.
10
-------
Olympic National Park, WA (OLYM1)
o o
CM fN
LD O
oง
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
CMV
Nonpoint
I
CO
fN
O
1 1
CM
ฆฆ
CRUSTAL
1 1
AMM_N03
IZZ1
AMM_S04
EC
ii
OMC
SEA_SALT
ii
RAYLEiGH
i i
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
ii
International
^ฆi
Natural
H
Range
k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 3: 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.
li
-------
H
-CT
Pasayten Wilderness, WA (PASA1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Prescribed Fires
2028 US Anthro (8%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
NonEGU Pt
i
CO
CM
O
CM
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 4: 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.
12
-------
20
Alpine Lake Wilderness, WA (SNPA1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (18%)
US Anthro Other
RWC
Nonpoint
On road
NonEGU Pt
I
CO
(-NJ
o
rM
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 5: 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.
13
-------
H
-CT
30
25
20
15
10
Mount Adams Wilderness, WA (WHPA1)
* * *
O O
cm rsi
i/i o
o9
RWC
2028 US Anthro (8%)
US Anthro Other
On road
NonEGU Pt
Non_point
n
CO
(-NJ
o
r\i
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 6: 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.
14
-------
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)
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.
15
-------
30
25
20
15
10
Desolation Wilderness, CA (BLIS1)
o o
cm r\i
v~) Q
oง
2028 US Anthro (9%)
Nonpoint
US Anthro Other
On road
RWC
CO
rvi
o
(N
NonEGU Pt
Figure 7: 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.
16
-------
H
-CT
30
25
20
15
10
Crater Lake National Park, OR (CRLA1)
i
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Non_point
2028 US Anthro (5%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
On road
RWC
CO
rsi
o
rsi
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMSQ4
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEiGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 8: 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.
17
-------
H
-CT
O o
rsj cm
m q
o9
Kalmiopsis Wilderness, OR (KALM1)
2028 US Anthro (7%)
RWC
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
CO
rsi
o
rsi
Nonpoint
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 9: 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.
18
-------
H
-CT
Lava Beds National Monument, CA (LABE1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Non_point
2028 US Anthro (6%)
US Anthro Other
RWC
CO
rsi
o
rsi
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 10: 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.
19
-------
35
30
25
ฃ 20
a 15
10
II
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA (LAVOl)
Non_point
2028 US Anthro (7%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
EGU
On road
CO
(-NJ
o
rM
RWC
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 11: 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.
20
-------
35
30
25
ฃ 20
3 15
Mount Hood Wilderness, OR (MOHOl)
10
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (15%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
On road
NonEGU Pt
RWC
i
CO
CM
O
CM
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 12: 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.
21
-------
50
40
30
20
10
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Redwood National Park, CA (REDW1)
2028 US Anthro (5%)
MonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
On road
Nonpoint
RWC
CO
rsi
o
rsi
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 13: 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.
22
-------
H
-CT
O o
rsj cm
m q
o9
Mount Washington Wilderness, OR (THSI1)
2028 US Anthro (9%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
NoriEGU Pt
i
CO
(-NJ
o
r\i
RWC
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 14: 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.
23
-------
35
30
25
ฃ 20
3 15
10
Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness, CA (TRIN1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (7%)
Non_point
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
On road
CO
CM
O
CM
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 15: 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.
24
-------
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.
25
-------
H
-CT
60
50
40
30
20
10
Pinnacles National Monument, CA (PINN1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Nonpoint
2028 US Anthro (22%)
US Anthro Other
RWC
NonEGU Ft
I
CO
(-NJ
o
CM
On road
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
IZZI
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 16: 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.
26
-------
H
-CT
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Point Reyes NS, CA (PORE1)
I
:
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Non_point
2028 US Anthro (28%)
US Anthro Other
16.1%
Non road
NonCGU Pt
15.5%
19.1% \ /On road
I
CO
(-NJ
o
r\i
RWC
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 17: 2011 IMPROVE observations, 2011 CAMx model predictions, 2028 modeled projection, and 2028 sector
contributions at Point Reyes NS (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.
27
-------
San Rafael Wilderness, CA (RAFA1)
30
20 -
o o
cm rsi
i/i o
o9
2028 US Anthro (14%)
US Anthro Other
20.2%
RWC
Non road
i
CO
CM
O
CM
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 18: 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.
28
-------
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.
29
-------
H
-CT
60
50
40
30
20
10
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Dome Land Wilderness, CA (DOME1)
2028 US Anthro (12%)
NonEGU Pt
On road
US Anthro Other
Non road
CO
CM
O
CM
Nonpoint
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 19: 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.
30
-------
25
20
15
10
o o
cm rsi
i/i o
o9
Hoover Wilderness, CA (HOOV1)
2028 US Anthro (5%)
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
EGU
Non_point
Ori road
I
CO
CM
O
CM
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 20: 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.
31
-------
Kaiser Wilderness, CA (KAIS1)
s 20
2028 US Anthro (11%)
US Anthro Other
I
-RW-
co
("NJ
o
r\i
On road
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
IZZI
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 21: 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.
32
-------
120
100
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Sequoia National Park, CA (SEQU1)
Nonpoint
2028 US Anthro (26%)
US Anthro Other
On road
Non road
RWC
CO
fsj
o
CM
NonEGU Pt
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 22: 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.
33
-------
H
-CT
O o
rsj cm
m q
o9
Yosemite National Park, CA (YOSE1)
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
Nonpoint
RWC
On road
CO
CM
O
CM
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 23: 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.
34
-------
Southern California
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.
35
-------
Agua Tibia Wilderness, CA (AGTil)
1 1
CM
ฆฆ
CRUSTAL
1 1
AMM_N03
IZZ1
AMM_S04
EC
ii
OMC
SEA_SALT
ii
RAYLEiGH
i i
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
ii
International
^ฆi
Natural
H
Range
k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 24: 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.
36
-------
H
-CT
60
50
40
30
20
10
Joshua Tree National Monument, CA (JOSH1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (22%)
Nonpoint
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
Non road
On road
I
CO
CM
O
CM
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 25: 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.
37
-------
60
50
40
30
20
10
San Gabriel Wilderness, CA (SAGA1)
O O
r\i rsi
in q
O?
CO
CM
o
rsi
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 26: 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.
38
-------
H
-CT
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
San Gorgonio Wilderness, CA (SAGOl)
ฆ0
O O
cm rsi
in o
o9
2028 US Anthro (37%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
Non road
On road
i
CO
(-NJ
o
CM
Non EG U Pt
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 27: 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.
39
-------
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) (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.
40
-------
25
20
15
10
o o
cm rsi
i/i o
o9
Bridger Wilderness, WY (BRID1)
2028 US Anthro (8%)
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
Non_point
I
CO
(-NJ
o
rM
EGU
Oil Gas
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 28: 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.
41
-------
35
30
25
ฃ 20
3 15
10
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, MT (CABI1)
II
O O
cm rsi
in o
o9
2028 US Anthro (9%)
Prescribed Fires
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
RWC
CO
fsj
o
rM
Nonpoint
Figure 29: 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.
42
-------
Gates of the Mountains Wilderness, MT (GAMOl)
10 -
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 30: 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.
43
-------
H
-CT
60
50
40
30
20
10
Glacier National Park, MT (GLAC1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (9%)
Nonpoint
US Anthro Other
Rail
Prescribed Fires
CO
CM
O
CM
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 31: 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.
44
-------
35
30
25
ฃ 20
H
-cT
15
10
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Scapegoat Wilderness, MT (MONTI)
NonEGU Pt
2028 US Anthro (4%)
US Anthro Other
Prescribed Fires
RWC
CO
CM
O
CM
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 32: 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.
45
-------
North Absaroka Wilderness, WY (NOAB1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 33: 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.
46
-------
H
-CT
30
25
20
15
10
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness, MT (SULA1)
O O
cm rsi
in o
o9
2028 US Anthro (5%)
RWC
Nonpoint
US Anthro Other
Ag_Fires
On road
I
CO
CM
O
CM
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 34: 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.
47
-------
Yellowstone National Park, WY (YELL2)
10
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
17.0%
EGU
RWC
I
CO
("NJ
o
CM
On road
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 35: 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.
48
-------
Hells Canyon and Great Basin
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.
49
-------
Figure 36: 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.
50
-------
H
-CT
Hells Canyon Wilderness, OR (HECA1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
On road
2028 US Anthro (23%)
US Anthro Other
21.5%
Non point \ / 18.5%
NonEGU Pt
I
CO
(-NJ
o
rM
RWC
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEiGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 37: 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.
51
-------
H
-CT
30
25
20
15
10
Sawtooth Wilderness, ID (SAWT1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Non_point
2028 US Anthro (4%)
US Anthro Other
On road
23.8% \ 16.3%
RWC I ^ NonEGU Pt
CO
rsi
o
rsi
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 38: 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.
52
-------
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, OR (STAR1)
g
-cT
Nonpoirit
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 39: 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.
53
-------
-ซf 10
o o
CM fN
LD Q
oง
Jarbidge Wilderness, NV (JARB1)
2028 US Anthro (4%)
US Anthro Other
Non_point
NonEGU Pt
On road
CO
fN
O
1 1
CM
ฆฆ
CRUSTAL
1 1
AMM_N03
IZZ1
AMM_S04
EC
ii
OMC
SEA_SALT
ii
RAYLEiGH
i i
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
ii
International
^ฆi
Natural
H
Range
k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 40: 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.
54
-------
Central Rocky Mountains
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.
55
-------
Great Sand Dunes National Monument, CO (GRSA1)
g
-cT
Oil Gas
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 41: 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.
56
-------
25
20
15
10
Mount Zirkel Wilderness, CO (MOZI1)
O O
cm rsi
in o
o9
2028 US Anthro (13%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
Oil Gas
i
CO
CM
O
CM
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 42: 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.
57
-------
Rocky Mountain National Park, CO (ROMOl)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (17%)
US Anthro Other
On road
Oil Gas
RWC
i
CO
CM
O
CM
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 43: 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,
58
-------
10
Wheeler Peak Wilderness, NM (WHPE1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (10%)
EGU
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
l
CO
(-NJ
o
rM
Oil Gas
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 44: 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.
59
-------
20
15
10
H
-CT
Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness, CO (WHRI1)
O O
cm rsi
in o
o9
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
ECU
Nonpoint
On road
22.1% 114.7%
NonEGU Pt'\^ 1 ' oil Gas
i
CO
CM
O
CM
Figure 45: 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.
60
-------
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.
61
-------
H
-CT
30
25
20
15
10
Bandelier National Monument, NM (BAND1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (13%)
EGU
Oil Gas
US Anthro Other
l\lon_point
RWC
I
CO
rsi
o
rsi
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 46: 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.
62
-------
25
20
15
10
I I
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Bryce Canyon National Park, UT (BRCA1)
2028 US Anthro (13%)
EGU
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
I
CO
(-NJ
o
rM
On road
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 47: 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.
63
-------
H
-CT
Canyonlands National Park, UT (CANY1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (17%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
On road
I
CO
CM
O
CM
Oil Gas
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 48: 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.
64
-------
25
20
Capitol Reef National Park, UT (CAPI1)
15
10
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (14%)
US Anthro Other
EGU
NonEGU Pt
Oil Gas
Nonpoint
I
CO
CM
O
CM
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 49: 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.
65
-------
10
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Grand Canyon National Park, AZ (GRCA2)
NonEGU Pt
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
EGU
Non road
Nonpoint
I
CO
CM
O
CM
On road
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 50: 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.
66
-------
H
-CT
O o
rsj cm
m q
o9
Mesa Verde National Park, CO (MEVE1)
2028 US Anthro (14%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
NonFGLJ Pt
I
CO
CM
O
CM
Oil Gas
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 51: 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.
67
-------
25
20
15
10
o o
cm rsi
i/i o
o9
San Pedro Parks Wilderness, NM (SAPE1)
2028 US Anthro (10%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
On road
NonEGU Pt
I
CO
CM
O
CM
Oil Gas
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 52: 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.
68
-------
25
20
15
10
Weminuche Wilderness, CO (WEMI1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (7%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
Oil Gas
I
CO
(-NJ
o
CM
NonEGU Pt
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 53: 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.
69
-------
30
25
20
15
10
Zion National Park, UT (ZICA1)
O O
r\i rsi
IT) O
o?
CO
CM
o
rsi
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 54: 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.
70
-------
Mogollon Plateau and Southern Arizona
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 IKBA1, 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.
71
-------
Mount Baldy Wilderness, AZ (BALD1)
10
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 55: 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.
72
-------
A 2028 visibility projection could not be calculated for this site due to incomplete ambient IMPROVE data in 2011,
35
30
25
S 20
15
10
Bosque del Apache, NM (BOAP1)
o o
rsi cm
LD Q
o?
2028 US Anthro (12%)
EGU
Oil Gas
US Anthro Other
RWC
Onroad
NonEGU Pt
I
CO
o
CM
CM
CRUSTAL
AMM_N03
AMM_S04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 56: 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.
73
-------
30
25
20
15
10
Gila Wilderness, NM (GICL1)
O O
r\i rsi
IT) Q
o?
CO
CM
o
rsi
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 57: 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.
74
-------
Pine Mountain Wilderness, AZ (IKBA1)
g
-cT
NonEGU Pt
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 58: 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.
75
-------
H
-CT
30
25
20
15
10
Petrified Forest National Park, AZ (PEFOl)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (11%)
US Anthro Other
EGU
On road
Nonpoint
CO
CM
O
CM
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 59: 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,
76
-------
30
25
20
15
10
Sierra Ancha Wilderness, AZ (SIAN1)
O O
r\i rsi
IT) O
o?
CO
CM
o
rsi
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 60: 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.
77
-------
S 20
10
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, AZ (SYCA2)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Nori_point
2028 US Anthro (10%)
US Anthro Other
11.0%
On road
EGU
CO
fsj
o
CM
NonEGU Pt
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEiGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 61: 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.
78
-------
H
-CT
O o
rsj cm
m q
o9
Superstition Wilderness, AZ (TONT1)
2028 US Anthro (10%)
On road
NonEGU Pt
US Anthro Other
Non road
I
CO
CM
O
CM
H
Nonpoint
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 62: 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.
79
-------
35
30
25
ฃ 20
3 15
10
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
White Mountain Wilderness, NM (WHIT1)
2028 US Anthro (11%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
CO
rsi
o
rsi
Oil Gas
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 63: 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.
80
-------
Chiricahua National Monument, AZ (CH1R1)
g
-cT
2028 US Anthro (7%)
US Anthro Other
On road
I
CO
(-NJ
o
CM
Oil Gas
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 64: 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.
81
-------
Saguaro National Monument, AZ (SAGU1)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 65: 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.
82
-------
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.
83
-------
H
-CT
60
50
40
30
20
10
Big Bend National Park, TX (BIBE1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (6%)
US Anthro Other
EGU
Oil Has
I
CO
fsj
o
CM
NonEGU Pt
11
Vr t 1VJ ^
CM
ฆฆ
CRUSTAL
11
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMSQ4
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 66: 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.
84
-------
H
-CT
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Guadalupe Mountains National Park, TX (GUMOl)
O O
cm rsi
in o
o9
EGU
2028 US Anthro (11%)
US Anthro Other
RO/ I
Oil Gas
i
CO
CM
O
CM
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEiGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
IZZI
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 67: 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.
85
-------
Salt Creek, NM (SACR1)
H
-cT
EGU
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 68: 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,
86
-------
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.
87
-------
H
-CT
Badlands National Park, SD (BADL1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (19%)
EGU
US Anthro Other
Ag_Fires
Oil Gas
I
CO
CM
O
CM
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 69: 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.
88
-------
Lostwood, ND (LOST1)
O o
r\i rsi
IT) O
O?
CO
CM
o
rsi
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 70: 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.
89
-------
Medicine Lake, MT (MELA1)
g
-cT
EGU
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 71: 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.
90
-------
H
-CT
Theodore Roosevelt National Park, ND (THROl)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (18%)
Oil Gas
US Anthro Other
Rail
NonEGU Pt
CO
CM
O
CM
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 72: 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.
91
-------
UL Bend, MT (ULBE1)
H
-CT
NonEGU Pt
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEiGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 73: 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.
92
-------
H
-CT
Wind Cave National Park, SD (WICA1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
EGU
2028 US Anthro (18%)
US Anthro Other
Rail
Oil Gas
I
CO
(-NJ
o
CM
NonEGU Pt
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 74: 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.
93
-------
Mid South
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.
94
-------
g
J
120
100
80
60
40
20
Caney Creek Wilderness, AR (CACR1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (42%)
EGU / 45.6%
US Anthro Other
Oil Gas
I
CO
CM
O
CM
NoriEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 75: 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.
95
-------
140
Hercules-Glades Wilderness, MO (HEGL1)
NonEGU Pt
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEiGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 76: 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.
96
-------
120
100
Upper Buffalo Wilderness, AR (UPBU1)
g
J
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 77: 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.
97
-------
100
e
Sw
^ 40
o o
cm rsi
i/i o
o9
Wichita Mountains, OK (WIMOl)
2028 US Anthro (30%)
EGU
Oil Gas
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
CO
CM
O
CM
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 78: 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.
98
-------
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.
99
-------
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, MN (BOWA1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (41%)
US Anthro Other
On road
Nonpoint
I
CO
(-NJ
o
CM
RWC
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 79: 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.
100
-------
H
-CT
Isle Royale National Park, Ml (ISLE1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
NonEGU Pt
2028 US Anthro (42%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
'
CO
(-NJ
o
r\i
RWC
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEiGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 80: 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.
101
-------
120
100
Seney, Ml (SENE1)
e
J
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (50%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
On road
Nonpoint
CO
(-NJ
o
CM
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 81: 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.
102
-------
Voyageurs National Park, MN (VOYA2)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 82: 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.
103
-------
Appalachia
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.
104
-------
100
80
~ 60
s
-=> 40
20
Cohutta Wilderness, GA (COHU1)
i:
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
EGU
2028 US Anthro (42%)
US Anthro Other
11.2%
Non_point
I
CO
(-NJ
o
CM
NonEGU Pt
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 83: 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.
105
-------
Dolly Sods Wilderness, WV (DOSOl)
"2f)2S, IJ^ Anthro (53%)
**
US Antfiro Ot+ier -
EGU
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
1
NonEGU Pt
CO
(-NJ
o
rM
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 84: 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.
106
-------
200
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, TN (GRSM1)
150
g
J
100
2028 US Anthro (49%)
1)5 Antbra Qttier
l\lon_point
I
CO
CM
O
CM
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 85: 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.
107
-------
James River Face Wilderness, VA (JARI1)
ฆ2028-US.^nthro (46%)
*****
*****
US Anthro Other ~ ~
EGll
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Nonpoint
1
CO
rsi
o
rsi
NonEGl) Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 86: 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.
108
-------
linville Gorge Wilderness, NC (LIGOl)
2028 US Anthro (44%)
*****
"US-Aetbra Qther
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
[\lon_point
1
CO
(-NJ
o
CM
NonEGU Pt
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEiGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 87: 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.
109
-------
Shenandoah National Park, VA (SHENi)
- . . 2028 US Anthro (47%)
* * ป _
* ป _ __
O o
O-J CM
m q
o9
US Anlfito ฉthe*
EGJ 49.3%
1
NonEGl! Pt
CO
rsi
o
rsi
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 88: 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.
no
-------
Shining Rock Wilderness, NC (SHROl)
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 89: 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.
ill
-------
Sipsey Wilderness, AL (SIPS1)
g
J
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
1 1
cm
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 90: 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.
112
-------
Ohio River Valley
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.
113
-------
200
Mammoth Cave National Park, KY (MACA1)
150
g
J
100
NonEGU Pt
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMS04
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 91: 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,
114
-------
120
100 -
Mingo, MO (MING1)
H
-C5
O o
rsj rsi
in Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (53%)
US Anthro Other
20.5%
RWC
Nonpoint
i
CO
rsi
o
rsi
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 92: 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.
115
-------
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)
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.
116
-------
H
-C5
120
100
80
60
40
20
f
n
:
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Breton, LA (BRIS1)
2028 US Anthro (42%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
Non_point
I
CO
(-NJ
o
rM
EGU
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
IZZI
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 93: 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.
117
-------
120
100
Chassahowitzka, FL (CHAS1)
g
J
NoriEGU Pt
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 94: 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.
118
-------
H
-CT
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
o o
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Everglades National Park, FL (EVER1)
NonEGU Pt
2028 US Anthro (9%)
US Anthro Other
Non_point
W
I
CO
(-NJ
o
r\i
EGU
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 95: 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.
119
-------
140
Okefenokee, GA (OKEF1)
EGU
2028 US Anthro (41%)
US Anthro Other
Nonpoint
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
I
CO
(-NJ
o
r\i
NonEGU Pt
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 96: 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.
120
-------
140
Cape Romain, SC (ROMA1)
NoriEGU Pt
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEiGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
ir-k
Glide
mm
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 97: 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.
121
-------
100
St. Marks, FL (SAMA1)
O O
cm rsi
i/l o
o9
2028 US Anthro (34%)
US Anthro Other
17.8%
Monpoint
I
CO
CM
O
CM
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 98: 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.
122
-------
East Coast
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.
123
-------
g
J
Brigantine, NJ (BRIG1)
2028 US Anthro (51%)
NonEGU Pt
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
US Anthro Other
i
19,5% ' x 14.5%
EGU \ / 17.0%
Non_point
RWC
CO
rsi
o
rsi
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMSQ4
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 99: 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.
124
-------
100
Swanquarter, NC (SWAN1)
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
2028 US Anthro (38%)
US Anthro Other
:
Non_point
CO
CM
O
CM
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 100: 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.
125
-------
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.
126
-------
100
Acadia National Park, ME (ACAD1)
e
^ 40
Non_poirit
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLEIGH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
^ฆ1 Natural
H Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 101: 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.
127
-------
Great Gulf Wilderness, NH (GRGU1)
H
-CT
O o
r\i rsi
in Q
o9
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
OMC
SEASALT
i i
RAYLEIGH
i I
US Anthro
i i
Mixed
[i
International
Natural
H
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 102: 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,
128
-------
g
J
120
100
80
60
Lye Brook Wilderness, VT (LYEB1)
40
20
2028 US Anthro
US Anthro Other
RWC
Nonpoint
.
CO
CM
O
CM
H
CM
CRUSTAL
AMMN03
AMMSQ4
EC
OMC
SEASALT
RAYLE1GH
US Anthro
Mixed
International
Natural
Range
Glide
Impaired Avg
5-year Avg
Progress
Figure 103: 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.
129
-------
H
-CT
Moosehorn, ME (MOOS1)
2028 US Anthro (16%)
US Anthro Other
NonEGU Pt
O O
cm rsi
l/l Q
o9
Noripoint
RWC
I
CO
fsj
o
r\i
EGU
1 1
CM
CRUSTAL
ii
AMMN03
IZZI
AMMS04
EC
i i
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 104: 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.
130
------- |