C-49 2.3.2.3 CHAS for All Days

Figure C-12. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Chassahowitzka (CHAS), Florida for

the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-50 Figure C-12. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Chassahowitzka (CHAS),

Florida for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-51 2.3.3 Everglades National Park (EVER), Florida

2.3.3.1 EVER Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-13a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Everglades (EVER), Florida for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom

left) and EC (bottom right).C-52 Figure C-13b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Everglades (EVER), Florida for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom

left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-53 Figure C-14. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for EVER and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-54 2.3.3.2 EVER Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-15a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Everglades (EVER), Florida for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom

left) and EC (bottom right).C-55 Figure C-15b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Everglades (EVER), Florida for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom

left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-56 Figure C-16. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for EVER and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-57 2.3.3.3 EVER for All Days

Figure C-17. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Everglades (EVER), Florida for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-58 Figure C-17. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Everglades (EVER), Florida

for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-59 2.3.4 St. Marks Wildlife Refuge (SAMA), Florida

2.3.4.1 SAMA Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-18a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at St. Marks (SAMA), Florida for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom

left) and EC (bottom right).C-60 Figure C-18b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at St. Marks (SAMA), Florida for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom

left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-61 Figure C-19. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for SAMA and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-62 2.3.4.2 SAMA Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-20a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at St. Marks (SAMA), Florida for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom

left) and EC (bottom right).C-63 Figure C-20b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at St. Marks (SAMA), Florida for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom

left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-64 Figure C-21. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for SAMA and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-65 2.3.4.3 SAMA for All Days

Figure C-22. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at St. Marks (SAMA), Florida for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-66 Figure C-22. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at St. Marks (SAMA), Florida

for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-67 2.3.5 Cohutta Wilderness Area (COHU), Georgia

2.3.5.1 COHU Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-23a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Cohutta (COHU), Georgia for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom

left) and EC (bottom right).C-68 Figure C-23b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Cohutta (COHU), Georgia for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom

left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-69 Figure C-24. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for COHU and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-70 2.3.5.2 COHU Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-25a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Cohutta (COHU), Georgia for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom

left) and EC (bottom right).C-71 Figure C-25b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Cohutta (COHU), Georgia for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom

left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-72 Figure C-26. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for COHU and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-73 2.3.5.3 COHU for All Days

Figure C-27. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Cohutta (COHU), Georgia for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-74 Figure C-27. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Cohutta (COHU), Georgia for

the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-75 2.3.6 Okefenokee Wildlife Re fuge (OKEF), Georgia

2.3.6.1 OKEF Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-28a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Okefenokee (OKEF), Georgia for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-76 Figure C-28b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Okefenokee (OKEF), Georgia for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-77 Figure C-29. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for OKEF and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-78 2.3.6.2 OKEF Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-30a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Okefenokee (OKEF), Georgia for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-79 Figure C-30b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Okefenokee (OKEF), Georgia for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-80 Figure C-31. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for OKEF and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-81 2.3.6.3 OKEF for All Days

Figure C-32. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Okefenokee (OKEF),

Georgia for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulationC-82 Figure C-32. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Okefenokee (OKEF), Georgia for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-83 2.3.7 Mammoth Cave National Park (MACA), Kentucky

2.3.7.1 MACA Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-33a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Mammoth Cave (MACA), Kentucky for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-84 Figure C-33b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Mammoth Cave (MACA), Kentucky for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-85 Figure C-34. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for MACA and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-86 2.3.7.2 MACA Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-35a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Mammoth Cave (MACA), Kentucky for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-87 Figure C-35b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Mammoth Cave (MACA), Kentucky for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-88 Figure C-36. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for MACA and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-89 2.3.7.3 MACA for All Days

Figure C-37. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Mammoth Cave (MACA), Kentucky for

the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-90 Figure C-37. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Mammoth Cave (MACA),

Kentucky for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-91 2.3.8 Linville Gorge Wilderness Area (LIGO), North Carolina

2.3.8.1 LIGO Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-38a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Linville Gorge (LIGO), North Carolina for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-92 Figure C-38b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Linville Gorge (LIGO), North Carolina for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea

Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-93 Figure C-39. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for LIGO and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-94 2.3.8.2 LIGO Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-40a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Linville Gorge (LIGO), North Carolina for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-95 Figure C-40b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Linville Gorge (LIGO), North Carolina for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea

Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-96 Figure C-41. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for LIGO and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-97 2.3.8.3 LIGO for All Days

Figure C-42. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Linville Gorge (LIGO), North Carolina

for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-98 Figure C-42. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Linville Gorge (LIGO), North

Carolina for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-99 2.3.9 Shining Rock Wilderness Area (SHRO), North Carolina

2.3.9.1 SHRO Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-43a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Shining Rock (SHRO), North Carolina for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right),

OMC (bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-100 Figure C-43b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Shining Rock (SHRO), North Carolina for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea

Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-101 Figure C-44. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for SHRO and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-102 2.3.9.2 SHRO Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-45a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Shining Rock (SHRO), North Carolina for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right),

OMC (bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-103 Figure C-45b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Shining Rock (SHRO), North Carolina for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea

Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-104 Figure C-46. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for SHRO and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-105 2.3.9.3 SHRO for All Days

Figure C-47. Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, Sea

Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Shining Rock (SHRO), North Carolina for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-106 Figure C-47. (concluded) Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Shining Rock (SHRO), North

Carolina for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-107 2.3.10 Swanquarter Wildlife Refuge (SWAN), North Carolina

2.3.10.1 SWAN Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-48a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Swanquarter (SWAN), North Carolina for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right),

OMC (bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-108 Figure C-48b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Swanquarter (SWAN), North Carolina for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea

Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-109 Figure C-49. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for SWAN and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-110 2.3.10.2 SWAN Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-50a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Swanquarter (SWAN), North Carolina for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-111 Figure C-50b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Swanquarter (SWAN), North Carolina for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea

Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-112 Figure C-51. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for SWAN and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-113 2.3.10.3 SWAN for All Days

Figure C-52. Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, Sea

Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Swanquarter (SWAN), North Carolina for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-114 Figure C-52. (concluded) Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Swanquarter (SWAN), North

Carolina for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-115 2.3.11 Cape Romain Wildlife Refuge (ROMA), South Carolina

2.3.11.1 ROMA Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-53a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Cape Romain (ROMA), South Carolina for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right),

OMC (bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-116 Figure C-53b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Cape Romain (ROMA), South Carolina for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea

Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-117 Figure C-54. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for ROMA and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-118 2.3.11.2 ROMA Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-55a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Cape Romain (ROMA), South Carolina for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right),

OMC (bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-119 Figure C-55b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Cape Romain (ROMA), South Carolina for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea

Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-120 Figure C-56. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for ROMA and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-121 2.3.11.3 ROMA for All Days

Figure C-57. Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, Sea

Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Cape Romain (ROMA), South Carolina for

the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-122 Figure C-57. (concluded) Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Cape Romain (ROMA),

South Carolina for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-123 2.3.12 Great Smoky Mountains National Pa rk (GRSM), Tennessee-North Carolina

2.3.12.1 GRSM Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-58a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Great Smoky Mountains (GRSM), Tennessee-North Carolina for SO4 (top

left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-124 Figure C-58b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Great Smoky Mountains (GRSM), Tennessee-North Carolina for Soil (top

left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-125 Figure C-59. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for GRSM and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-126 2.3.12.2 GRSM Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-60a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Great Smoky Mountains (GRSM), Tennessee-North Carolina for SO4 (top

left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-127 Figure C-60b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Great Smoky Mountains (GRSM), Tennessee-North Carolina for Soil (top

left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-128 Figure C-61. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for GRSM and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-129 2.3.12.3 GRSM for All Days

Figure C-62. Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, Sea

Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Great Smoky Mountains (GRSM),

Tennessee-North Carolina for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-130 Figure C-62. (concluded) Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Great Smoky Mountains

(GRSM), Tennessee-North Carolina for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-131 2.3.13 James River Face Wilderness Area (JARI), Virginia

2.3.13.1 JARI Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-63a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at James River (JARI), Virginia for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom

left) and EC (bottom right).C-132 Figure C-63b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at James River (JARI), Virginia for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-133 Figure C-64. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for JARI and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-134 2.3.13.2 JARI Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-65a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at James River (JARI), Virginia for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom

left) and EC (bottom right).C-135 Figure C-65b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at James River (JARI), Virginia for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-136 Figure C-66. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for JARI and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-137 2.3.13.3 JARI for All Days

Figure C-67. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at James River (JARI), Virginia for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-138 Figure C-67. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at James River (JARI), Virginia

for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-139 2.3.14 Shenandoah National Park (SHEN), Virginia

2.3.14.1 SHEN Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-68a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Shenandoah (SHEN), Virginia for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-140 Figure C-68b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Shenandoah (SHEN), Virginia for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-141 Figure C-69. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for SHEN and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-142 2.3.14.2 SHEN Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-70a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Shenandoah (SHEN), Virginia for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-143 Figure C-70b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Shenandoah (SHEN), Virginia for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-144 Figure C-71. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for SHEN and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-145 2.3.14.3 SHEN for All Days

Figure C-72. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Shenandoah (SHEN), Virginia for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-146 Figure C-72. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Shenandoah (SHEN),

Virginia for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-147 2.3.15 Dolly Sods Wilderness Area (DOSO), West Virginia

2.3.15.1 DOSO Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-73a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Dolly Sods (DOSO), West Virginia for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-148 Figure C-73b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Dolly Sods (DOSO), West Virginia for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-149 Figure C-74. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for DOSO and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-150 2.3.15.2 DOSO Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-75a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Dolly Sods (DOSO), West Virginia for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-151 Figure C-75b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Dolly Sods (DOSO), West Virginia for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-152 Figure C-76. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for DOSO and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-153 2.3.15.3 DOSO for All Days

Figure C-77. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Dolly Sods (DOSO), West Virginia for

the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-154 Figure C-77. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Dolly Sods (DOSO), West

Virginia for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-155 2.3.16 Breton Island Wildlife Re fuge (BRET), Louisiana

2.3.16.1 BRET Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-78a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Breton (BRET), Louisiana for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom

left) and EC (bottom right).C-156 Figure C-78b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Breton (BRET), Louisiana for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom

left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-157 Figure C-79. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for BRET and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-158 2.3.16.2 BRET Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-80a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Breton (BRET), Louisiana for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom

left) and EC (bottom right).C-159 Figure C-80b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Breton (BRET), Louisiana for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom

left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-160 Figure C-81. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for BRET and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-161 2.3.16.3 BRET for All DaysC-162 Figure C-82. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Breton (BRET), Louisiana for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-163 2.3.17 Caney Creek Wilderness Area (CACR), Arkansas

2.3.17.1 CACR Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-83a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-164 Figure C-83b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-165 Figure C-84. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for CACR and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-166 2.3.17.2 CACR Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-85a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-167 Figure C-85b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-168 Figure C-86. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for CACR and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-169 2.3.17.3 CACR for All DaysC-170 Figure C-87. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-171 2.3.18 Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (UPBU), Arkansas

2.3.18.1 UPBU Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-88a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Arkansas for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-172 Figure C-88b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Arkansas for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-173 Figure C-89. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for UPBU and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-174 2.3.18.2 UPBU Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-90a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Arkansas for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-175 Figure C-90b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Arkansas for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-176 Figure C-91. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for UPBU and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-177 2.3.18.3 UPBU for All Days

Figure C-92. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Arkansas for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-178 Figure C-92. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Upper Buffalo (UPBU),

Arkansas for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-179 2.3.19 Mingo Wildlife Refuge (MING), Missouri

Figure C-

 96... . 

. .

ٛ ๓ ๓ 〃

ٛٛٛٛٛٛ MING Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-93a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Mingo (MING), Missouri for SO 4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom left)

and EC (bottom right).C-180 Figure C-93b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Mingo (MING), Missouri for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom

left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-181 Figure C-94. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for MING and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-182 2.3.19.2 MING Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-95a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Mingo (MING), Missouri for SO 4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC (bottom left)

and EC (bottom right).C-183 Figure C-95b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Worst

20 percent days at Mingo (MING), Missouri for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt (bottom

left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-184 Figure C-96. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for MING and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-185 2.3.19.3 MING for All Days

Figure C-97. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Mingo (MING), Missouri for the CMAQ

2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-186 Figure C-97. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Mingo (MING), Missouri for

the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-187 2.3.20 Hercules Glade Wilderness Area (HEGL), Missouri

2.3.20.1 HEGL Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-98a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Hercules Glade (HEGL), Missouri for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-188 Figure C-98b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Hercules Glade (HEGL), Missouri for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-189 Figure C-99. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for HEGL and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-190 2.3.20.2 HEGL Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-100a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the

Worst 20 percent days at Hercules Glade (HEGL), Missouri for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right),

OMC (bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-191 Figure C-100b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the

Worst 20 percent days at Hercules Glade (HEGL), Missouri for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea

Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-192 Figure C-101. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for HEGL and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-193 2.3.20.3 HEGL for All Days

Figure C-102. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Hercules Glade (HEGL), Missouri for

the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-194 Figure C-102. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Hercules Glade (HEGL),

Missouri for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-195 2.3.21 Brigantine Wildlife Refuge (BRIG), New Jersey

2.3.21.1 BRIG Best 20 Percent Days

Figure C-103a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Brigantine (BRIG), New Je rsey for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-196 Figure C-103b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the Best

20 percent days at Brigantine (BRIG), New Jersey for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea Salt

(bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-197 Figure C-104. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for BRIG and

the Best 20 Percent Days.C-198 2.3.21.2 BRIG Worst 20 Percent Days

Figure C-105a. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the

Worst 20 percent days at Brigantine (BRIG), New Jersey for SO4 (top left), NO3 (top right), OMC

(bottom left) and EC (bottom right).C-199 Figure C-105b. CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km Actual base case model performance for the

Worst 20 percent days at Brigantine (BRIG), New Jersey for Soil (top left), CM (top right), Sea

Salt (bottom left) and Total Bext (bottom right).C-200 Figure C-106. Bugle Plots of Fractional Bias and Fractional Gross Error for BGIG and

the Worst 20 Percent Days.C-201 2.3.21.3 BRIG for All Days

Figure C-107. Time series of predicted and obser ved SO4, NO3, OM C, EC, Soil, CM,

Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Brigantine (BRIG), New Jersey for the

CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.C-202 Figure C-107. (concluded) Time series of pred icted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC,

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM 2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Brigantine (BRIG), New

Jersey for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation.APPENDIX D

Air Quality Model

Performance Evaluation:

Spatial Maps of Model Performance

on the Best and Worst 20 Percent Days

at VISTAS and Nearby Class I AreasD-1 

### D. SPATIAL PLOTS

The 12km domain spatial plots of model-simulate d daily concentration of the constituents of

particle pollution most responsible for light extinction for 2002, w ith the actual observed

concentrations overlaid are presen ted in this section. These plot s are presented for the entire

12km domain. Only the 20% best an d 20% worst days used in calcu lating light extinction for the

IMPROVE monitoring sites representa tive of North Carolina’s Class I Areas are presented here.

There are three pages of overlays for each date id entified as a 20% best or 20% worst day for any

of the Class I Area. The first page for each date contains the spatial pl ots for sulfate (SO4),

nitrate (NO3), ammonium (NH4), and organic ca rbon (OC). The second page contains plots for

elemental carbon (EC), coarse matter (CM), sea salt, and the soil constituent of fine particulate

matter. The third page in the series is a plot of total fine particulat e matter (PM2.5). A table

immediately follows the plot of total reconstructed particulate matter, which details whether that

particular date was a 20% best or 20% worst day in each of the Class I Areas The color scale for

all the plots moves from lower concentrations in shade of blue to warmer colors for higher ozone

concentrations.

Across the 12km modeling domain, the general spa tial pattern of peaks and valleys of sulfate

concentrations were well repr esented. Gradients across Nort h Carolina were generally well

captured. There was some tendency for under-prediction or displacement of peaks especially on

days with complex gradient. There was a tendenc y for the model to perfo rm better on days with

wide spread high sulfate concentrations.

For nitrates, there were some issues with capturing the exact magnitude of peaks and minimum

concentrations in the modeling. However, the sp atial pattern was captured reasonably well, even

with the typically low concentration seen acro ss the southeast. Ammonium model performance

was similar, as there were issues capturing th e exact magnitudes of minimums and maximums,

but with generally good spatial pa ttern capture. Performance seem s to be especially good when

the bulk of the domain experienced low concen trations. With the ammonium, the model

typically showed elevated values over eastern NC, which woul d suggest the modeling captured

emission from concentrated livest ock operations in the area.

Organic carbon had well captured sp atial patterns with only a slig ht issue in capturing peak

values, which were usually just slightly displaced from observed values. The model also seemed

to have a weaker concentration gradient than suggested by observations. Elemental carbon

generally had low values, with so me isolated high values likely due to large sources (or large

urban areas) with minimal plume dispersion, which were not captured with the IMPROVE

monitoring observations. Looking at the general pattern, concentr ations are captured reasonable

well compared to the IMPROVE monitors.

Coarse matter pattern is not handled as well as other species, esp ecially with respect to capturing

finer concentration gradients. The observati ons along the Appalachian Mountains from late

spring through summer are not capture d well, as peak values are of ten missed. However, at this

same time, concentrations to the northwest are captured well. By the fall, concentrations lower,D-2 and are better represented. Sea sa lt model performance is a little hard to quantify, as there are

few observation throughout 2002 to base an analysis . Generally concentrations are low, with

most peaks occurring near the co ast, which at least follow natural logic. The model predicted

peaks near the shore usually do not reach as high as the available observations, but further

support the model pr oduced pattern.

The soil component of particulat e matter is generally over pred icted, especially peaks through

the Midwestern states. The model shows some gr asp of the pattern of soil concentrations, but

with actual magnitudes of peak va lues over predicted. The model seems to do better with lower

concentrations through the coastal states.

For reconstructed fine particulat e matter, the overall pattern is generally predicted well, with a

slight under-prediction of peak values. Wide spread events are gene rally captured well

(especially June 4 th , 10 th , and 19 th ). Performance during the summer seems especially well

captured as well.D-3 D.1 January 5, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

01/05/02 5 W20% CHAS, EVER, SWAN, HEGL

01/05/02 5 B20% LIGO, SHRO, SHEN, DOSO

Figure D-1: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 5, 2002D-4 Figure D-2: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 5, 2002D-5 Figure D-3: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 5, 2002D-6 D.2 January 8, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

01/08/02 8 W20%

01/08/02 8 B20% LIGO, SHRO, GRSM, JARI, BRET

Figure D-4: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 8, 2002D-7 Figure D-5: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 8, 2002D-8 Figure D-6: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 8, 2002D-9 D.3 January 11, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

01/11/02 11 W20%

01/11/02 11 B20% LIGO, SHRO, GRSM, JARI, SIPS, SAMA, OKEF,

CACR

Figure D-7: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 11, 2002D-10 Figure D-8: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 11, 2002D-11 Figure D-9: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 11, 2002D-12 D.4 January 14, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

01/14/02 14 W20%

01/14/02 14 B20% GRSM, SIPS, SAMA, CACR, BRET, SHEN,

DOSO, SWAN, HEGL, MACA, ROMA, UPBU,

MING

Figure D-10: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) ComponentD-13 Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 14, 2002

Figure D-11: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 14, 2002D-14 Figure D-12: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 14, 2002D-15 D.5 January 17, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

01/17/02 17 W20% OKEF, CHAS, ROMA

01/17/02 17 B20%

Figure D-13: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 17, 2002D-16 Figure D-14: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 17, 2002D-17 Figure D-15: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 17, 2002D-18 D.6 January 20, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

01/20/02 20 W20% MING, BRIG

01/20/02 20 B20% SAMA, OKEF, BRET

Figure D-16: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 20, 2002D-19 Figure D-17: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 20, 2002D-20 Figure D-18: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 20, 2002D-21 D.7 January 23, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

01/23/02 23 W20% OKEF

01/23/02 23 B20% LIGO, GRSM, JARI, SHEN, DOSO, EVER,

COHU, MACA, ROMA

Figure D-19: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 23, 2002D-22 Figure D-20: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 23, 2002D-23 Figure D-21: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 23, 2002D-24 D.8 January 26, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

01/26/02 26 W20% CHAS

01/26/02 26 B20% LIGO, SHRO, JARI, SIPS, CACR, SHEN, DOSO,

SWAN, HEGL, COHU, UPBU

Figure D-22: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 26, 2002D-25 Figure D-23: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 26, 2002D-26 Figure D-24: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 26, 2002D-27 D.9 January 29, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

01/29/02 29 W20% ROMA

01/29/02 29 B20% EVER

Figure D-25: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 29, 2002D-28 Figure D-26: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 29, 2002D-29 Figure D-27: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 29, 2002D-30 D.10 February 1, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

02/01/02 32 W20%

02/01/02 32 B20% GRSM, SIPS, SAMA, BRET, EVER, COHU,

MACA, MING, BRIG

Figure D-28: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentr:ations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 1, 2002D-31 Figure D-29: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 1, 2002D-32 Figure D-30: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For February 1, 2002D-33 D.11 February 4, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

02/04/02 35 W20% SAMA, EVER

02/04/02 35 B20% JARI, MACA

Figure D-31: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 4, 2002D-34 Figure D-32: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 4, 2002D-35 Figure D-33: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For February 4, 2002D-36 D.12 February 7, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

02/07/02 38 W20%

02/07/02 38 B20% LIGO, SHRO, GRSM, SAMA, OKEF, BRET,

SHEN, CHAS, COHU

Figure D-34: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 7, 2002D-37 Figure D-35: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 7, 2002D-38 Figure D-36: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For February 7, 2002D-39 D.13 February 10, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

02/10/02 41 W20% CHAS

02/10/02 41 B20%

Figure D-37: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 10, 2002D-40 Figure D-38: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 10, 2002D-41 Figure D-39: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For February 10, 2002D-42 D.14 February 13, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

02/13/02 44 W20% SAMA, OKEF, BRET, CHAS, EVER, ROMA

02/13/02 44 B20% JARI, HEGL, COHU, MACA, MING

Figure D-40: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 13, 2002D-43 Figure D-41: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Elemental Carbon (EC)

Component Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Coarse Particle Mass

(CM) Component Concentrations (to p right), Daily Average Sea Salt

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 13, 2002D-44 Figure D-42: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For February 13, 2002D-45 D.15 February 16, 2002

Date Julian Day Type Class I Areas Affected

02/16/02 47 W20% SAMA, BRET, CHAS, ROMA

02/16/02 47 B20% UPBU

Figure D-43: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Sulfate (SO4) Component

Concentrations (top left), Daily Average Nitrate (NO3) Component

Concentrations (top right), Daily Average Ammonium (NH4) Component

Concentrations, And Daily Average Organic Carbon (OC) Component

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 16, 2002