C-49 

2.3.2.3 CHAS for All Days 

Figure C-12. Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 Refuge (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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 mass across all monitoring days at Okefenokee (OKEF), 

Georgia for the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 12 km base case simulation
 C-82 

Figure C-32. Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 Park (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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 Refuge (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 Days 
 C-162 

Figure C-82. Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 Days 
 C-170 

Figure C-87. Time series of predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 SO4 (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 SO4 (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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 Jersey 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 observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, Soil, CM, 

Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 predicted and observed SO4, NO3, OMC, EC, 

Soil, CM, Sea Salt and PM2.5 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 Areas

 
 D-1 

D. SPATIAL PLOTS 

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

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

concentrations overlaid are presented in this section. These plots are presented for the entire 

12km domain. Only the 20% best and 20% worst days used in calculating light extinction for the 

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

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

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

nitrate (NO3), ammonium (NH4), and organic carbon (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 particulate 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 spatial pattern of peaks and valleys of sulfate 

concentrations were well represented. Gradients across North 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 tendency for the model to perform 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 spatial pattern was captured reasonably well, even 

with the typically low concentration seen across the southeast. Ammonium model performance 

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

but with generally good spatial pattern capture. Performance seems to be especially good when 

the bulk of the domain experienced low concentrations. With the ammonium, the model 

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

emission from concentrated livestock operations in the area. 

Organic carbon had well captured spatial patterns with only a slight 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 some 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, concentrations are captured reasonable 

well compared to the IMPROVE monitors. 

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

finer concentration gradients. The observations along the Appalachian Mountains from late 

spring through summer are not captured well, as peak values are often 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 salt 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 coast, 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 produced pattern. 

The soil component of particulate matter is generally over predicted, especially peaks through 

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

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

concentrations through the coastal states. 

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

slight under-prediction of peak values. Widespread events are generally captured well 

(especially June 4th, 10th, and 19th). 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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 5, 2002 
 D-5 

Figure D-3: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 5, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 8, 2002 
 D-8 

Figure D-6: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 8, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 11, 2002 
 D-11 

Figure D-9: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 11, 2002 
 D-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) Component 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 14, 2002 
 D-14 

Figure D-12: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 14, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 17, 2002 
 D-17 

Figure D-15: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 17, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 20, 2002 
 D-20 

Figure D-18: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 20, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 23, 2002 
 D-23 

Figure D-21: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 23, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 26, 2002 
 D-26 

Figure D-24: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 26, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For January 29, 2002 
 D-29 

Figure D-27: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For January 29, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 1, 2002 
 D-32 

Figure D-30: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For February 1, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 4, 2002 
 D-35 

Figure D-33: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For February 4, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 7, 2002 
 D-38 

Figure D-36: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For February 7, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 10, 2002 
 D-41 

Figure D-39: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For February 10, 2002 
 D-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, 2002 
 D-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 (top right), Daily Average Sea Salt 

Component Concentrations, And Daily Average Soil Component 

Concentrations Spatial Plots For February 13, 2002 
 D-44 

Figure D-42: Modeled Predicted And Observed Daily Average Total Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM25) Concentration Spatial Plots For February 13, 2002 
 D-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