## APPENDIX F 2018 Visibility Projections at VISTAS and Nearby Class I Areas for the Best 20 Percent Days using EPA Default Approach

## F-1 2018 VISIBILITY PROJECTS AT VIST AS AND NEARBY CLASS I AREAS FOR THE BEST 20 PERCEN T DAYS USING EPA DE FAULT APPROACH

VISTAS Class I Areas • Figure F-1: Sipsey Wilder ness Area (SIPS), Alabama • Figure F-2: Chassahowitzka W ildlife Refuge (CHAS), Florida • Figure F-3: Everglades Na tional Park (EVER), Florida • Figure F-4: St. Marks Wildli fe Refuge (SAMA), Florida • Figure F-5: Cohutta Wild erness Area (COHU), Georgia • Figure F-6: Okefenokee Wild life Refuge (OKEF), Georgia • Figure F-7: Mammoth Cave Na tional Park (MACA), Kentucky • Figure F-8: Linville Gorge Wild erness Area (LIGO), North Carolina • Figure F-9: Shining Rock Wilder ness Area (SHRO), North Carolina • Figure F-10: Swanquarter Wildlif e Refuge (SWAN), North Carolina • Figure F-11: Cape Romain Wildlife Refuge (ROMA), South Carolina • Figure F-12: Great Smoky Mountains Nati onal Park (GRSM), Te nnessee-North Carolina • Figure F-13: James River Face Wilderness Area (JARI), Virginia • Figure F-14: Shenandoah National Park (SHEN), Virginia • Figure F-15: Dolly Sods Wilder ness Area (DOSO), West Virginia Nearby Class I Areas • Figure F-16: Breton Island Wild life Refuge (BRET), Louisiana • Figure F-17: Caney Creek Wild erness Area (CACR), Arkansas • Figure F-18: Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (UPBU), Arkansas • Figure F-19: Mingo Wildlife Refuge (MING), Missouri • Figure F-20: Hercules Glade Wilderness Area (HEGL), Missouri • Figure F-21: Brigantine Wildlif e Refuge (BRIG), New Jersey

## F-2 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Sipsey - Best 20% Days (12 km)

15.57 15.57 15.57 14.37

5.03


### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-1a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Sipsey (SIPS), Alabama and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results.


## Reasonable Progress Assessment Base G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Sipsey - Best 20% Days (36 km)

15.57 15.57 15.57 14.15

5.03


## 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-1b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Sipsey (SIPS), Alabama and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-3 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at SIPS (12 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

11 14 26 32 59 77 89 113 116 167 176 179 212 230 257 302 308 347 356 359 362 _ _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-1c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Sipsey (SIPS), Alabama and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at SIPS (36 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

11 14 26 32 59 77 89 113 116 167 176 179 212 230 257 302 308 347 356 359 362 _ _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-1d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Sipsey (SIPS), Alabama and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-4 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at SIPS on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10

0 10 20

11 14 26 32 59 77 89 113 116 167 176 179 212 230 257 302 308 347 356 359 362 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Fi 

## gure F-1e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Sipsey (SIPS), Alabama and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at SIPS on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10

0 10

11 14 26 32 59 77 89 113 116 167 176 179 212 230 257 302 308 347 356 359 362 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-1f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Sipsey (SIPS), Alabama and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-5 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Chassahowitzka - Best 20% Days (12 km)

15.51 15.51 15.51 13.50

5.91



### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-2a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Chassahowitzka (CHAS), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment Base G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Chassahowitzka - Best 20% Days (36 km)

15.51 15.51 15.51 13.19
5.91


### 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

### YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



### Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-2b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Chassahowitzka (CHAS), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results

## F-6 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at CHAS (12 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

38 68 71 104 146 161 164 170 173 176 182 191 203 224 227 239 242 248 266 320 344 347 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-2c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Chassahowitzka Wildlife Re fuge (CHAS), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at CHAS (36 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

38 68 71 104 146 161 164 170 173 176 182 191 203 224 227 239 242 248 266 320 344 347 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-2d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Chassahowitzka Wildlife Re fuge (CHAS), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-7 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at CHAS on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

38 68 71 104 146 161 164 170 173 176 182 191 203 224 227 239 242 248 266 320 344 347 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-2e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km results (2018- 2002) daily extinction for Chassahowitzka Wildlife Refuge (CHAS), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at CHAS on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

38 68 71 104 146 161 164 170 173 176 182 191 203 224 227 239 242 248 266 320 344 347 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-2f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km results (2018- 2002) daily extinction for Chassahowitzka Wildlife Refuge (CHAS), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002

.

## F-8 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Everglades - Best 20% Days (12 km)

11.69 11.69 11.69 11.44

5.21



### 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-3a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Everglades (EVER), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days us ing 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Everglades - Best 20% Days (36 km)

11.69 11.69 11.69 14.44

5.21


## 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-3b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Everglades (EVER), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days usi ng 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-9 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002 gt2a (right) at EVER (12 km)

0 5 10 15 20 25

23 29 32 71 80 104 134 137 140 164 176 191 206 212 242 245 248 251 254 284 287 296 299 302 _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-3c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Everglades (EVER), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002 gt2a (right) at EVER (36 km)

0 5 10 15 20 25

23 29 32 71 80 104 134 137 140 164 176 191 206 212 242 245 248 251 254 284 287 296 299 302 _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-3d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Everglades (EVER), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-10 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at EVER on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1

23 29 32 71 80 104 134 137 140 164 176 191 206 212 242 245 248 251 254 284 287 296 299 302 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-3e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Everglades (EVER), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at EVER1 on Best 20% Days

-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1

23 29 32 71 80 104 134 137 140 164 176 191 206 212 242 245 248 251 254 284 287 296 299 302 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-3f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Everglades (EVER), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-11 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Saint Marks - Best 20% Days (12 km)

14.37 14.37 14.37 12.67

5.39



### 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-4a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for St. Marks (SAMA), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Saint Marks - Best 20% Days (36 km)

14.37 14.37 14.37
12.58

5.39



## 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-4b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for St. Marks (SAMA), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-12 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at SAMA (12 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

11 14 20 32 38 68 80 158 161 173 176 179 194 206 209 218 224 239 266 302 344 356 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-4c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for St. Marks (SAMA), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at SAMA (36 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

11 14 20 32 38 68 80 158 161 173 176 179 194 206 209 218 224 239 266 302 344 356 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-4d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for St. Marks (SAMA), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-13 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at SAMA on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

11 14 20 32 38 68 80 158 161 173 176 179 194 206 209 218 224 239 266 302 344 356 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-4e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for St. Marks (SAMA), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at SAMA on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

11 14 20 32 38 68 80 158 161 173 176 179 194 206 209 218 224 239 266 302 344 356 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-4f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for St. Marks (SAMA), Florida and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-14 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Cohutta - Best 20% Days (12 km)

13.77 13.77 13.77
11.74

4.32



### 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-5a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Cohutta (COHU), Georgia and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Cohutta - Best 20% Days (36 km)

13.77 13.77 13.77
11.96

4.32



## 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-5b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Cohutta (COHU), Georgia and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-15 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002g t2a (right) at COHU (12 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

23 26 32 38 44 62 77 89 113 116 119 173 194 257 269 308 320 341 347 356 _ _ _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-5c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Cohutta (COHU), Georgia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002g t2a (right) at COHU (36 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

23 26 32 38 44 62 77 89 113 116 119 173 194 257 269 308 320 341 347 356 _ _ _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-5d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Cohutta (COHU), Georgia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-16 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at COHU on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

23 26 32 38 44 62 77 89 113 116 119 173 194 257 269 308 320 341 347 356 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-5e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Cohutta (COHU), Georgia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at COHU on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

23 26 32 38 44 62 77 89 113 116 119 173 194 257 269 308 320 341 347 356 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-5f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Cohutta (COHU), Georgia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-17 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Okefenokee - Best 20% Days (12 km)

15.23 15.23 15.23 13.83

5.31



### 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-6a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Okefenokee (OKEF), Georgia and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/ 2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Okefenokee - Best 20% Days (36 km)

15.23 15.23 15.23 13.69

5.31



## 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-6a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Okefenokee (OKEF), Georgia and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/ 2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-18 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at OKEF (12 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

11 20 38 59 62 104 170 173 176 179 191 239 242 257 266 275 284 335 344 347 356 359 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-6c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Okefenokee (OKEF), Geor gia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at OKEF (36 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

11 20 38 59 62 104 170 173 176 179 191 239 242 257 266 275 284 335 344 347 356 359 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-6d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Okefenokee (OKEF), Geor gia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-19 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at OKEF on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

11 20 38 59 62 104 170 173 176 179 191 239 242 257 266 275 284 335 344 347 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-6e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Okefenokee (OKEF), Geor gia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at OKEF on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

11 20 38 59 62 104 170 173 176 179 191 239 242 257 266 275 284 335 344 347 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-6f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Okefenokee (OKEF), Geor gia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-20 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Mammoth Cave - Best 20% Days (12 km)

16.51 16.51 16.51 15.57

4.99


### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-7a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Mammoth Cave (MACA), Kentucky and Best 20% (B20%) days usin g 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Mammoth Cave - Best 20% Days (36 km)

16.51 16.51 16.51 15.33

4.99



## 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-7b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Mammoth Cave (MACA), Kentucky and Best 20% (B20%) days usin g 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-21 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at MACA (12 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

14 23 32 35 44 62 68 83 89 113 116 227 266 269 278 281 287 302 308 323 338 347 356 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-7c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Mammoth Cave (MACA), Kent ucky and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at MACA (36 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

14 23 32 35 44 62 68 83 89 113 116 227 266 269 278 281 287 302 308 323 338 347 356 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-7d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Mammoth Cave (MACA), Kent ucky and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-22 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at MACA on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-40 -30 -20 -10

0 10 20

14 23 32 35 44 62 68 83 89 113 116 227 266 269 278 281 287 302 308 323 338 347 356 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-7d. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Mammoth Cave (MACA), Kent ucky and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at MACA on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-40 -30 -20 -10

0 10 20

14 23 32 35 44 62 68 83 89 113 116 227 266 269 278 281 287 302 308 323 338 347 356 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-7e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Mammoth Cave (MACA), Kent ucky and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-23 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Linville Gorge - Best 20% Days (12 km)

11.11 11.11 11.11 9.64

4.08


### 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-8a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Linville Gorge (LIGO), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days using 20 02/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Linville Gorge - Best 20% Days (36 km)

11.11 11.11 11.11 9.80

4.08



## 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-8b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Linville Gorge (LIGO), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results..

## F-24 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at LIGO (12 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

5 8 11 23 26 38 62 77 89 104 116 119 302 308 320 326 341 347 356 359 362 _ _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-8c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Linville Gorge (LIGO), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at LIGO (36 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

5 8 11 23 26 38 62 77 89 104 116 119 302 308 320 326 341 347 356 359 362 _ _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-8d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Linville Gorge (LIGO), Nort h Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-25 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at LIGO on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

5 8 11 23 26 38 62 77 89 104 116 119 302 308 320 326 341 347 356 359 362 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-8e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Linville Gorge (LIGO), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at LIGO on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

5 8 11 23 26 38 62 77 89 104 116 119 302 308 320 326 341 347 356 359 362 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-8f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Linville Gorge (LIGO), Nort h Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-26 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Shining Rock - Best 20% Days (12 km)

8.21 8.21 8.21 6.91
2.51 

### 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-9a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Shining Rock (SHRO), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days using 20 02/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Shining Rock - Best 20% Days (36 km)

8.21 8.21 8.21 6.92
2.51 

## 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-9b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Shining Rock (SHRO), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days using 20 02/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-27 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2 a (right) at SHRO (12 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

5 8 11 26 38 50 68 71 86 89 104 257 269 299 302 308 320 326 341 344 347 353 359 362 _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-9c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Shining Rock (SHRO), North Ca rolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2 a (right) at SHRO (36 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

5 8 11 26 38 50 68 71 86 89 104 257 269 299 302 308 320 326 341 344 347 353 359 362 _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-9d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Shining Rock (SHRO), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-28 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at SHRO on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

5 8 11 26 38 50 68 71 86 89 104 257 269 299 302 308 320 326 341 344 347 353 359 362 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-9e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Shining Rock (SHRO), North Ca rolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at SHRO on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

5 8 11 26 38 50 68 71 86 89 104 257 269 299 302 308 320 326 341 344 347 353 359 362 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-9f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Shining Rock (SHRO), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-29 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Swanquarter - Best 20% Days (12 km)

12.02 12.02 12.02 10.96

5.46



### 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-10a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Swanquarter (SWAN), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days using 20 02/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Swanquarter - Best 20% Days (36 km)

12.02 12.02 12.02 10.88

5.46



## 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-10b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Swanquarter (SWAN), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results..

## F-30 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002 gt2a (right) at SWAN (12 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

14 26 68 104 125 173 176 194 221 227 242 251 263 269 284 290 314 320 332 335 344 353 359 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-10c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Swanquarter (SWAN), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002 gt2a (right) at SWAN (36 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

14 26 68 104 125 173 176 194 221 227 242 251 263 269 284 290 314 320 332 335 344 353 359 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-10d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Swanquarter (SWAN), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-31 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at SWAN on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

14 26 68 104 125 173 176 194 221 227 242 251 263 269 284 290 314 320 332 335 344 353 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-10e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Swanquarter (SWAN), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at SWAN on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

14 26 68 104 125 173 176 194 221 227 242 251 263 269 284 290 314 320 332 335 344 353 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-10f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Swanquarter (SWAN), North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-32 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Cape Romain - Best 20% Days (12 km)

14.29 14.29 14.29 12.74

5.92



### 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-11a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Cape Romain (ROMA), South Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days using 20 02/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Cape Romain - Best 20% Days (36 km)

14.29 14.29 14.29 12.82 5.92


## 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-11b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Cape Romain (ROMA), South Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-33 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002 gt2a (right) at ROMA (12 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

14 23 62 65 68 92 104 107 125 161 170 173 176 191 227 242 245 248 263 266 269 284 353 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-11c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Cape Romain (ROMA), South Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002 gt2a (right) at ROMA (36 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

14 23 62 65 68 92 104 107 125 161 170 173 176 191 227 242 245 248 263 266 269 284 353 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-11d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Cape Romain (ROMA), South Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-34 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at ROMA on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

14 23 62 65 68 92 104 107 125 161 170 173 176 191 227 242 245 248 263 266 269 284 353 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-11e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Cape Romain (ROMA), South Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at ROMA on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

14 23 62 65 68 92 104 107 125 161 170 173 176 191 227 242 245 248 263 266 269 284 353 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-11f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Cape Romain (ROMA), South Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-35 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Great Smoky Mountains - Best 20% Days (12 km)

13.58 13.58 13.58 12.15

4.54


### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-12a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Great Smoky Mountains (GRSM), Tennessee-North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Great Smoky Mountains - Best 20% Days (36 km)

13.58 13.58 13.58 12.02
4.54


## 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-12b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Great Smoky Mountains (GRSM), Tennessee-North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results..

## F-36 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt 2a (right) at GRSM (12 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

8 11 14 23 32 38 50 59 62 68 89 116 194 257 269 299 302 308 320 326 341 347 356 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-12c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Great Smoky Mountains (GRSM), Tenn essee-North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt 2a (right) at GRSM (36 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

8 11 14 23 32 38 50 59 62 68 89 116 194 257 269 299 302 308 320 326 341 347 356 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-12d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Great Smoky Mountains (GRSM), Tenn essee-North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-37 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at GRSM on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

8 11 14 23 32 38 50 59 62 68 89 116 194 257 269 299 302 308 320 326 341 347 356 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-12e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Great Smoky Mountains (GRSM), Tenn essee-North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at GRSM on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

8 11 14 23 32 38 50 59 62 68 89 116 194 257 269 299 302 308 320 326 341 347 356 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-12f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Great Smoky Mountains (GRSM), Tenn essee-North Carolina and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-38 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm James River Face - Best 20% Days (12 km)

14.21 14.21 14.21 12.48

4.38


### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-13a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for James River Face (JARI), Virginia and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm James River Face - Best 20% Days (36 km)

14.21 14.21 14.21 12.43

4.38



## 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-13b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for James River Face (JARI), Virginia and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-39 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at JARI (12 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

8 11 23 26 35 44 59 68 77 101 104 113 116 134 158 245 299 302 326 332 335 356 359 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-13c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for James River Face (JARI), Virginia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at JARI (36 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

8 11 23 26 35 44 59 68 77 101 104 113 116 134 158 245 299 302 326 332 335 356 359 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-13d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for James River Face (JARI), Virginia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-40 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at JARI on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

8 11 23 26 35 44 59 68 77 101 104 113 116 134 158 245 299 302 326 332 335 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-13e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for James River Face (JARI), Virginia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at JARI on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

8 11 23 26 35 44 59 68 77 101 104 113 116 134 158 245 299 302 326 332 335 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-13f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for James River Face (JARI), Virginia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-41 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Shenandoah - Best 20% Days (12 km)

10.93 10.93 10.93
8.79

3.14 

### 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-14a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Shenandoah (SHEN), Virginia and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Shenandoah - Best 20% Days (36 km)

10.93 10.93 10.93
8.85

3.14


## 0 5 10 15 20

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-14b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Shenandoah (SHEN), Virginia and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results..

## F-42 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at SHEN (12 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

5 14 23 26 38 50 62 68 77 158 206 221 245 269 284 320 335 338 341 344 347 356 359 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-14c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Shenandoah (SHEN), Virgin ia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at SHEN (36 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

5 14 23 26 38 50 62 68 77 158 206 221 245 269 284 320 335 338 341 344 347 356 359 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-14d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Shenandoah (SHEN), Virgin ia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-43 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at SHEN on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20

0 20

5 14 23 26 38 50 62 68 77 158 206 221 245 269 284 320 335 338 341 344 347 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-14e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Shenandoah (SHEN), Virgin ia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at SHEN on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20

0 20

5 14 23 26 38 50 62 68 77 158 206 221 245 269 284 320 335 338 341 344 347 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-14f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Shenandoah (SHEN), Virgin ia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-44 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Dolly Sods - Best 20% Days (12 km)

12.28 12.28 12.28 10.79

3.64 

### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-15a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Dolly Sods (DOSO), West Virginia and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Dolly Sods - Best 20% Days (36 km)

12.28 12.28 12.28 10.78

3.64


## 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-15b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Dolly Sods (DOSO), West Virginia and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-45 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2 a (right) at DOSO (12 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

5 14 23 26 50 68 89 104 119 158 284 293 299 302 320 326 338 341 347 356 359 _ _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-15c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Dolly Sods (DOSO), West Virg inia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2 a (right) at DOSO (36 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

5 14 23 26 50 68 89 104 119 158 284 293 299 302 320 326 338 341 347 356 359 _ _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-15d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Dolly Sods (DOSO), West Vi rginia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-46 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at DOSO on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

5 14 23 26 50 68 89 104 119 158 284 293 299 302 320 326 338 341 347 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-15e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Dolly Sods (DOSO), West Virg inia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at DOSO on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

5 14 23 26 50 68 89 104 119 158 284 293 299 302 320 326 338 341 347 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-15f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Dolly Sods (DOSO), West Vi rginia and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-47 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Breton - Best 20% Days (12 km)

14.04 14.04 14.04 13.54

5.33


### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-16a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Breton Island (BRET), Louisiana and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2 018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Breton - Best 20% Days (36 km)

14.04 14.04 14.04 13.50

5.33



## 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-16b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Breton Island (BRET), Louisiana and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2 018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-48 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at BRET (12 km)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

8 14 20 32 38 68 80 101 149 158 170 176 191 209 227 233 236 245 299 302 335 356 359 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-16c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Breton Island (BRET), Loui siana and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at BRET (36 km)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

8 14 20 32 38 68 80 101 149 158 170 176 191 209 227 233 236 245 299 302 335 356 359 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-16d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Breton Island (BRET), Loui siana and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-49 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at BRET on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

8 14 20 32 38 68 80 101 149 158 170 176 191 209 227 233 236 245 299 302 335 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-16e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Breton Island (BRET), Loui siana and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at BRET on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

8 14 20 32 38 68 80 101 149 158 170 176 191 209 227 233 236 245 299 302 335 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-16f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Breton Island (BRET), Loui siana and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-50 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Caney Creek - Best 20% Days (12 km)

11.24 11.24 11.24 10.15
4.23


### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-17a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/ 2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Caney Creek - Best 20% Days (36 km)

11.24 11.24 11.24 10.27

4.23


## 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-17b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/ 2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-51 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002g t2a (right) at CACR (12 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

11 14 26 89 98 116 197 266 278 284 287 293 299 302 311 323 329 335 338 353 356 359 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-17c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002g t2a (right) at CACR (36 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

11 14 26 89 98 116 197 266 278 284 287 293 299 302 311 323 329 335 338 353 356 359 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-17d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-52 Bext Response (20 18g2b - 2002gt2a) at CACR on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

11 14 26 89 98 116 197 266 278 284 287 293 299 302 311 323 329 335 338 353 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-17e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at CACR on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

11 14 26 89 98 116 197 266 278 284 287 293 299 302 311 323 329 335 338 353 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-17f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-53 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Upper Buffalo - Best 20% Days (12 km)

11.71 11.71 11.71 10.61

4.13


### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-18a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Arkansas and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/ 2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Upper Buffalo - Best 20% Days (36 km)

11.71 11.71 11.71 10.66

4.13


## 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-18b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Arkansas and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/ 2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-54 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at UPBU (12 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

14 26 47 68 89 98 116 119 164 167 176 227 266 278 281 287 290 302 311 323 335 353 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-18c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Arkans as and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at UPBU (36 km)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

14 26 47 68 89 98 116 119 164 167 176 227 266 278 281 287 290 302 311 323 335 353 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-18d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Ark ansas and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002

## F-55 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at UPBU on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

14 26 47 68 89 98 116 119 164 167 176 227 266 278 281 287 290 302 311 323 335 353 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-18e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Arkans as and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at UPBU on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

14 26 47 68 89 98 116 119 164 167 176 227 266 278 281 287 290 302 311 323 335 353 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-18f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Ark ansas and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-56 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Mingo - Best 20% Days (12 km)

14.41 14.41 14.41 13.50

5.35



### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-19a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Mingo (MING), Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/ 2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Mingo - Best 20% Days (36 km)

14.41 14.41 14.41 13.49

5.35



## 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-19b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Mingo (MING), Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/ 2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results..

## F-57 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at MING (12 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

14 32 44 62 116 134 137 140 164 167 176 200 227 263 266 278 281 290 302 308 353 356 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-19c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Mingo (MING), Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at MING (36 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

14 32 44 62 116 134 137 140 164 167 176 200 227 263 266 278 281 290 302 308 353 356 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-19d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Mingo (MING), Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-58 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at MING on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

14 32 44 62 116 134 137 140 164 167 176 200 227 263 266 278 281 290 302 308 353 356 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-19e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Mingo (MING), Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at MING on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

14 32 44 62 116 134 137 140 164 167 176 200 227 263 266 278 281 290 302 308 353 356 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-19f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Mingo (MING), Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-59 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Hercules - Glade - Best 20% Days (12 km)

12.84 12.84 12.84 11.97

4.67


### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

### Figure F-20a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Hercules Glade (HEGL), Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2 002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Hercules - Glade - Best 20% Days (36 km)

12.84 12.84 12.84 11.96

4.67



## 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction Figure F-20b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Hercules Glade (HEGL), Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2 002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-60 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt 2a (right) at HEGL (12 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

14 26 44 68 71 89 113 116 119 134 137 227 266 278 281 287 290 302 308 311 317 335 353 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-20c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Hercules Glade (HEGL), Miss ouri and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. 

## Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt 2a (right) at HEGL (36 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

14 26 44 68 71 89 113 116 119 134 137 227 266 278 281 287 290 302 308 311 317 335 353 _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-20d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Hercules Glade (HEGL), Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-61 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at HEGL on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

14 26 44 68 71 89 113 116 119 134 137 227 266 278 281 287 290 302 308 311 317 335 353 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-20e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Hercules Glade (HEGL), Miss ouri and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at HEGL on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

14 26 44 68 71 89 113 116 119 134 137 227 266 278 281 287 290 302 308 311 317 335 353 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



### Figure F-20f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018-2002) daily extinction for Hercules Glade (HEGL), Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-62 Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Brigantine - Best 20% Days (12 km)

14.33 14.33 14.33 13.24

5.45



### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)

Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-21a. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Brigantine (BRIG), New Jersey and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. Reasonable Progress Assessment B ase G2, new IMPROVE Algorithm Brigantine - Best 20% Days (36 km)

14.33 14.33 14.33 13.09

5.45



## 0 5 10 15 20 25

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 

## YearHaziness Index (Deciviews)



## Baseline Natural Condition (20% Best Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction 

## Figure F-21b. 2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepath in deciview for Brigantine (BRIG), New Jersey and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeling results.

## F-63 Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at BRIG (12 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

32 68 77 113 119 125 158 194 206 221 251 263 269 281 284 287 302 317 332 335 356 359 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-21c. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Brigantine (BRIG), New Jersey and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Best 20% Obs (left) vs 2002gt2a (right) at BRIG (36 km)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

32 68 77 113 119 125 158 194 206 221 251 263 269 281 284 287 302 317 332 335 356 359 _ _ _ Avg Julian Day in Best 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-21d. Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G2 CMAQ 36 km modeled (right) daily extinction for Brigantine (BRIG), New Jersey and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.

## F-64 Bext Response (2018g2b - 2002gt2a) at BRIG on Best 20% Days (12 km)

-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

32 68 77 113 119 125 158 194 206 221 251 263 269 281 284 287 302 317 332 335 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-21e. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 12 km results (2018- 2002) daily extinction for Brigantine (BRIG), New Jersey and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002. Bext Response (2018g2a - 2002gt2a) at BRIG on Best 20% Days (36 km)

-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

32 68 77 113 119 125 158 194 206 221 251 263 269 281 284 287 302 317 332 335 356 359 Avg Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) bCM bSOIL bEC bOC bNO3 bSO4



## Figure F-21f. Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km results (2018- 2002) daily extinction for Brigantine (BRIG), New Jersey and Best 20% (B20%) days in 2002.