# Appendix D. 2008, 2015, and 2023 Emissions Inventories

for the Treasure Valley Airshed

### This page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.

# 2008, 2015, AND 2023 EMISSIONS INVENTORIE S

FOR THE TREASURE VAL LEY AIRSHED

Final Report

Submitted to: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706

Submitted by:

August 31 , 20 10

Revised by DEQ in February 201 3 to reflect updated MOVES

and p aved r

oad d ust emission estimates. Eastern Research Group, Inc.
8950 Cal Center Drive, Suite 348
Sacramento, CA 95826

Contact: Paula Fields

916

- 361

- 6751 ENVIRON International Corporation
773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115
Novato, CA 94998 Eastern Research Group, Inc.
10860 Gold Center Drive, Suite 275
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

### This page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.

# 2008, 2015, AND 2023 EMISSIONS INVENTORIE S FOR THE

TREASURE VALLEY AIRS HED

Final Report

Prepared for:

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

1410 North Hilton Boise, ID 93706

Prepared by:

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG)

10860 Gold Center Drive

, Suite 275

Rancho Cordova , CA 95 670

and

ENVIRON International Corporation 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 Novato, CA 94998

August 31 , 20 10

Revised by DEQ in February 201 3 to reflect updated MOVES

and p aved r

oad d ust emission estimates.

### This page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### i 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 1

- 1

1.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1

- 1

1.2 Inventory Sc ope

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1

- 4

1.3 Report Contents

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1

- 6

2.0 2008 POINT SOURCE EM ISSIONS INVENTORY

................................ ......................... 2

- 1

2.1 Point Source Data Collection

................................ ................................ .................. 2

- 1

2.2 Emission Calculation Methodologies

– Annual

................................ ..................... 2

- 5

2.3 Emission Calculation Methodologies

– Ozone and PM Season

............................. 2

- 8

2.4 Emission Results by Facility

................................ ................................ ................... 2

- 9

2.5 QA/QC Procedures

................................ ................................ ................................ . 2

- 9

3.0 2008 AREA SOURCE EMI SSIONS INVENTORY

................................ .......................... 3

- 1

3.1 Emissions Calculation Methodologies

– Annual

................................ .................... 3

- 1

3.1.1 Fuel Combustion

................................ ................................ ......................... 3

- 1

3.1.2 Residential Wood Combustion

................................ ................................ ... 3

- 6

3.1.3 Paved Road Dust

................................ ................................ ......................... 3

- 8

3.1.4 Unpaved Road Dust

................................ ................................ .................. 3

- 10

3.1.5 Commercial Cooking

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 14

3.1.6 Construction

................................ ................................ .............................. 3

- 15

3.1.7 Architectural Surface Coatings

................................ ................................ . 3

- 16

3.1.8 Traffic Markings

................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 16

3.1.9 Industrial Surface Coating

................................ ................................ ........ 3

- 16

3.1.10 Degreasing

................................ ................................ ................................ 3

- 18

3.1.11 Other Per Employee Emission Factor Source Categories

......................... 3

- 19

3.1.12 Bakeries and Consumer Solvents

................................ .............................. 3

- 21

3.1.13 Dry Cleaning

................................ ................................ ............................. 3

- 22

3.1 .14 Asphalt Application

................................ ................................ .................. 3

- 22

3.1.15 Pesticide Application

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 24

3.1.16 Gasoline Distribution

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 26

3.1.17 Wastewater Treatment

................................ ................................ .............. 3

- 26

3.1.18 Landfills

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3

- 27

3.1.19 Open Burning (Yard Waste and Hous ehold Waste)

................................ . 3

- 29

3.1.20 Agricultural Tilling and Harvesting

................................ .......................... 3

- 31

3.1.21 Agricultural Burning

– Fields

................................ ................................ ... 3

- 31

3.1.22 Agricultural Burning

– Irrigation Ditches

................................ ................. 3

- 32

3.1.23 Beef Cattle Feedlots

................................ ................................ .................. 3

- 33

3.1.24 Other Fires

................................ ................................ ................................ 3

- 34

3.1.25 Windblown Dust

................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 35

3.1.26 Ammonia Emissions

................................ ................................ ................. 3

- 50

3.2 Emissions Calculation Methodologies

– Ozone and PM Season

......................... 3

- 68

3.2.1 Fuel Combustion

................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 68

3.2.2 Resident ial Wood Combustion

................................ ................................ . 3

- 70

3.2.3 Paved Road Dust

................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 702008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### ii

3.2.4 Unpaved Road Dust

................................ ................................ .................. 3

- 70

3.2.5 Commercial Cooking

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 71

3.2.6 Construction

................................ ................................ .............................. 3

- 71

3.2.7 Architectural Surface Coatings

................................ ................................ . 3

- 72

3.2.8 Traffic Markings

................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 72

3.2.9 Industrial Surface Coating

................................ ................................ ........ 3

- 72

3.2.10 Degrea sing

................................ ................................ ................................ 3

- 73

3.2.11 Other Per Employee Emission Factor Source Categories

......................... 3

- 73

3.2.12

................................ ................................ ........... 

### Bakeries and Consumer Solvents 3

- 74 3.2.13 Dry Cleaning

................................ ................................ .............................. 3

- 74 3.2.14 Asphalt Application

................................ ................................ .................. 3

- 74

3.2.15 Pestic ide Application

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 74

3.2.16 Gasoline Distribution

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 75

3.2.17 Wastewater Treatment

................................ ................................ .............. 3

- 75

3.2.18 Landfills

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3

- 75 3.2.19 Open Burning (Yard Waste and Household Waste)

................................ . 3

- 75 3.2.20 Agricultural Tilling and Harvesting

................................ .......................... 3

- 75 3.2.21 Agricultural Burning

– Fields

................................ ................................ .... 3

- 76 3.2.22 Agricultural Burning

– Irrigation Ditches

................................ .................. 3

- 76

3.2.23 Beef Cattle Feedlots

................................ ................................ .................. 3

- 76

3.2.24 Other Fires

................................ ................................ ................................ 3

- 76

3.2.25 Windblown Dust

................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 76

3.2.26 Ammonia Emissions

................................ ................................ ................. 3

- 77

3.3 Emission Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3

- 77

3.4 QA/QC Procedures

................................ ................................ ............................... 3

- 81

4.0 2008 ON

- ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE S OURCE EMISSIONS INVE NTORIES

.............. 4

- 1

5.0 2008 NONROAD MOBILE S OURCE EMISSIONS INVE NTORY

................................ . 5

- 3

5.1 Emission Calculation Methodologies

– Annual

................................ ..................... 5

- 3

5.1.1 Nonroad Equipment

................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 3

5.1.2 Aircraft

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5

- 10

5.1.3 Locomotives

................................ ................................ .............................. 5

- 12

5.2 Emission Calculation Methodologies

– Ozone and PM Season

........................... 5

- 23

5.2.1 Nonroad Equipment

................................ ................................ .................. 5

- 23

5.2.2 Aircraft

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5

- 24

5.2.3 Locomotives

................................ ................................ ................................ . 5

- 25

5.3 QA/QC procedures

................................ ................................ ................................ 5

- 26

6.0 2008 BIOGENIC SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY

................................ .................. 6

- 1

6.1 Emissions Calculation Methodologies

– Annual

................................ .................... 6

- 1

6.2 Emissions Calculation Methodologies

– Ozone and PM Season

........................... 6

- 1

6.3 Emission Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6

- 1

7.0 2015 AND 2023 PROJEC TED EMISSIONS INVENT ORIES

................................ .......... 7

- 1

7.1 Developm ent of 2015 and 2023 Projection Factors

................................ ................ 7

- 1

7.1.1 Point Sources

................................ ................................ .............................. 7

- 1

7.1.2 Area Sources

................................ ................................ ............................... 7

- 2

7.1.2.1 Fuel Combustion

................................ ................................ ............ 7

- 2 7.1.2.2 Population

................................ ................................ ...................... 7

- 32008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### iii

7.1.2.3 Industrial Output Projections

................................ ......................... 7

- 3 7.1.2.4 Long

- Term Agricultural Averages

................................ ................ 7

- 4 7.1.2.5 Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)

................................ .................... 7

- 4

7.1.2.6 No Growth

................................ ................................ ..................... 7

- 5

7.1.2.7 Ammonia Sources

................................ ................................ .......... 7

- 5

7.1.2.8 Road Dust

................................ ................................ ....................... 7

- 5

7.1.3 On

- Road Motor Vehicles

................................ ................................ ............ 7

- 6

7.1.4 Nonroad Mobile Sources

................................ ................................ ............ 7

- 9

7.1.4.1 Nonroad Equipment

................................ ................................ .... 7

- 10

7.1.4.2 Aircraft

................................ ................................ ........................ 7

- 10

7.1.4.3 Locomotives

................................ ................................ ................ 7

- 11

7.1.5 Biogenic Sou rces

................................ ................................ ...................... 7

- 12

7.2 2015, 2023, and 2050 Inventory Summaries

................................ ........................ 7

- 13

8.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY DATA FORMATTING

................................ ......................... 8

- 1

9.0 REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 9

- 1

APPENDIX A LISTING OF PBR AND U NPERMITTED FACILITIE S

APPENDIX B LETTERS TO TIER 1 AN D 2 FACILITIES; PBR AND UNPERMITTED

FACILITIES

APPENDIX C AREA SOURCE SURVEYS (F UEL DEALER AND DISTR IBUTOR

SURVEY, DRY CLEANING SURVEY, WASTEWATER T REATMENT
SURVEY, AND LANDFILL SURVEY)

APPENDIX D AURORA RESIDENTIAL W OOD COMBUSTION SURVE Y REPORT

APPENDIX E DEQ CONCEPT

- MV TECHNICAL MEMORAN DUM

APPENDIX F BIOGENICS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

A PPENDIX G DETAILED AREA SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY S UMMARIES

Tables Page

Table 1

- 1. Source Types and Categories Included in the Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 1

- 5

Table 2

- 1. Permitted Point Sources in the Treasure Valley

................................ ........................ 2

- 3

Table 2

- 2. Facilities Operating Under Permit by Rule in the Treasure Valley Air Sh ed

........... 2

- 4

Table 2

- 3. Unpermitted Facilities that Exceeded Point Source Thresholds in 2008 Emissions

. 2

- 8

Table 2

- 4. 2008 Annual Po int Source Emissions (Tons/Year)

................................ ................. 2

- 10

Table 2

- 5. 2008 Ozone Season Point Source Emissions (Tons/Day)

................................ ....... 2

- 13

Table 2

- 6. 2008 PM S eason Point Source Emissions (Tons/Day)

................................ ............ 2

- 16

Table 3

- 1. Area Source Matrix

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3

- 2

Table 3

- 2. Elmore County Paved Road Parameters

................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 9

Table 3

- 3. Elmore County Silt Loading Estimates

................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 9

Table 3

- 4. Elmore County Days with at Least 0.01 Inches of Rain

................................ ......... 3

- 10

Table 3

- 5. 2008 Annual Paved Road Dust Emission Estimates

................................ ............... 3

- 1 0

Table 3

- 6. 2008 Unpaved Road Dust Activity Data and Sources

................................ ............. 3

- 12

Table 3

- 7. Unpaved Road Dust Precipitation Adjustments

................................ ...................... 3

- 13

Table 3

- 8. Elmore County Unpaved Road Surface Silt Content

................................ .............. 3

- 14

Table 3

- 9. Unpaved Emissions Estimation Parameters

................................ ............................ 3

- 142008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### iv Table 3

- 10. 2008 Annual Unpaved Road Dust Emission Estimates

................................ ........ 3

- 14

Table 3

- 11. NAICS Code Assignments for Industrial Surface Coating Subcategories

............ 3

- 17

Table 3

- 12. NAICS Code Assignments for Degreasin g

................................ ........................... 3

- 18

Table 3

- 13. NAICS Code Assignments for Autobody Refinishing, Industrial Refrigeration/Cold

Storage, and Graphic Arts Categories

................................ ................................ 3

- 20

Table 3

- 14. Fire Code Assignments for the Structural Fire and Vehicle Fire Source Categories 3

-

34

Table 3

- 15. DEQ and CTIC Crop Type Mapping and Descriptions

................................ ......... 3

- 41

Table 3

- 16. Idaho Crop Canopy Cover by Crop Type and Julian Day Since Planting (%)

..... 3

- 42

Table 3

- 17. Idaho Planting and Harvesting Dates (Juli an Day) and Crop Canopy Crop Type 3

- 43

Table 3

- 18

. Soil Texture and Soil Group Codes

................................ ................................ ....... 3

- 47

Table 3

- 19. Surface Characteristics b y Dust Code and Land Use Category

............................. 3

- 48

Table 3

- 20. 2008 Annual Windblown Fugitive PM Dust Emissions for Ada, Canyon and Elmore

Counties (Tons/Year)

................................ ................................ ......................... 3

- 50

Table 3

- 21. 2008 Annual County

- Level Livestock Head Counts

................................ ............. 3

- 53

Table 3

- 22 . Ammonia Emission Factors for Livestock

................................ ............................ 3

- 53

Table 3

- 23 . Monthly Livestock Allocation Factors

................................ ................................ .. 3

- 54

Table 3

- 24. 2008 Annual Fertilizer Application Data by Type and County (kg/year)

............. 3

- 56

Table 3

- 25

. Ammonia Emissions Factors for Fertilizer Application

................................ ........ 3

- 57

Table 3

- 26 . Ammonia Emission Factors for Native Soils

................................ ........................ 3

- 58

Table 3

- 27. 2008 County

- Level Population Estimates

................................ ............................. 3

- 59

Table 3

- 28 . Ammonia Emission Factors for Domestic Ammonia Sources

.............................. 3

- 60

Table 3

- 29 . Ammonia Emission Factors for Wild Animal Ammonia Sources

........................ 3

- 61

Table 3

- 30. CDL Classifications and NH 3 

### Model Cross

- References

................................ ....... 3

- 62

Table 3

- 31. Land Use Summary by Category and County for the 4

- Km Modeling Domain

(Acres)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 65

Table 3

- 32. Land Use/Surrogate Cross

- Refer ence

................................ ................................ ... 3

- 67

Table 3

- 33. Source Category/Surrogate Cross

- Reference

................................ ........................ 3

- 67

Table 3

- 34. 2008 Annual Ammonia Emissions for Ada, Canyon , and Elmore Counties by

Source Category (Tons/Year)

................................ ................................ ............ 3

- 69

Table 3

- 35. 2008 Seasonal Paved Road Dust Emission Estimates

................................ ........... 3

- 71

Tab le 3

- 36. 2008 Seasonal Unpaved Road Dust Emission Estimates

................................ ...... 3

- 71

Table 3

- 37. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Architectural Surface Coating

....... 3

- 72

Table 3

- 38. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignments for Industrial Surface Coating

Subcategories

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 72

Table 3

- 39. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Degr easing

................................ ..... 3

- 73

Table 3

- 40. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Graphic Arts

................................ .. 3

- 73

Table 3

- 41. Temporal Allocation Profile A ssignment for Dry Cleaning

................................ . 3

- 74

Table 3

- 42. Summarized 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions

– All Counties

...................... 3

- 78

Table 3

- 43. Summa rized 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions

– Ada County

....................... 3

- 79

Table 3

- 44. Summarized 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions

– Canyon County

.................. 3

- 80

Table 3

- 45. Summarized 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions

– Elmore County

.................. 3

- 81

Table 4

- 1. 2008 On

- road Emissions Summary (Tons/Year and Tons/Day) a



### ............................. 4

- 2

Table 5

- 1. 2008 Pleasure Craft and Recreational Equipment Populations

................................ . 5

- 4

Table 5

- 2. NONROAD Model Default and Revised Agricultural Equipment Populations

....... 5

- 5

Table 5

- 3. Lawn and Garden Equipment Temporal Profile Groupings

................................ ...... 5

- 82008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### v Table 5

- 4. 2008 Gasoline RVP (psi) by Season

................................ ................................ ......... 5

- 9

Table 5

- 5. 2008 Annual Nonroad Equipment Emissions by County

................................ ........ 5

- 10

Table 5

- 6. 2008 Annual Nonroad Equipment Emissions by Equipment Type (Ada, Canyon, and

Elmore Counties Combined)

................................ ................................ .............. 5

- 10

Table 5

- 7. 2008 Aircraft Associated Emissions by Airport (Tons/Year)

................................ . 5

- 13

Tab le 5

- 8. FRA Rail Link Definitions

................................ ................................ ...................... 5

- 15

Table 5

- 9. Idaho Northern Pacific Railroad Activity Data

................................ ....................... 5

- 16

Table 5

- 10. Locomotive E mission Standards for Line

- haul (Duty Cycle) Engines

................. 5

- 18

Table 5

- 11. Locomotive Emission Standards for Switching (Duty Cycle) Engines

................ 5

- 18

Table 5

- 12. Locomotive Emission Factors for Calendar Years 1999 and Earlier

.................... 5

- 19

Table 5

- 13. Average Line

- Haul Locomotive Emission Factors

................................ ............... 5

- 19

Table 5

- 14. Fuel Efficiency by Railroad

................................ ................................ ................... 5

- 19

Table 5

- 15. Class 1 Railroad Emission Factors for 2008

................................ ......................... 5

- 19

Table 5

- 16. 2008 Line

- haul Locomotive Emissions (Tons/Year)

................................ ............ 5

- 20

Table 5

- 17. Switching Locomotive Activity Data for the Nampa Yard

................................ ... 5

- 21

Table 5

- 18. Switching Locomotive Emission Factors

................................ .............................. 5

- 21

Table 5

- 19. Estimated Switching Locomotive Emissions in 2008

................................ ........... 5

- 22

Table 5

- 20. 2008 Annual Locomotive Emissions by Source Category

................................ .... 5

- 22

Table 5

- 21. 2008 Seasonal Nonroad Equipment Emissions by County

................................ ... 5

- 23

Table 5

- 22. 2008 Seasonal Nonroad Equipment Emissions by Equipment Type (Ada, Canyon,

and Elmore Counties Combined)

................................ ................................ ....... 5

- 24

Table 5

- 23. Fraction of Aircraft Activity Occurring in the Ozone and PM Seasons

................ 5

- 25

Table 5

- 24. 2008 Ozone and PM Season Daily Locomotive Emission Estimates by Source

Category

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 25

Table 6

- 1. Annual, Ozone Season, and PM Season Biogenic Emissions

................................ ... 6

- 2

Table 7

- 1. 2015 and 2023 I/M Inputs by County: Anti

- Tampering Program Parameters a



### ....... 7

- 7

Table 7

- 2. 2015, 2023, and 2030 MOBILE6 Inputs by County: I/M Program Parameters a



### .... 7

- 8

Table 7

- 3. Base Year Aircraft LTO Activity Data and Future Year Projection Factors

.......... 7

- 11

Table 7

- 4. Union Pacific Historic Fuel Consumption

................................ ............................... 7

- 12

Table 7

- 5. 2008 County

- Level Annual Emiss ions Summarized by Source Type

.................... 7

- 14

Table 7

- 6. 2015 County

- Level Annual Emissions Summarized by Source Type

.................... 7

- 15

Table 7

- 7. 20 23 County

- Level Annual Emissions Summarized by Source Type

.................... 7

- 16

Table 7

- 8. 2050 County

- Level Annual On

- Road Emissions for Ada County

........................... 7

- 16

Table 7

- 9. 2008 County

- Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

......... 7

- 17

Table 7

- 10. 2015 County

- Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

....... 7

- 18

Table 7

- 11. 2023 County

- Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

....... 7

- 19

Table 7

- 12. 2050 Ozone Season On

- Road Emissions for Ad a County

................................ ..... 7

- 20

Table 7

- 13. 2008 County

- Level PM Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

............ 7

- 20

Table 7

- 14. 2015 County

- Level P M Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

............ 7

- 21

Table 7

- 15. 2023 County

- Level PM Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

............ 7

- 22

Table 7

- 16. 2050 County

- Level PM Season On

- Road Emissions for Ada County

................... 7

- 222008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### vi Figures Page

Figure 3

- 1. DEQ 4

- km Modeling Domain for Windblown Dust Emiss ions Development

...... 3

- 36 Figure 3

- 2. Merged Soil Texture Data from the SSURGO and STATSGO Databases

........... 3

- 38 Figure 3

- 3. Land Use/Lan d Cover Data Used for the DEQ Windblown Dust PM Emissions

Inventory Development

................................ ................................ ..................... 3

- 39 Figure 3

- 4. Comparison Between the Marticorena et al . (1997) Modeled Relationship of

Threshold Friction Ve locity and Aerodynamic Roughness Length and Wind

Tunnel Data from Gillette et al . (1980, 1982), Gillette (1988) and Nickling and Gillies (1989)

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 46 Figure 3

- 5. The Emission Flux as a Functio n of Friction Velocity Predicted by the Alfaro and

Gomes (2001) Model Constrained by the Four Soil Geometric Mean Diameter Classes of Alfaro et al. (2004)

................................ ................................ ........... 3

- 47 Figure 3

- 6. DEQ 4

- km Modeling D omain for Ammonia Emissions Development

................. 3

- 51 Figure 3

- 7. Land Use/Land Cover Data Used for the DEQ Ammonia Emissions Inventory

Development

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 64 Figure 3

- 8. Mean Soil pH for the DEQ Modeling Domain from the STATSGO Database

..... 3

- 65 Figure 5

- 1. Local Off

- Road Agricultural Equipment Monthly Temporal Profile

...................... 5

- 6 Figure 5

- 2. Local Construction Equipment Monthly Temporal Profile

................................ ..... 5

- 7 Figure 5

- 3. Local Lawn

- , Soil

- , and Leaf

- Related Lawn and Garden E quipment Monthly Temporal Profiles

................................ ................................ ................................ . 5

- 8 Figure 5

- 4. Local Wood

- Related Lawn and Garden Equipment Monthly Temporal Profile

..... 5

- 9

Fi gure 5

- 5. 2008 Aircraft Associated Emissions Contributions

................................ ............... 5

- 14 Figure 5

- 6. FRA Line

- Haul Freight Density

................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 162008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### vii 

## ACRONYMS

μg/m 3 

### microgram per cubic meter

μ m micrometers

AAR Association of American Railroads

ADT a verage daily traffic

AEO Annual Energy Outlook

AFB Air Force Base

AFS Air Facility System

ALVW a djusted loaded vehicle weight

AP

- 42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors

APU a uxiliary power u nits

ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange

ATADS Air Traffic Activity Data System

Atm s tandard atmosphere, a unit of pressure

ATR a utomatic traffic recorder

BEIS Biogenic Emission Inventory System

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CARB Cali fornia Air Resources Board

CDL c ropland data layer

CH 4 

### m ethane

CMAQ Congestion M itigation and A ir Q uality

CMU Carnegie Mellon University

CO c arbon m onoxide

CO 2 

### c arbon d ioxide

COMPASS Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho

CONCEPT MV Consolidated Community Emissions Processing Tool On

- Road Motor Vehicle Model

CTIC Conservation Technology Information Center

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

DQOs Data Quality Objectives

EDMS Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System

EEA European Environment Age ncy2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### viii EIA Energy Information Administration

EIIP Emission I nventory I mprovement P rogram

ERG Eastern Research Group , Inc.

ETBE ethyl tert

- butyl ether

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIPS Federal Information Processing S tandards

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FRS Facility Registry System

ft 3 

### cubic feet

g/l grams per liter

GIS Geographic Information System

Gmol grams per mole

GSE g round support equipment

GTM g ross ton

- mile

GVWR g ross vehicle weight rating

HC h ydrocarb ons

HDDV Heavy

- Duty Diesel Vehicle

HDGV Heavy

- Duty Gasoline Vehicle

HP h orsepower

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System

I/M i nspection and maintenance

ICAO I nternational Civil Aviation Organization

ID i dentification number

IDPR Idaho Department of Par ks and Recreation

IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources

IFIRS Idaho Fire Incident Reporting System

INPR Idaho Northern Pacific Railroad

IPM Integrated Pest Management

IPP Inventory Preparation Plan

ISDA Idaho State Department of Agriculture2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### ix ITD Idaho tr ansportation department

km kilometers

lbs pounds

LDDT Light

- Duty Diesel Truck

LDDV Light

- Duty Diesel Vehicle

LDGT Light

- Duty Gasoline Truck

LDGV Light

- Duty Gasoline Vehicle

LPG l iquefied p etroleum g as

LTOs l anding

- takeoff cycles

LULC l and use

- land cover

MC M o torcycles

MEGAN Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosol from Nature

Mg Megagrams

MM5 Fifth

- Generation NCAR/Penn State Mesoscale Model

mmHG millimeters of mercury

MMscf million standard cubic feet

MOVES M O tor Vehicle Emission Simulator

m ph miles per hour

mps meters per second

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets

MTBE methyl tert

- butyl ether

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

NEI National Emissions Inven tory

NH 3 

### a mmonia

NO nitric o xide

NO

x 

### n itrogen o xides

O 3 

### o zone

ORIS Office of Regulatory Information Systems

OSD o zone season daily2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### x PAN Pesticide Action Network

PBR p ermit by rule

P M p articulate m atter

PM 10 

### pa rticulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less

PM 2.5 

### p articulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less

POSST Point Source Survey Tool

ppm parts per million

ppmv parts per million by volume

psi pounds per square inch

PTC Permit to construct

QA q uality ass urance

QAP Quality Assurance Plan

QC q uality control

RVP Reid vapor pressure

RWC r esidential wood combustion

SCC Source Classification Code

scf standard cubic feet

SIC Source Industrial Classification

SIP State I mplementation P lan

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Opera tor Kernel Emissions

SO 2 

### s ulfur d ioxide

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database

STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database

TAF Terminal Area Forecast

TAME tert

- amyl methyl ether

TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone

TDM Transportation Demand Model

TIMs Time

- in modes

TPD tons per day

TPY tons per year

TRI Toxic Release Inventor y2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### xi TVRDS Treasure Valley Road Dust Study

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UP Union Pacific

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USGS United States Geological Survey

UW University of Washington

VIN v ehicle i dentification n umber

VKT v ehicle kilometers travelled

VMT v ehicle miles travelled

VOC v olatile o rganic c ompounds

VTRIS Vehicle Travel Information System

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership

WRCC Western Regional Cl imate Center

WRF Weather Research and Forecasting

WSFO National Weather Service Forecast Office

WWTPs w astewater treatment plants2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### xii

This page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 1

- 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report was or iginally prepared by the team of Eastern Research Group, Inc. ( ERG )

and ENVIRON International Corporation ( ENVIRON ) , with assistance from Aurora Research

Group (Aurora), according to the scope of Idaho Department of Environment al Quality (DEQ)

Contract C77

4, dated March 26, 2009.

B etween completion of th e ERG/Environ emission s inventor y final report in 2010 and

application of th e emission s inventor ies in the attainment demonstration for the Northern Ada

County PM

10 

### Limited M

aintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update

, four events dictated that updates

were necessary:

1. T he Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator ( MOVES ) model became a requirement for all state implementation plans ( SIPs ) and conformity tests to be b ased on SIP s (EPA, 2011a) ;

2. T he methodology originally used for paved road dust emission estimates was found to

be flawed ;

3. S mall error

s in o zone season distillate combustion sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 

### ) emissions

w ere discovered ; and,

4. O n

- road and paved road emission projections out to 2050 were added to su pport conformity evaluation s of the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho
( COMPASS ) long

- range transportation plan s with horizons out to 2050.

As a result of the first two events, DEQ updated the on

- road and paved road dust emissions in

2012

. The development of updated on

- road (MOVES) and paved road dust emission estimates

are both described in “

Development of the Base

- and Future

- Year Mobile Source Emissions

Inventories for the Treasure Valley

, Idaho ” (DEQ, 2012) , included as Appendix E of t he

Northern Ada County PM 10 

### Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update

. For clarity and ease of

use, this report was also updated ( all revised text and values are shown in italic to clearly

distinguish the DEQ updates from the original of ERG/Environ report )

.

1.1 Background

The Treasure Valley Airshed consists of Ada and Canyon counties in total; portions of

Elmore, Boise, Gem, Payette, and Owyhee counties in Idaho; plus, a portion of Malheur County,2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 1

- 2 Oregon (see report cover). This airshed boundary was determ ined using population, model runs,

seasonal episodic events for particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μ m or

less (PM 2.5 

### ) and ozone (O 3 

### ), and meteorological data such as average mixing heights. Activity in

all of the counties contribu tes to the air quality conditions, as emissions mix within and are

essentially trapped in the roughly 60

- mile by 100

- mile bathtub

- shaped Treasure Valley. The

terrain includes mountains northwest

- north

- northeast that rise to more than 7,000 feet ( i.e., the

Boise Front); a nearly closed end of the valley to the southeast where a rise off the Boise Front

sometimes keeps pollutants from being transported away ; mountains to the south

- southwest rise

to over 8,000 feet ( i.e., the Owyhee Mountains); and the valley is open to the west

- northwest.

The Treasure Valley, and especially Ada County, has a history of problems with PM with

an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers ( μ m) or less (PM 10 

### ), and carbon monoxide (CO).

Local weather patterns that occur in winter mont hs, terrain, and human activities contributed to

episodes of particulate build

- up. Northern Ada County was designated as in nonattainment of

the PM 10 

### National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in 1986. Violations of the PM 10



### NAAQS have not occurred si nce 1991 and northern Ada County remains in maintenance.

The CO problem stems from automobile exhaust and residential wood heating during

winter inversions. Exceedance of the 8

- hour CO NAAQS has not occurred since January 1991

and the area remains in mai ntenance since that time

.

Currently, the Treasure Valley is close to violating the O 3 

### NAAQS. Air quality

monitoring data indicate the area has equaled the 0.075 parts per million (ppm) NAAQS when

averaging the fourth

- highest readings from 2006, 2007, and 2008. Sunny summer weather, air

stagnation, increased vehicle miles traveled from rapid population growth, industrial activity, and

the terrain all contribute to high O 3 

### levels. The occasional nearby wildfire and transport from

other urban areas in the r egion also contribute to high levels of O 3 

### in the valley.

After approaching the 35 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m 3 

### ) 24

- hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 

### , favorable meteorological conditions in the Treasure Valley during the winters of 2006/2007 and

2007/2008 have allo wed the PM 2.5 

### design value to decrease. Lower frequency and shorter

duration inversion conditions have occurred as synoptic weather systems passed through

Southwestern Idaho with more regularity. Although the Treasure Valley is not in danger of2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 1

- 3 violating the annual PM 2.5 

### standard in the short term, interest remains in obtaining accurate PM 2.5



### emissions data for use in modeling and air quality studies should the typical winter inversions

return.

Planning efforts and special projects have identified certain contributors to the O 3 

### , PM 10 

### ,

and PM 2.5 

### issues in the Treasure Valley, as well as a need for more recent SIP

- level emissions

inventory data. DEQ has begun an extensive effort to reduce O 3 

### levels in the valley, as well as

ensuring PM 2.5 

### problems remain in check even if stagnant winter weather patterns return. To be

fully able to control certain pollutant contributions to the airshed, DEQ must first have the

emissions inventory data to be able to determine controls and the human behavioral changes

necessar y to possibly keep the area from going into nonattainment for one or both of these

pollutants.

Idaho DEQ needed an accurate emissions inventory of O3 precursors, and primary PM 10



### and PM 2.5 

### and their precursors for the Treasure Valley Airshed. This emissi ons inventory must

be of sufficient quality and detail to:

 Support development of O 3 

### , PM 10 

### , and PM 2.5 

### control strategies;

 Support photochemical grid modeling for control strategy development; and

 If necessary, in the event of a non

- attainment designation , to fully meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) expectations and guidance as part of an

O3 , PM 10 

### , or PM 2.5 

### non

- attainment area SIP and maintenance plan submittal.

The Treasure Valley emissions inventory project was funded through the Conges tion

Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant program, which is distributed via the Idaho

Transportation Department (ITD). DEQ is the lead agency on the project, working cooperatively

with ITD; the local Metropolitan Planning Organization, COMPASS; and the contractor team of

ERG, ENVIRON, and Aurora.

The emissions inventory was developed according to Emission Inventory Improvement

Program (EIIP) Level II requirements (EIIP, 1997a)

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 1

- 4 1.2 I nventory Scope

The scope of the Treasure Valley emissions inventory includ es these characteristics:

 Pollutants: Emissions were estimated for the following pollutants :

– Ozone precursors: nitrogen oxides (NO

x 

### ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and CO;

– Primary PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### ; and

– Precursors of PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### : NO

x 

### , sulfur dioxide ( SO

x 

### ), VOC, and ammonia (NH 3 

### ).

 Time Frame and Temporal Resolution: The base year inventory was developed is for calendar year 2008. Projections were developed for years 2015 and 2023. In addition
to annual inventories, estimates were also developed for o zone season daily (OSD)

and PM 10 

### /PM 2.5 

### (PM) season daily emissions. The ozone season is April 1 through October 31, and the PM season is November 1 through February 28.

 Sources: The inventories included estimates of emissions from industrial point

sources , area sources, and nonroad mobile sources. Also, ENVIRON estimated link

level on

- road motor vehicle emissions for the 15

- day period of February 1

- 15, 2008. DEQ then used the CONCEPT

- MV system and identical methodologies, with assistance and peer review by ENVIRON, to estimate on

- road emissions for each season during all three inventory years (i.e., 2008, 2015, and 2023) using the

MOBILE6.2 model

. In 2012 DEQ recomputed the 2008, 2015, and 2023 on

- road

emissions invento ries using the MOVES2010a model and EPA’s AP

- 42 Paved Road

Dust method

. Finally, DEQ has also completed the on

- road modeling for 20 50 to

support the Northern Ada County PM 10 

### Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update and subsequent conformity determinations in the long

- range transportation p lanning cycle that must be based on the p lan.

 Geographic Domain and Resolution: The inventories were estimated for the subject pollutants and sources located entirely within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties, Idaho. For the point sources, specific locatio n coordinates will be provided. For area and nonroad mobile sources, emissions will be provided at the county level.

Table 1

- 1 lists the source types and pollutants included in the Treasure Valley emissions

inventory.

The contract scope includes the foll owing tasks:

 Task 1: Work Plan for the Development of the Emissions Inventory

 Task 2: Inventory Preparation Plan and Quality Assurance Plan (IPP/QAP)

 Task 3: 2008 Point Sources Emissions Inventory

 Task 4: 2008 Area Sources Emissions Inventory2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 1

- 5  Task 5: 2008 Nonroad Mobile Sources Emissions Inventory

 Task 6: Emissions Inventory Document

 Task 7: Emissions Inventory Data Spreadsheets

 Task 8: Peer Review Biogenic and On

- Road Motor Vehicle Emissions

Table 1

- 1 . Source Types and Categories Included in the Treasure Valley

Emissions Inventories

Source Type Source Category Pollutants

Point Industrial Facilities (Various) a NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Area Industrial Fuel Combustion (d istillate, LPG, n atural

g as) NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3

Commercial/ Institutional Fuel Combustion ( d istillate, k erosene, LPG, n atural g as) NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3

Residential Fuel Combustion ( d istillate, k erosene, LPG, n atural g as) NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3

Residential Wood Combustion ( f ireplaces,

w oodstoves, f

ireplaces with i nserts, pellet s toves) NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3

Paved Road Dust PM 10 , PM 2.5 Unpaved Road Dust PM 10 , PM 2.5 Commercial Cooking NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Construction Dust PM 10 , PM 2.5 A rchitectural Surface Coating VOC Traffic Markings VOC Autobody Refinishing VOC Industrial Surface Coating VOC Degreasing VOC Graphic Arts VOC Industrial Refrigeration/Cold Storage NH 3 Consumer Solvent Use VOC

Bakeries VOC Dry Cleaning VOC Asphalt Application VOC Agricultural Pesticides VOC Gasoline Transport and Distribution VOC

Wastewater Treatment Plant VOC

Landfills VOC Open Burning (yard waste, household waste) NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Agricultural Tilling PM 10 , PM 2.5 Agricultural Harvesting PM 10 , PM 2.5 Agricultural Burning (fields, irrigation ditches) NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Beef Cattle Feedlots VOC, PM 10 , PM 2.5 Structural Fires NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Vehicle Fires NO

x , SO 2 , V OC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Windblown Dust PM 10 , PM 2.5 Livestock Ammonia NH 3 Agricultural Fertilizer NH 3 Domestic Ammonia NH 3 Wild Animals NH 3 Native soils NH 3 Nonroad Nonroad Equipment NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 32008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 1

- 6 Source Type Source Category Pollutants

Mobile Aircraft NO

x , S O 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3

Locomotives NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 On

- Road

Motor Vehicles  Vehicle Types (8)

 Roadway Types NO

x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3

Biogenics To be provided by DEQ NO

x , VOC

a Industrial point sources include facili ties that emit pollutant quantities above the following amounts: 5 tons per year (TPY) PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 , or NH 3 ; 10 TPY VOC; 25 TPY NO

x or CO. Sources with annual emissions below these amounts will be included in the area sources inventory.



###  Task 9: Prov ide all Data to DEQ

 Task 10: Emissions Inventory Projections (2015 and 2023)

 Task 11: CONCEPT MV Motor Vehicle Emissions Modeling

All work under all tasks has been completed . T he methods used and results achieved are documented in this final report. All data files (e.g., emissions inventory calculation spreadsheets,

model

- ready formatted files, etc.) are being submitted along with this final report

.

1.3 Report Contents

The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

 Section 2.0 presents the methodolo gies and results for the 2008 point source inventory;

 Section 3.0 provides the methodologies and results for the 2008 area source inventory;

 Section 4.0 presents review and results for the 2008 on

- road motor vehicle inventory;

 Section 5.0 provides the met hodologies and results for the 2008 nonroad mobile source inventory;

 Section 6.0 provides the review and results for the 2008 biogenic inventory;

 Section 7.0 outlines the methodologies used to project the 2008 point, area, on

- road
motor vehicle, nonroad m obile, and biogenic inventories to the future years of 2015
and 2023;

 Section 8.0 describes the emissions inventory data formatting that w as conducted ;

 Section 9.0 lists all of the references that were used in the development of the overall

emissions inven tory.

The report appendices contain various supplemental information, including the following:

 Appendix A

– Listing of P BR a nd Unpermitted Facilities2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 1

- 7  Appendix B

– Letters t o Tier 1 a nd 2 Facilities ; P BR a nd Unpermitted Facilities

 Appendix C

– Area Source S urveys (Fuel Dealer a nd Distributor Survey, Dry Cleaning Survey, Wastewater Treatment Survey, a nd Landfill Survey)

 Appendix D

– Aurora R esidential Wood Combustion Survey Report

 Appendix E

– D EQ CONCEPT

- MV Technical Memorandum

 Appendix F

– Biogenics Technic al Memorandum

 Appendix G

– Detailed Area Source Emission Inventory Summaries2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 1

- 8

This page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 1 2.0 2008 PO INT SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY

2.1 Point Source Data Collection

Early in the development of the point s ource inventory, it was decided that the industrial

point source facilities would be divided into two categories: permitted sources and unpermitted

sources. The permitted sources include facilities that operate under a current Tier 1 permit (i.e.,

Title V ) or a Tier 2 (including permit to construct [PTC]) permits. The unpermitted sources

include facilities that were operating under a permit by rule (PBR) (i.e., portable sand and gravel

equipment and dairies), as well as the possible universe of industrial facilities that do not possess

current DEQ air permits. DEQ provided a list of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 permitted facilities and the

PBR facilities, including facility and contact name and address.

For the Treasure Valley emissions inventory , point source s are defined to include

industrial facilities emitting greater than one of the following thresholds:

 5 tons per year (tpy) of PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , SO

x 

### , or NH 3 

### ;

 10 tpy of VOC; or

 25 tpy of NO

x 

### or CO

.

Sources with annual emissions below these levels will be include d in the area sources inventory.

The procedure described below was used to develop a master database of potential point

source facilities located within the Treasure Valley Airshed (i.e., Ada, Canyon, and Elmore

counties) in order to include full contact i nformation needed for mailing point source survey

letters. The data sources used were DEQ’s Tier 1, Tier 2/PTC, and PBR lists; 2002 and 2005

National Emissions Inventory (NEI); the U.S. EPA’s Facility Registry System (FRS); Idaho

Secretary of State Busine ss Listing; and 2005

- 2007 Toxic Release Inventories (TRI). The

procedure steps included the following:

 The starting point was the DEQ’s Tier 1 and Tier 2/PTC permit lists (109 facilities).

Information for these facilities included contact person, facilit y name(s), and address. A unique facility identification number (ID) was assigned. This information was given the highest priority in the merged database.

 Using the 2002 and 2005 NEI, facility information was merged with the above permits list (42 facili ties). For overlapping facilities, IDs were updated. Non

-2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 2

overlapping facilities were appended into the master database and a unique Facility ID was assigned. Information included: facility name(s)

, address information

, SIC/NAICS/Industry codes and desc riptors

, location coordinates

, and other facility

identifiers (i.e., NEI Site ID, ORIS Facility Code, TRI ID and FRS ID ) . This information was assigned the second highest priority.

 Using DEQ’s listing of facilities with PBRs (i.e., portable rock crushers and dairies), facility information was added to database. Information for these facilities included

c ontact person, facility name(s), and address. Also, these facilities were assigned an SIC of either 1442 (Construction Sand and Gravel) or 0241 (Dairy Fa rms). A unique Facility ID was assigned, along with a POSST User Name and Password. This information was assigned the third highest priority.

 The next data source used for the merge was from U.S. EPA’s FRS. For Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties, over 2,10 0 unique facilities were identified. For non

overlapping facilities, the information obtained from FRS included facility name(s ),

address information

, location coordinates

, SIC/NAICS codes

, and other facility

identifiers (i.e., FRS ID, NEI ID, AFS ID, and TRI ID ) . This information was assigned the fourth highest priority.

 A business listing provided by the Idaho Secretary of State was merged with the above list, and appended to the master database for non

- overlapping businesses.

Information included c ont act person, facility name(s), and address information. This information was assigned the fifth highest priority.

 The final data source to be merged into the master database was the 2005 through 2007 TRI datasets. While the basic facility information was contained in the FRS
data source, the TRI datasets also contained contact information. This information was assigned the lowest priority.

Using this procedure, the following quantities of potential point source facilities were

identified:

 Tier 1 and Tier 2 permitted facilities: 109 (see Table 2

- 1 )

 PBR facilities (portable rock crushers and dairies): 23 portable plants and 6 dairies (see Table 2

- 2 )

 Unpermitted facilities: 1,654 facilities

A listing of the 1,683 total PBR and unpermitted facilities is prese nted in Appendix A

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 3

Table 2

- 1 . Permitted Point Sources in the Treasure Valley

Co. Facility Name 2008

Emissions

Data Co. Facility Name 2008

Emissions

Data

Ada Ada Animal Crematorium  Ada Western Aircraft Ada County/Hidden Hollow Landfill Western Electronics Inc 
American Paving Company  Western Idaho Cabinets 
Arrow Planers & Moulding

Canyon Ace Supply Inc

B & D Foods  The Amalgamated Sugar Co (TASCO)

- N ampa 

BFI Boise  Boise Packaging & Newsprint LLC Nampa 
Boise Independent S chool District

- Victory  C & B Quality Trailer Works Inc 
Boise Moulding & Lumber Carco Mineral Resources Inc C Wright Construction  Chevron USA Inc SS 98628

Chen Northern Inc Crookham Company Chevron/NW Terminalling Boise  Darigold

- Caldwell 

Circle K Store #440 Eco

- Tech Services Inc

Classic Kitchen Doors Environmental Oil Services Cremation Society Of Idaho  Flahiff Funeral Chapels Inc 
Darling International Fleetwood Homes of Idaho Inc 04

- 1 

Earl Scheib Inc Idaho Ethanol Processing Empire Transport Inc Cloverdale Interstate Group LLC 

Envirosafe Svcs of Idaho Inc JC Penney Co Inc EPSCO Corporation J.R. Simplot Company

- Diversified Nampa 
Fiber Composites LLC  J.R. Simplot Fiberglass Sys tems Inc Kuna J.R. Simplot Company

- Food Group 
Fiberglass Systems Incorporated  Low's Ready Mix Inc 
G2 Energy LLC Mercy Medical Center 

Hewlett Packard Co

- Boise Site  Micron Technology Inc Nampa 

Idaho Timber of Boise LLC  Mirage Enterprises Inc 

Jack's Tire & Oil Inc  Oldcastle Precast Inc 

Lar

- Ken Septic Tanks Inc  Pacific Press Publishing Assoc 

Larson Miller Inc Pyro Energy MAACO Collision Repair And Auto Center Rogers NK Seed Co Michaels of Oregon  Se edbiotics 
Micron Technology Inc.  Seminis Vegetable Seeds 

Mike's Sand & Gravel Snake River Chemicals Caldwell Motivepower Truck and Engine Annex (TEA)  Snake River Trailer Company 

Mountain View Animal Clinic Sorrento Lactalis Inc Sw iss Village Plant 

Mountain View Funeral Home Boise  Summit Seed Coatings 

Mountain View Power Teton Sales Co 
Northwest Pipeline GP Boise  Univar USA Inc Nampa Nxedge Inc Of Boise  US Army National Guard OMS2

Plum Creek Northwest Lu mber  Western Farm Service

– Caldwell 

Pre Cote Industries  Western Stockmens Inc 
Safety Kleen Corporation  Western World Incorporated Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center  White's Hauling & Farm 

Saint Luke's Meridian Medical Cente r  Woodgrain Millwork Inc Nampa

Semmaterials L.P.

- Boise Id Plant  XI Four Star Beef Sinclair Pipeline Company  Z Casting Inc St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center Elmore Double J Milling LLC 

Summers Funeral Home Evander Andrews Power C omplex 
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co., Boise  Glenns Ferry Cogeneration Partners Ltd Treasure Valley Forest Products Boise  Idaho Fresh Pak (Plant #4) Glenns Ferry

Turner Sand & Gravel Idaho Power Co

- Bennett Mountain 

Turner Sand & Gravel Northwest Pipeline Gp Mountain Home 

USAF Idaho Air National Guard Simplot Livestock Company Grandview

US DOT FAA Traffic Control Tower Treasure Valley Forest Products Valley Sand & Gravel US Air Force

- Mountain Home 

West Park/Wa lla Walla Shopping Center2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 4 Table 2

- 2 . Facilities Operating Under Permit by Rule in the Treasure Valley Air

Shed

It should be noted that the listing of PBR and unpermitted sources does not include

landfills, fuel suppliers/distributors, dry cleaners, municipal wastewater treatment plants

(WWTPs), beef cattle feedlots, and airports (to the extent that they could be identified). The

reason for excluding these sources is because their activity data will be collected separately to

use with methods for estimating their emissions which are uni que to those source categories.

These methodologies for these source categories are discussed in the following sections:

 Fuel suppliers/distributors (Section 3 .1.1)

 Dry cleaners (Section 3 .1.13)

 Wastewater treatment plants (Section 3 .1.17) DEQ ID or County Type of Facility Facility Name

1677700335 Portable C Wright Construction Co Inc

1677700418 Portable C Wright Constructi on Co Inc

1677700158 Portable Camas Gravel Company

1677700093 Portable Central Paving Company

1677700024 Portable Central Paving Company

1677700243 Portable Central Paving Company

1677700304 Portable Combined Districts Crushing Fund

1677700099 Portab le Concrete Placing Company Inc

1677700389 Portable Debco Construction

1677700370 Portable Deerflat Sand & Gravel

1677700378 Portable Knife River (Masco Inc)

1677700209 Portable Nelson

- Deppe Inc

1677700390 Portable Rambo Crushing Company

1677700162 Portable River Rock Sand & Gravel LLC

1677700100 Portable Seubert Excavators Inc

1677700103 Portable Seubert Excavators Inc

1677700373 Portable Staker & Parson Companies

77700407 Portable Staker & Parson Company

777

- 00422 Portable STP Concrete Co., In c

041

- 00007 Portable Treasure Canyon Calcium

1677700231 Portable Western Construction

1677700042 Portable Western Construction

1677700212 Portable Western Construction

Ada Dairy Degroot Dairy

Canyon Dairy Beranna Dairy

Canyon Dairy Dry Lakes Dairy

Canyon Dairy Sun Ridge Dairy

Canyon Dairy T&T Cattle

Elmore Dairy TLK Dairy2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 5  Landfills (Sect ion 3 .1.18)

 Beef cattle feedlots (Section 3 .1.23)

 Airports (Section 5 .1.2)

The final database was provided to DEQ. DEQ then assigned a POSST User Name and

Password to each record, and used the file to print names and contact information on each of the

let ters for both the permitted and PBR/unpermitted sources. Letters were then developed to mail

to each facility to request completion of the POSST forms. The permitted sources were

requested to complete the full POSST form (previously developed by DEQ for annual reporting),

while the unpermitted facilities were allowed to complete a simplified “EZ” form (i.e., emission

estimates were not required). Examples of these letters (i.e., one for the Tier 1 and Tier 2

permitted facilities, and another for the PBR and unpermitted facilities) are included in Appendix

B. Finally, the contact information and POSST User Names and Passwords from the final

merged database were transferred to the POSST survey letters and mailed to each facility.

2.2 Emission Calculation Metho dologies

– Annual

The methodologies used to calculate annual point source emissions for the 2008 base

year are presented in this section. The estimation of the seasonal ozone and PM daily emissions

for 2008 is discussed in Section 2. 3 , while the developm ent of the future 2015 and 2023

projected point source emissions inventories is presented in Section 7 .1.1.

Annual point source emissions were developed from data collected electronically by

DEQ using the POSST submittal process. Of the 109 permitted fac ilities

, a total of 60 facilities

submitted 2008 annual emissions either through the complete POSST or as a separate facility

wide emissions inventory (see Table 2

- 1). Initial quality assurance (QA) was conducted by DEQ

before emissions data were compiled

.

Following DEQ’s QA, an additional QA step was conducted for consistency. The PM

data submitted through POSST was very inconsistent. Some facilities submitted primary PM 10



### (PM 10 

### - PRI) emissions, while other s submitted filterable PM 10 

### (PM 10 

### - FIL) emissions . Most

combustion sources did not submit condensable PM (PM

- CON) emissions , even though such

emissions would be expected. Some facilities submitted PM 2.5 

### emissions that were identical to

PM 10 

### emissions based on an apparent assumption of equality, even th ough such an assumption2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 6 was incorrect. In order to address the inconsistency in PM emissions, the PM augmentation

scheme utilized in the 2002 NEI was implemented (U.S. EPA, 2006). The PM augmentation

scheme provided look

- up tables of SCC

- specific convers ion factors (e.g., PM 10 

### - PRI to PM 10 

### -

FIL, PM 10 

### - FIL to PM

- CON, PM 10 

### - FIL to PM 2.5 

### - FIL, etc.). The augmentation scheme was

applied to either PM 10 

### - PRI or PM 10 

### - FIL emissions for every point source process reported in

POSST. Wherever possible, identified contro ls were accounted for in this augmentation

procedure. Application of the augmentation procedure resulted in PM 10 

### - FIL, PM 2.5 

### - FIL, and

PM

- CON emissions for every point source process. For inclusion in this report, these point

source emissions were reported as PM 10 

### - PRI (i.e., sum of PM 10 

### - FIL and PM

- CON) and PM 2.5 

### -

PRI (i.e., sum of PM 2.5 

### - FIL and PM

- CON). However, in the formatted data files to be provided

along with the final report, the filterable and condensable PM emissions will be provided, instead

of th e primary PM emissions.

Of the 1,683 unpermitted and PBR facilities included in Appendix A , a total of 632

facilities (i.e., nearly a 38 percent return rate) submitted a simplified “EZ” form to DEQ . DEQ

then performed the initial compilation of the EZ dat a. Subsequent QA was then conducted and

facilities with unusable data were discarded

. Because the unpermitted and PBR facilities had

little or no previous interaction with DEQ concerning air emissions, there were considerable

amounts of invalid data tha t were submitted to DEQ. Some issues included:

 B ecause the selection of the 1,683 unpermitted and PBR facilities was fairly broad, there were a large number of facilities that did not have emissive processes (e.g., businesses run out of homes, land manage ment companies , etc.)

.

 Some facilities reported nonsensical units (e.g., tons of electricity, million cubic feet
of heat, 1000 gallons of vehicles, gallons of steel, etc. ).

 S ome reported material quantities were not reasonable (e.g., a particular facility’ s reported fuel use was a significant fraction of the state’s total industrial or
commercial fuel use, etc.).

 Some reported material quantities did not match the reported SCC.

 There were handful of instances where submitted incorrect or missing data were

c orrected (i.e., typically based upon notes found elsewhere in the submitted data records), but

, in general, the intent of incorrect or missing data was not discernible

and so these facilities were discarded.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 7 After these QA steps, a total of 291 facilities that submitted EZ data remained with valid

and reasonable activity data.

The next step for these 291 facilities was to determine w hich facilities exceed ed the point

source thresholds (i.e., 5 tpy for PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , SO

x 

### , and NH 3 

### ; 10 tpy for VOC; and 25 tpy fo r NO

x


### and CO). This was accomplished by using emission factors from a variety of sources including

emission factors from AP

- 42 and other guidance documents, as well as information submitted by

respondents (e.g., paint or adhesive VOC content, etc.). For example, the threshold

determination for natural gas combustion used the AP

- 42 emission factors for small natural gas

boilers (i.e., 100 lbs NO

x 

### /10 6 

### ft 3 

### , 0.6 lbs SO 2 

### /10 6 

### ft 3 

### , 5.5 lbs VOC/10 6 

### ft 3 

### , 84 lbs CO/10 6 

### ft 3 

### , 7.6

lbs PM 10 

### /10 6 

### ft 3 

### , and 7.6 lbs PM 2.5 

### /1 0 6 

### ft 3 

### ) (U.S. EPA, 2010). The resultant natural gas quantities

needed to exceed the respective pollutant thresholds were: 500 × 10 6 

### ft 3 

### for NO

x 

### , 16,667 × 10 6



### ft 3 

### for SO 2 

### , 3,636 × 10 6 

### ft 3 

### for VOC, 595 × 10 6 

### ft 3 

### for CO, and 1,316 × 10 6 

### ft 3 

### for PM 10 

### and PM 2 .5



### . The lowest quantity ( i.e., 500 × 10 6 

### ft 3 

### for NO

x 

### ) was then used to determine which facilities had

natural gas combustion sources that exceeded the thresholds and should be considered to be point

sources. Threshold determinations were conducted for th e following source categories: fuel

combustion (i.e., natural gas, LPG, distillate oil, and waste oil), gasoline distribution, rock

crushing, concrete batching, graphic arts, aviation gasoline distribution, and adhesive

application. Following the thresho ld determination, a total of 33 non

- permitted sources were

identified as exceeding DEQ’s point source thresholds with 24 of these being gasoline stations.

Because of the potential difficulty associated with modeling some gasoline stations as point

sources and some as area sources, all gasoline stations were kept in the gasoline distribution area

source category, even though 24 gasoline stations exceeded DEQ’s point source thresholds. The

remaining nine non

- permitted sources that exceeded DEQ’s point sourc e thresholds are listed in

Table 2

- 3

.

The reconciliation between point source activity data and area source activity data was

performed. Due to incompatibilities between activity data and estimation methodologies,

activity data reconciliation was only p ossible for natural gas combustion in the industrial and

commercial sectors. The activity data reconciliation is described further in Section 3 .1.1

(industrial and commercial natural gas combustion).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 8 Table 2

- 3 . Unpermitted Facilities that Exceeded Point Source Thresholds in 2008

Emissions

Facility Name County C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id: 1677700418) Ada Guerdon Enterprises LLC Ada

Knife River Ada
Western Construction (Portable Plant) Ada C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac I d: 1677700335) Canyon Combined Districts Crushing Fund Canyon

Kit Home Builders West Canyon

Nelson

- Deppe Inc. Canyon

River Rock Sand & Gravel LLC Canyon



### 2.3 Emission Calculation Methodologies

– Ozone and PM Season

After the annu al point source emissions were estimated using the methodologies

described in Section 2. 2 , the daily ozone season and PM season emission estimates were

developed. The ozone season extends from April 1 through October 31 (i.e., 214 days), while

the PM seas on is from November 1 through February 29 (2008 is a leap year) (i.e., 121 days).

The seasonal emissions were developed using a seasonal temporal allocation profiles. All of the

sources that submitted electronic data via the POSST or EZ submittal identif ied the percent of

operations, as number between 0 and 100, that occurred during the spring (i.e., March through

May), summer (i.e., June through August), fall (i.e., September through November), and winter

(i.e., December through February) for each proces s

. In a few instances, the seasonal percent of

operations was not identified for a particular process at a facility. These were gapfilled based

upon seasonal percent information for other processes at the same facility.

The ozon e season and PM season fac tors were developed using the following equations:

Where:

OSF = Ozone seasonal factor

PSF = PM seasonal factor

SPR = Percent of operations in spring

SUM = Percent of operations in summer

FAL = Percent of operations in fall

WIN = Percent of operations in winter2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 9 The ozone season and PM season daily emissions were calculated by multiplying annual

emissions by the ozone/PM season factors and then dividing by the number of days in the

ozone/PM season. This is shown with the following equations:

Whe re:

E A 

### = Annual emissions (tons/year) ;
E OS 

### = Ozone season daily emissions (tons/day) ;
E PS 

### = PM season daily emissions (tons/day) ;
OSF = Ozone seasonal factor ; and

PSF = PM seasonal factor

.

2.4 Emission Results by Facility

The facility

- level annual point so urce emissions are presented in Table 2

- 4 . The facilities

are listed alphabetically by county. The permitted point sources are identified as a POSST

facility type; the unpermitted point sources are identified as an EZ facility type. Table cells

containi ng a value of 0.0 represent some non

- zero value less than 0.05 tons per year (tpy); blank

cells represent zero emissions . One facility listed in Table 2

- 1 (Fiberglass Systems in Ada

County) submitted a POSST submittal with zero emissions and wa s not inclu ded in Table 2

- 4

. Similarly, t he facility

- level ozone season and PM season emissions are presented in Table 2

- 5

and 2

- 6 , respectively. Table cells containing a value of 0.00 represent some non

- zero value less

than 0.005 tons per day (tpd); blank cells re present zero emissions. All facility

- level point

source data presented in Tables 2

- 4, 2

- 5, and 2

- 6 are included in the electronic data files

submitted in conjunction with this final report.

2.5 QA/QC Procedures

For the point source inventory development, a nu mber of QA/QC procedures were

described in the project IPP/QAP (ERG and ENVIRON, 2009). However, the actual point

source inventory development process was somewhat different than envisioned in the IPP/QAP.

ERG’s involvement with the POSST and EZ data pro cessing and manipulation was considerably

reduced with DEQ taking on a larger role. However, ERG did conduct some QA/QC following2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 10

Table 2

- 4 . 2008 Annual Point Source Emissions (Tons/Year)

Facility Name County Facility Type NO

x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2

. 5 NH 3 Ada Animal

Crematorium Ada POSST 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 American Paving Company Ada POSST 4.5 1.3 0.3

B & D Foods Ada POSST 1.2 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.4

BFI Boise Ada POSST 0.0 Boise Independent

School District

- Victory Ada POSST 0.0 0.0 0.0 C Wright Construction Ada POSST 0.6 0.1 1.1 3.1 1.1 0.3 C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id:
1677700418) Ada EZ 5.2 1.7 Cremation Society Of

Idaho Ada POSST 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Fiber Composites LLC Ada POSST 29.5 21.3 Guerdon Enterprises

LLC Ada EZ 21.4

Hewlett Packard Co

- Boise Site Ada POSST 50.4 2.0 3.0 16.2 3.0 2.9

Idaho Timber of Boise

LLC Ada POSST 0.1 0.0

Jack's Tire & Oil Inc Ada POSST 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Knife River Ada EZ 7.2 5.3 2.2 24.0 0.3 0.2 LAR KEN Septic Tanks

Inc Ada POSST 0.5 0.2 Micron Technology Inc Ada POSST 34.0 1.4 17.1 24.6 36.7 34.2 45.9

MotivePower Truck & Engine Annex (TEA) Ada POSST 10.2 0.8 33.8 5.1 0.6 0.6

Mount ain View Funeral

Home Boise Ada POSST 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Northwest Pipeline

- Boise Ada POSST 84.6 0.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 NW Terminalling,

Boise Ada POSST 4.5 74.4 11.2 2.7 1.9 Nxedge Inc of Boise Ada POSST 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1

Plum Cree k Northwest

Lumber Ada POSST 25.2 24.4

Pre Cote Industries Ada POSST 11.5 Safety Kleen Corporation Ada POSST 0.2 Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical

Center Ada POSST 14.3 0.1 0.4 6.3 0.6 0.6

Saint Luke's Meridian

Medical Cente r Ada POSST 21.7 3.7 1.2 17.5 7.6 7.4 Saint Luke's Regional

Medical Center Ada POSST 115.1 46.9 4.1 52.9 23.6 23.3

Semmaterials L.P.

- Boise Plant Ada POSST 2.7 0.0 2.9 2.2 0.9 0.5 Sinclair Pipeline Ada POSST 54.8

### Table 2

- 4. Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Fi nal, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 11 Facility Name County Facility Type NO

x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2

. 5 NH 3 Company

Tesoro Refinin g and Marketing Company,

Boise Ada POSST 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Treasure Valley Forest
Products, Boise Ada POSST 0.5 0.0 1.1 1.9 25.8 18.9

Western Construction (Portable Plant) Ada EZ 7.3 5.4 2.2 24.4 0.3 0.2

Western Electronics Inc Ada POS ST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Western Idaho Cabinets Ada POSST 15.1 0.1 0.1 Boise Packaging & Newsprint LLC Nampa Canyon POSST 2.1 0.0 25.2 2.2 1.8 1.3 C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id:
1677700335) Canyon EZ 9.7 3.1 C&B Quality Trail er Works Canyon POSST 0.1 0.0 33.1 0.0 0.2 0.2

Combined Districts Crushing Fund Canyon EZ 11.3 3.7 Darigold

- Caldwell Canyon POSST 16.0 0.1 0.9 13.0 8.4 5.4 Flahiff Funeral Chapels

Inc Canyon POSST 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1

Fleetwood H omes of

Idaho Inc 04

- 1 Canyon POSST 10.6 0.3 0.2 Interstate Group LLC Canyon POSST 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.7 0.5 JR Simplot Company

– Diversified Nampa Canyon POSST 31.3 0.2 41.6 32.5 52.1 39.0 JR Simplot Company

- Food Group Canyon POSST 57.0 36. 0 17.9 67.5 119.6 102.2 240.1

Kit Home Builders

West Canyon EZ 36.1 Low's Ready Mix, Inc. Canyon POSST 0.2 0.1 Mercy Medical Center Canyon POSST 1.8 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 Micron Technology Inc Nampa Canyon POSST 3.1 0.1 40.6 2.1 1. 0 0.9 0.5 Mirage Enterprises Inc Canyon POSST 12.7 0.3 0.2

Nelson

- Deppe Inc. Canyon EZ 36.8 12.0

Oldcastle Precast Inc Canyon POSST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pacific Press Publishing

Assoc Canyon POSST 1.3 0.0 20.0 1.1 0.1 0.1

Riv er Rock Sand &

Gravel LLC Canyon EZ 6.1 2.0

Seedbiotics Canyon POSST 9.4 8.7 Seminis Vegetable

Seeds Canyon POSST 0.9 2.9 21.6 0.1 0.1

Snake River Trailer Company Canyon POSST 0.0

Sorrento Lactalis Incorporated Swiss

Vi llage Plant Canyon POSST 37.6 0.3 2.1 40.4 17.5 17.2 Summit Seed Coatings Canyon POSST 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 TASCO Nampa Canyon POSST 1

, 203.5 1

, 969.9 29.2 862.4 219.0 80.2 175.7

### Table 2

- 4. Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Fi nal, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 12 Facility Name County Facility Type NO

x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2

. 5 NH 3 Teton Sales Company Canyon POSST 0.1 0.0 16.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

Wes tern Farm Service

- Caldwell Canyon POSST 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 4.3

Western Stockmens Inc Canyon POSST 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 White's Hauling &

Farm Canyon POSST 0.2 0.1 Double J Milling LLC Elmore POSST 5.3 0.0 0.3 4.5 5.3 3.1

Ev ander Andrew Complex Elmore POSST 29.1 0.5 1.8 32.7 5.6 5.6

Idaho Power

- Bennett

Mountain Elmore POSST 18.6 0.1 0.6 6.4 1.7 1.7

Mountain Home Air

Force Base Elmore POSST 100.6 1.8 18.1 49.3 123.2 48.2 Northwest Pipeline

- Mountain Home Elmor e POSST 206.6 0.0 5.8 12.3 0.0 0.0
Ada County 355.6 65.7 268.1 198.5 169.1 142.6 46.0 Canyon County 1,356.5 2,007.3 303.4 1,044.7 495.9 277.8 420.6 Elmore County 360.3 2.5 26.6 105.3 135.9 58.7 0.0

Total 2,072.4 2,075.4 598.1 1,348.5 800.9 479 .0 466.62008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 13 Table 2

- 5 . 2008 Ozone Season Point Source Emissions (Tons/Day)

Facility Name County Facility Type NO

x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2

. 5 NH 3 Ada Animal

Crematorium Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 American Paving Company Ada POSST 0.01 0.00

B & D Foods Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

BFI Boise Ada POSST 0.00 Boise Independent

School District

- Victory Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 C Wright Construction Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 C Wright Co nstruction Co., Inc. (Fac Id:
1677700418) Ada EZ 0.01 0.00 Cremation Society Of

Idaho Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fiber Composites LLC Ada POSST 0.08 0.06 Guerdon Enterprises

LLC Ada EZ 0.06

Hewlett Packard Co

- Boise Site Ada POSST 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01

Idaho Timber of Boise

LLC Ada POSST 0.00 0.00

Jack's Tire & Oil Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Knife River Ada EZ 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 LAR KEN Septic Tanks

Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 Micron Technology Inc Ada POSST 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.12

MotivePower Truck & Engine Annex (TEA) Ada POSST 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00

Mountain View Funeral

Home Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 Northwest Pipeline

- Boise Ada POSST 0.23 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 NW Terminalling,

Boise Ada POSST 0.01 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.01 Nxedge Inc of Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Plum Creek Northwest

Lumber Ada POSST 0.07 0 .07

Pre Cote Industries Ada POSST 0.03 Safety Kleen Corporation Ada POSST 0.00 Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical

Center Ada POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

Saint Luke's Meridian

Medical Center Ada POSST 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.02 Saint Luke's Regional

Medical Center Ada POSST 0.29 0.09 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.05

Semmaterials L.P.

- Boise Plant Ada POSST 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Sinclair Pipeline Ada POSST 0.15

### Table 2

- 5. Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 14 Facility Name County Facility Type NO

x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2

. 5 NH 3 Company Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company,

Boi se Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Treasure Valley Forest
Products, Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.06

Western Construction (Portable Plant) Ada EZ 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00

Western Electronics Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Western Idaho Cabinets Ada POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 Boise Packaging & Newsprint LLC Nampa Canyon POSST 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00 C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id:
1677700335) Canyon EZ 0.03 0.01 C&B Quality Traile r Works Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00

Combined Districts Crushing Fund Canyon EZ 0.03 0.01 Darigold

- Caldwell Canyon POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 Flahiff Funeral Chapels

Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0

Fleetwood Homes of

Idaho Inc 04

- 1 Canyon POSST 0.03 0.00 0.00 Interstate Group LLC Canyon POSST 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 JR Simplot Company

– Diversified Nampa Canyon POSST 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.11 JR Simplot Company

- Food Group Canyon POSST 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.16 0.32 0.28 0.65

Kit Home Builders

West Canyon EZ 0.10 Low's Ready Mix, Inc. Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 Mercy Medical Center Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Micron Technology Inc Nampa Canyo n POSST 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mirage Enterprises Inc Canyon POSST 0.03 0.00 0.00

Nelson

- Deppe Inc. Canyon EZ 0.11 0.04

Oldcastle Precast Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pacific Press Publishing

Assoc Ca nyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00

River Rock Sand &

Gravel LLC Canyon EZ 0.02 0.01

Seedbiotics Canyon POSST 0.01 0.01 Seminis Vegetable

Seeds Canyon POSST 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00

Snake River Trailer Company Canyon PO SST 0.00

Sorrento Lactalis Incorporated Swiss Village Plant Canyon POSST 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.05 Summit Seed Coatings Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TASCO Nampa Canyon POSST 3.14 5.10 0.06 1.63 0.57 0.21 0.40

### Table 2

- 5. Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 15 Facility Name County Facility Type NO

x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2

. 5 NH 3 Teton Sales Company Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Western Farm Service

- Caldwell Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02

Western Stockmens Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White's Hauling &

Farm Canyon POSST 0. 00 0.00 Double J Milling LLC Elmore POSST 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01

Evander Andrew Complex Elmore POSST 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.02

Idaho Power

- Bennett

Mountain Elmore POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Mountain Home Air

Force Base Elmore POSST 0.27 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.34 0.13 Northwest Pipeline

- Mountain Home Elmore POSST 0.56 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00
Ada County 0.96 0.16 0.75 0.58 0.46 0.38 0.12 Canyon County 3.52 5.20 0.82 2.11 1.31 0.73 1.07 Elmore County 1.00 0.01 0 .07 0.32 0.38 0.17 0.00

Total 5.48 5.36 1.64 3.01 2.15 1.28 1.202008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Invento ries

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 16

Table 2

- 6 . 2008 PM Season Point Source Emissions (Tons/Day)

Facility Name County Facility Type NO

x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2

. 5 NH 3 Ada Animal

Crematorium Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 American Paving Company Ada POSST 0.00 0.00

B & D Foods Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

BFI Boise Ada POSST 0.00 Boise Independent

School District

- Victory Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 C Wright Construction Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id:
1677700418) Ada EZ 0.01 0.00 Cremation Society Of

Idaho Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fiber Composites LLC Ada POSST 0.08 0.06

Guerdon En terprises

LLC Ada EZ 0.05

Hewlett Packard Co

- Boise Site Ada POSST 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01

Idaho Timber of Boise

LLC Ada POSST 0.00 0.00

Jack's Tire & Oil Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Knife River Ada EZ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 LAR KEN Septic Tanks

Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 Micron Technology Inc Ada POSST 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.13

MotivePower Truck & Engine Annex (TEA) Ada POSST 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00

Mountain Vie w Funeral

Home Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Northwest Pipeline

- Boise Ada POSST 0.23 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 NW Terminalling,

Boise Ada POSST 0.01 0.19 0.03 0.01 0.01 Nxedge Inc of Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Plum Creek Northwest

Lumber Ada POSST 0.07 0.07

Pre Cote Industries Ada POSST 0.03 Safety Kleen Corporation Ada POSST 0.00 Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical

Center Ada POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

Saint Luke's Meri dian

Medical Center Ada POSST 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.03 Saint Luke's Regional

Medical Center Ada POSST 0.36 0.19 0.01 0.17 0.08 0.08

Semmaterials L.P.

- Boise Plant Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sinclair Pipeline Ada POSS T 0.15

### Table 2

- 6. Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 17 Facility Name County Facility Type NO

x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2

. 5 NH 3 Company Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company,

Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Treasure Valley Forest
Products, Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03

Western Construction (Portable Plant) Ada EZ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0 0 0.00

Western Electronics Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Western Idaho Cabinets Ada POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 Boise Packaging & Newsprint LLC Nampa Canyon POSST 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00 C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id:

167770 0335) Canyon EZ 0.03 0.01 C&B Quality Trailer

Works Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00

Combined Districts Crushing Fund Canyon EZ 0.03 0.01 Darigold

- Caldwell Canyon POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01

Flahiff Funeral Chapels

Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fleetwood Homes of

Idaho Inc 04

- 1 Canyon POSST 0.03 0.00 0.00 Interstate Group LLC Canyon POSST 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 JR Simplot Company

– Diversified Nampa Canyon POSST 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.11 JR Simplot Company

- Food Group Canyon POSST 0.21 0.10 0.05 0.23 0.33 0.28 0.66

Kit Home Builders

West Canyon EZ 0.10 Low's Ready Mix, Inc. Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 Mercy Medical Center Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Micron Technology Inc Nampa Canyon POSST 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mirage Enterprises Inc Canyon POSST 0.03 0.00 0.00

Nelson

- Deppe Inc. Canyon EZ 0.09 0.03

Oldcastle Precast Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pacific Press Publishing

Assoc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

River Rock Sand &

Gravel LLC Canyon EZ 0.02 0.01

Seedbiotics Canyon POSST 0.05 0.04 Seminis Vegetable

Seeds Canyon POSST 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00

Snake River Trailer Company Canyon POSST 0.00

Sorrento Lactalis Incorporated Swiss Village Plant Canyon POSST 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.05 Summit Seed Coatings Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TASCO Nampa Cany on POSST 3.94 6.40 0.14 4.22 0.72 0.27 0.68

### Table 2

- 6. Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 18 Facility Name County Facility Type NO

x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2

. 5 NH 3 Teton Sales Company Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Western Farm Service

- Caldwell Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Western Stockmens Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 White's Hauling &

Farm Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 Double J Milling LLC Elmore POSST 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01

Evander Andrew Complex Elmore POSST 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01

Idaho Power

- Bennett

Mountain Elmore POSST 0.07 0 .00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01

Mountain Home Air

Force Base Elmore POSST 0.28 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.34 0.13 Northwest Pipeline

- Mountain Home Elmore POSST 0.57 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00
Ada County 1.00 0.22 0.70 0.48 0.45 0.39 0.13 Canyon County 4.41 6. 50 0.86 4.76 1.49 0.83 1.34 Elmore County 0.97 0.01 0.07 0.24 0.37 0.15 0.00

Total 6.38 6.73 1.63 5.48 2.31 1.37 1.472008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 19 the transmittal of the POSST and EZ data from DEQ. Before initiating any emission

calculations, ERG conducted a high

- level review of the transmitted POSST and EZ data files and

examined the data for any questionable outliers. Questions regarding these outliers were then

communicated to DEQ staff. Analysis of the EZ data did involved some QA/QC procedures

(e.g., identification of n on

- emissive processes, nonsensical units, unreasonably high material

quantities, SCC

- material inconsistencies, incorrectly input information, etc.). Subsequent

manipulation of point source data included frequent summation checks to ensure that individual

process emissions were not accidentally omitted.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 2

- 20

This page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 1 3.0 2008 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY

Area sources are defined as those sources emitting annual emissions less than the point

source th resholds. The Treasure Valley emissions inventory includes all of the area source

emission categories listed in Table 1

- 1 . In general, these are identical to the categories identified

in the IPP/QAP document (ERG and ENVIRON, 2009). The only significant changes are that a

few additional ammonia source categories (i.e., wild animal ammonia and soil ammonia) and a

few specialized categories (i.e., industrial refrigeration/cold storage and irrigation ditch burning)

have been added

.

3.1 Emissions Calculation Met hodologies

– Annual

The annual area source emissions calculation methodologies are briefly summarized in

Table 3

- 1 (i.e., the Area Source Matrix). The Area Source Matrix was previously presented in

the IPP/QAP and summarized the preferred and alternative methodologies for each area source

category, as well as activity data and emission factors. The Area Source Matrix has been

modified based upon the methodologies, activity data, and emission factors actually used; in

addition, each details of each method ology are presented in the subsections below.

3.1.1 Fu e l Combustion

Fuel combustion includes three distinct sectors (i.e., industrial, commercial/ institutional,

and residential) and a number of different fuels (e.g., natural gas, distillate fuel oil, liqu efied

petroleum gas [LPG], etc.); residential wood combustion is treated as a separate area source

category, which is described in the following section.

Activity data for industrial, commercial/institutional, and residential fuel combustion

were collected using a mail

- out survey (included as Appendix C) that was sent to fuel dealers

and distributors in September 2009. The survey was mailed to a total of 6 6 fuel dealers and

distributors located in Ada, Canyon, or Elmore counties, or in adjacent counties (i .e., Boise,

Gem, Gooding, Owyhee, Payette, and Twin Falls counties) that might sell fuel within Ada,

Canyon, or Elmore counties. The list of fuel dealers and distributors was compiled from four on

line business directories or listings (i.e., Yellow Pages, Dun & Bradstreet, Manta, and Hoover’s).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

3

- 2 Final, August 31

, 2010 

### Table 3

- 1 . Area Source Matrix

Source Category Pollutants Methodology Activity Data Notes

Industrial Fuel

Combustion NO

x , SO 2 , VOC,
CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Emission factors: AP

- 42 (Sections 1.3, 1.4, and

1.5); 2002 N EI Documentation; EIIP Ammonia Report Local fuel survey (fuel quantities and sulfur
content) Includes distillate, natural gas, and

LPG.

Point source reconciliation conducted for natural gas only.

Commercial/

Institutional Fuel

Combustion NO

x , SO 2 , VOC,
CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Emission factors: AP

- 42 (Sections 1.3, 1.4, and

1.5); 2002 NEI Documentation; EIIP Ammonia Report Local fuel survey (fuel quantities and sulfur
content) Includes distillate, natural gas, LPG,

and kerosene.

Point source reconciliation conducted for natural gas only.

Residential Fuel Combustion (excluding wood) NO

x , SO 2 , VOC,
CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Emission factors: AP

- 42 (Sections 1.3, 1.4, and

1.5); 2002 NEI Documentation; EIIP Ammonia Report Local fuel survey (fuel quantities and sulfu r content) Includes distillate, natural gas, LPG,

and kerosene.

Residential Wood

Combustion NO

x , SO 2 , VOC,
CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Local residential wood combustion survey

Paved Road Dust PM 10 , PM 2.5 2011 A P

- 42 Sec tion 13.2.1 (Ada and Canyon);

1996 AP

- 42 (Section 13.2.1) (Elmore) VMT, silt loading

Unpaved Road Dust PM 10 , PM 2.5 TVRDS methodology (Ada and Canyon); AP

- 42 (Section 13.2.2) (Elmore) VMT, silt content

Commercial Cooking VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 Emission f actors: 2002 NEI Documentation Number of equipment, annual meat cooked per equipment Includes charbroiling, deep fat frying, and griddle frying

Bakeries VOC Per capita emission factors: EIIP (Vol. III, Abstracts) Population, per capita bread consumption

Construction PM 10 , PM 2.5 Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Number of building permits Industrial Refrigeration/ Cold Storage NH 3 Per employee emission factors: EIIP Ammonia Report Employee counts

Architectural Surface Coating VOC Emissions ratioing based on population and employment: 2002 NEI Documentation 2002 NEI emissions; population and employee counts Autobody Refinishing VOC Per employee emission factors: 2002 NEI

Documentation Employee counts

Traffic Markings VOC Mass balance Traffic marking quantities; VOC

content

### Table 3

- 1. Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

3

- 3 Final, August 31

, 2010 Source Category Pollutants Methodology Activity Data Notes

Industrial Surface Coating VOC Emissions ratioing based on employment: 2002

NEI Documentation 2002 NEI emissions; employee counts No point source reconciliation

conducted. Degreasing VOC Emissions ratioing based on employment: 2002

NEI Documentation 2002 NEI emissions; employee counts No point source reconciliation

conducted. Dry Cleaning VOC Mass balance Local survey (quantity of solvent used) Graphic Arts VOC Per employee emission factors: 2002 NEI

Docume ntation Employee counts

Consumer Solvent Use VOC Per capita emission factors: 2002 NEI

Documentation Population

Pesticide Application VOC Emission factors: EIIP (Vol. III, Chap. 9) Planted acreage, application rates, % active ingredient,

formulation type Gasoline Transport and

Distribution VOC Emission factors: AP

- 42 (Section 5.2), on

- road motor vehicle modeling files Quantity of fuel, Stage

I/II controls Point source reconciliation

conducted. Open Burning (Household and Yard) NO

x , SO 2 , VOC,
CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Population not subject

to burn bans

Wastewater Treatment VOC, NH 3 Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Local survey (quantity of water treated)

Landfills VOC Theoretical first

- order kinetic mo del: AP

- 42 (Section 2.4) Local survey (refuse acceptance rate, landfill opening/closing) Agricultural Tilling PM 10 , PM 2.5 Emission factors: ARB Area Source Method (Section 7.4) Acreage planted, planting practices Agricultural Harvesting PM 10 , PM 2.5 Em ission factors: ARB Area Source Method (Section 7.5) Acreage harvested, harvesting practices Agricultural Burning

– Fields VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 Emission factors: AP

- 42 (Section 2.5) Burned acreage, fuel loading, burning practices Agricultural Burning

– Irrigation Ditches VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 Emission factors: AP

- 42 (Section 2.5) Burned acreage, fuel loading, burning practices

Beef Cattle Feedlots VOC, PM 10 , PM 2.5 Emission factors: ARB Area Source Method (Section 7.6) Head of cattle,

residence time

Structural Fires NO

x , VOC, CO,

PM 10 , PM 2.5 Emission factors: EIIP (Vol. III, Chap. 18) Number of houses

burned

Vehicle Fires NO

x , VOC, CO, Emission factors: EIIP (Vol. III, Abstracts) Number of vehicles

### Table 3

- 1. Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

3

- 4 Final, August 31

, 2010 Source Category Pollutants Methodology Activity Data Notes

PM 10 , PM 2.5 burned

Windblown Dust PM 10 , PM 2.5 WRAP windblown dust model Wind speeds, soil

textures, crop acreages, crop calendars

Livestock Ammonia NH 3 WRAP NH 3 emissions model Livestock population Agricultural Fertilizer NH 3 WRAP NH 3 emissions model Harvested acreage, type and quantity of

fertili zers
Domestic Ammonia NH 3 WRAP NH 3 emissions model Population

Wild Animals NH 3 WRAP NH 3 emissions model Wild animal population

Soil Ammonia NH 3 WRAP NH 3 emissions model Land use/land cover

acreages2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 5 Out of the 66 surveys that were mailed out, 7 of the surveys were returned as

undeliverable. Of the 59 surveys that were successfully delivered, only 16 surveys were returned

by actual active fuel dealers or distributors. However, an additional 11 surveys were identified

as being associated with the se 16 fuel dealers/distributors ( e.g.

, duplicates, under common

ownership

, recently purchased, etc.). In addition, another 20 surveys were returned with a n

indication of no fuel sales or distribution. Based on these actual positive and negative responses,

t he nominal fuel survey return rate was nearly 80 percent (i.e., 47 surveys returned out of 59

delivered). However, examination of the remaining 12 non

- respondent surveys points to a

potentially even higher return rate; a total of 9 of the non

- respondent s urveys were identified as

being either definitively out of business or potentially out of business based upon a number of

factors (e.g., available contact numbers being disconnected, all available contact numbers being

wrong numbers, no answer after repeat ed calls, no available contact numbers, etc.)

. Actual

contact was only made with 3 of the 12 non

- respondent surveys; in spite of this contact, these 3

companies failed to return the survey.

Based upon the survey results, the following 11 sector/fuel combi nations were included

in the Treasure Valley emissions inventory:

 Industrial distillate oil

 Industrial natural gas

 Industrial LPG

 Commercial/institutional distillate oil

 Commercial/institutional natural gas

 Commercial/institutional LPG

 Commercial/instituti onal kerosene

 Residential distillate oil

 Residential natural gas

 Residential LPG

 Residential kerosene2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 6 Although the IPP/QPP indicated an expectation that residual fuel oil and coal would be

sold or distributed in the inventory domain, neither of these fuels were identified in the returned

surveys. The industrial and commercial/institutional natural gas quantities were adjusted

downward as part of the point and area source reconciliation based upon the quantities identified

by point source facilities during the POSST submittal process.

In general, fuel combustion emissions were estimated using emission factors from AP

- 42

(U.S. EPA, 1995). Additional emission factors for kerosene combustion and distillate

combustion (NH 3 

### only) were obtained from other guidanc e documents (U.S. EPA, 2006; EIIP,

2004). Two different distillate sulfur contents (i.e., 15 ppm and 500 ppm) were identified by the

fuel survey respondents; both sulfur contents were used to calculate weighted SO

x 

### estimates.

The general equation used to estimate emissions from fuel combustion was:

Where:

E f,p 

### = Emissions for fuel f and pollutant p (tons/year);

U f 

### = Fuel usage for fuel f (10 6 

### ft 3 

### or 10 3 

### gal); and

EF f,p 

### = Emission factor for fuel f and pollutant p (lb/10 6 

### ft 3 

### or lb/10 3 

### gal).

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual NO

x 

### emissions from Ada

County residential natural gas usage is as follows:

U NG 

### = 9,321 MMscf (i.e., 10 6 

### ft 3 

### ) natural gas

EF NG,NOx 

### = 94 lbs NO

x 

### /MMscf natural gas

E NG,NOx 

### = 9,321 MMsc f × 94 lbs NO

x 

### /MMscf natural gas × (1 ton/2,000 lbs)

= 438.1 tons N O

x



### 3.1.2 Residential Wood Combustion

The residential wo o d combustion source category includes emissions from fireplaces,

woodstoves, fireplaces with inserts, and pellet stoves. Activity data for residential wood

combustion were obtained from a residential wood combustion (RWC) survey conducted by

Aurora (ERG’s subcontractor) (Aurora, 2009). The RWC survey report is included as Appendix

D. The following steps were followed to derive activity data for each c ounty

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 7 1. Determine number of existing devices (i.e., fireplace, woodstove/insert, and pellet stove) by applying existing device ratio from RWC survey to the number of

households.

2. Disaggregate number of woodstoves/inserts into number of woodstoves and

number of inserts using woodstove/insert ratio from RWC survey.

3. Determine number of actively used devices by applying device

- specific use ratio from RWC survey to number of existing devices.

4. For woodstoves and inserts, determine the number of conventional, catal ytic, and

non

- catalytic device s by applying device type ratios from RWC survey to number of actively used devices.

5. For each group of devices (i.e., fireplace, woodstove, insert, and pellet stove ) determine the average wood use (i.e., cordwood and processed log) per device using RWC survey response

– assumed weight of cordwood is 1.163 tons/cord and assumed weight of processed logs is 6 lbs/log. Based upon survey findings, the predominant wood type used in fireplaces, woodstoves, and inserts is
softwood; le sser amounts of hardwood and unspecified wood are also used. Only minor amounts of processed wood logs, scrap wood/building materials, and other

materials are burned.

The general equation used to estimate emissions from residential wood combustion w as:

Where:

E p 

### = Emissions for pollutant p (tons/year);

D = Number of in

- use devices;

W = Wood usage per device (tons/yr); and

EF p 

### = Emission factor for fuel f and pollutant p (lb/ton).

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual N O

x 

### emissions from Ada

County residential natural gas usage is as follows:

D = 20,608 in

- use fireplaces

W = 0.739 tons wood/device

EF NOx 

### = 2.6 lbs NO

x 

### /ton wood

E NOx 

### = 20,608 in

- use fireplaces × 0.739 tons wood/fireplace × 2.6 lbs NO

x 

### /ton wood ×

(1 ton/2, 000 lbs) = 19.8 tons NO

x



### Emission factors for the residential wood combustion category were obtained from a

recent review of residential wood combustion emission factors ( Houck and Eagle, 2006)

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 8 3.1.3 Paved Road Dust

Fugitive dust from paved roads can be a significant source of PM emissions. In general,

the factors that affect paved road dust emissions include weight of the vehicles driv ing on the

roadway surface, vehicle speed, fine particle (silt) loading on the roadway surface available for

entrainment

, and precipitation on the roadway that decreases road dust emissions.

In 2010, the 2008, 2015, and 2023 paved road dust emission estimates were completed

for the Treasure Valley by DEQ’s contractor team

, ERG/Environ

, as part of the SIP

- level

emissions in ventories (ERG and Environ

, 2010). The paved road dust emissions inventories were

completed using an emission factor methodology and local data developed during the Treasure

Valley R oad D ust S tudy (TVRDS) (Etyemezian et al.

, 2002). DEQ subsequently learned after

ERG/Environ prepared the 2008 emissions inventories (this report) that the TVRDS paved road

dust emissions estimates were based on a calibration originally established for unpaved roads,

not paved roads. T

his calibration was believed to be appropria te and the best available

approach at the time. However, i n studies following the TVRDS when Etyemezian et al. (2002)

recalibrated the system specifically for paved roads, they determined that the 2002 TVRDS

emission factor measurements in the Treasure Val ley were “unreasonably high” in their own

review of the 2002 study (Langston et al.

, 2008). As a result , when completing the final emissions

inventories in support of the Northern Ada County PM 10 

### Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year

Update , DEQ abandoned the 2002 TVRDS emission factors for paved roads and recalculated

Ada and Canyon c ount ies paved road dust emissions using a new emission factor method

published in “

AP

- 42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors ” (EPA

, 2011b ;

section 13.2.1). However, sinc e the silt loadings measured by Etyemezian et al. (2002) in the

TVRDS are based on local conditions and are somewhat more conservative than the default silt

loadings published in the EPA ( 2011 ) AP

- 42 method, the local silt loadings were retained rather

tha n using the default loadings in the new AP

- 42 method. Local PM 2.5 

### /PM 10 

### emission fractions

measured during the TVRDS were also used in the updated calculations to better reflect local

conditions. T

his approach is described in Appendix E of the Northern Ada County PM 10 

### Limited

Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update , entitled “ Development of the Base

- and Future

- Year

Mobile Source Emission Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho. ” Unpaved road dust

calibrations from the TVRDS were not flawed ( Langston et al., 20 08 ) so unpaved road dust

estimates made by ERG/Environ were not updated by DEQ in 2012.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 9 Elmore County

Because Elmore County was not included in the TVRDS, paved road dust emission

estimates for Elmore County were computed by ERG/Environ based upon the AP

- 4 2

methodology ( U.S. EPA, 2010a )

. Although the original Elmore estimates were based on an

earlier version of the EPA AP

- 42 method, they were not “unreasonably high” as were Ada and

Canyon c ount ies estimates based on the TVRDS , so the Elmore County paved roa d dust

estimates were not revised

. The estimation equation used for Elmore County paved roads is

shown below:

W here:

E = particulate emission factor (g/VMT);

k = particle size multiplier for particle size range and units of interest (g/VMT);

s = road surface silt loading (g/m 2 

### );

W = mean vehicle weight (tons);

C = emission factor for 1980's vehicle fleet exhaust, brake wear and tire wear;

P = number of days with at least 0.01 inch of precipitation; and

N = number of days in the averaging pe riod.



### The AP

- 42 default input parameters that were used are shown in Table 3

- 2 (U.S. EPA,

2010a)

. A mean vehicle weight of 3.58 tons was estimated based up on the estimated on

- road

vehicle mix ( DEQ , 2006 ). Silt loading estimates were estimated as shown i n Table 3

- 3

.

Table 3

- 2 . Elmore County Paved Road Parameters

Parameter PM 10 

### PM 2.5 

### k (g/VMT) 7.3 1.1
C (g/VMT) 0.2119 0.1617



### Table 3

- 3 . Elmore County Silt Loading Estimates

Road Type Winter Silt

Loading (g/m 2 

### ) Summer Silt

Loading (g/m 2 

### ) Source

Arterial 1.9 0.5 Etymezian et al., 2002

Local 4.0 0.4 Etymezian et al., 2002
Freeway 0.015 0.015 DEQ

, 20062008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 10 The precipita tion correction factors for Elmore County were estimated using 2008

precipitation data from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) ( WRCC, 2009 ). Data

from the M ountain Home S tation (No. 106174) was used. These data are shown in Table 3

- 4

.

Table 3

- 4 . Elmore County Days with at Least 0.01 Inches of R ain

Month Elmore

Jan uary 8

Feb ruary 7

Mar ch 7 Apr il 6
May 5

Jun e 4

Jul y 2
Aug ust 1 Sep tember 2

Oct ober 4

Nov ember 8

Dec ember 8



### The resultant paved road dust e mission estimates by county are shown in Table 3

- 5

.

Table 3

- 5 . 2008 Annual Paved Road Dust Emission Estimates

County Annual (TPY)

PM 10 PM 2.5
Ada County a 7

, 501 428

Canyo n County a 4

, 154 237

Elmore County b 1,253 284

a Ada and Canyon counties p aved road dust updated by DEQ in 2012 ; see Appendix E of

the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update

. b Elmore r oad d ust original es timates were n ot needed for Northern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance P lan Ten

- Year Update and were not updated in 2012.



### 3.1.4 Unpaved Road Dust

Similar to paved roads, fugitive dust from unpaved roads can be a significant source of

PM emissions. In general, the processes that affect unpaved road dust emissions include

roadway surface material properties and moisture content, vehicle speed, and precipitation on the

roadway. Unlike the paved road dust emissions estimates

, which were revised by DEQ in 201 2

, the primary source of data used in the development of unpaved road dust emissions remains the

2002 TVRDS. ERG/Environ developed the 2008 and future year unpaved road dust using the

original TVRDS methodology. The TVRDS methodology for unpaved roads was not flawed ; only

the calibration factors used for paved roads were flawed

. Thus, u npaved road calibration factors2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 11 were used for the unpaved emission estimates by ERG/Environ and that analysis is described

below.

Unpaved roadway activity estimates were obtained from a number of sources including

highway districts (HDs), cities, and COMPASS as shown in Table 3

- 6 . In most cases, the data

available was limited to unpaved roadway length, although in some cases estimates of average

daily traffic (ADT) was available. In cases where average daily traffic estimates were not

available, an ADT estimate was assigned based on existing data as identified in Table 3

- 6

. Annual VMT was estimated as unpaved roadway length multiplied by average daily traffic.

Average speed estimates were not a vailable ; therefore

, an average speed of 25 mph was assumed

for all unpaved roads per the TVRDS.

Ada and Canyon Counties

T he unpaved road dust emissions estimation methodology was taken from the TVRDS

for Ada and Canyon counties . Emissions were estimated according to the following equation:

Where:

EF = roadway PM 10 

### emissions factor (grams PM 10 

### /VMT);

b = roadway emissions potential (grams PM 10 

### /VMT/mph); and

s = roadway speed (mph)

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 12

Table 3

- 6

. 2008 Unpaved Road Dust Activity Data and Sour ces

City/Highway District / Area Length (miles) ADT (vehicles

per day) Annual VMT

(miles) Source Ada County

Included in TDM 6 36 73,910 Waldinger, 2010

Not in TDM 70 129 a 3,292,940 Waldinger, 2010

Totals 88 4,220,303
Canyon County City of Caldwell 1 1.4 20 a 82,892 Baker, 2010 City of Gree nleaf 0

- 0 Amick, 2010 City of Middleton 0.3 c 20 a 2,518 c
City of Melba 0.1 c 20 a 371 c
City of Nampa 8.9 c 20 a 64,755 c
City of Wilder 0.1 20 a 438 Lane, 2010
Nampa H ighway District 2 30 21,900 Bequeath, 2010

No tus

- Parma H ighway District 9 20 65,700 Bowman, 2010 a Canyon H ighway District 3 67 78,790 Richard, 2010 a
Golden Gate H ighway District 18 40 259,150 Norris, 2010 b

Totals 53 576,514
Elmore County

Atlanta H ighway District 54 87.5 1,724,625 Gill, 2010

M ountain Home H ighway

District 291 87.5 b 9,293,813 Tindall, 2010 a Glenns Ferry Hwy H ighway

District 250 87.5 b 7,984,375 Gluch, 2010

Totals 595 19,002,813

a Estimate taken from TVRDS (Etymezian et al., 2002).

b Assumed equivalent to Atlanta Highway Distr ict since these data were not available.

c Estimated based on average length of unpaved roadway per population identified for other cities.



### A dry emissions potential value of 11.9 grams/VMT/mph from TVRDS was used across

all unpaved roads.

U npaved road dus t precipitation related control estimates were based directly on TVRDS

observations (Etymezian et al., 2002). Table 3

- 7 shows the adjustment factors used to account

for precipitation. It should be noted that although precipitation events might have an ef fect on

unpaved roadway activity, data were not available to estimate the influence of such an effect.

Therefore, while unpaved roadway VMT activity was adjusted for seasonality as described in

Section 3.2.4, the specific effect that precipitation events may have on unpaved roadway activity

was not accounted for. Accounting for seasonality as described above is typical for regional

unpaved road dust emission inventories.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 13

Table 3

- 7 . Unpaved Road Dust Precipitation Adjustments

Month Fractional

discount du e to

snow Fractional discount due

to precipitation effects Total fractional

discount Dry emissions

multiplier
January 0.118 0.120 0.237 0.763 February 0.118 0.113 0.231 0.769

March 0.118 0.098 0.215 0.785 April 0.000 0.133 0.133 0.86 7
May 0.000 0.119 0.119 0.881

June 0.000 0.095 0.095 0.905 July 0.000 0.038 0.038 0.962 August 0.000 0.038 0.038 0.962 September 0.000 0.057 0.057 0.943

October 0.000 0.090 0.090 0.910

November 0.000 0.161 0.161 0. 839

December 0.000 0.176 0.176 0.824



### Based upon the TVRDS, the PM 2.5 

### fraction of PM 10 

### was estimated to be 0.057

( Etymezian et al., 2002).

Elmore County

For Elmore County

, the AP

- 42 methodology ( U.S. EPA, 2010a ) was used to estimate

unpaved road du st emissions as shown below:

W here:

E = particulate emission factor (lb/VMT);
k, a, c, d = empirical constants;

s = road surface silt content (%);

M = road surface moisture content (%);

S = mean vehicle speed (mph);

C = emission factor for 198 0's vehicle fleet exhaust, brake wear and tire wear

(g/VMT) ;
P = number of days with at least 0.01 inch of precipitation; and

N = number of days in the averaging period.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 14 The s ummer and winter road surface material silt content estimates were taken from the

TVRDS and annual silt content was assumed to be the average of winter and summer silt content

( Table 3

- 8 ). The AP

- 42 e mpirical constants, brake and tire wear emission factor estimates, and

road surface moisture content defaults were used and are shown in Table 3

- 9

.

Table 3

- 8 . Elmore County Unpaved Road Surface Silt Content

Description Silt Content (%)

S ummer 3.5

W inter 1.4

A nnual average 2.45



### Table 3

- 9 . Unpaved Emissions Estimation Parameters

Parameter AP

- 42 Default

k

– PM 10 

### (lb/VMT) 1.8

k

– P M 2.5 

### (lb/VMT) 0.18

a 1

d 0.5

c 0.2

M (%) 0.5

C

– PM 10 

### (g/ VMT ) 0.00047

C

– PM 2.5 

### (g/ VMT ) 0.00036



### The d ays of precipitation greater than 0.01 inches estimated for Elmore County paved

roads (see Table 3

- 4 ) was also used for Elmore County unpaved roads

.

The resultant e mission estimates by county are presented in Table 3

- 1 0 . Elmore County

contains the highest unpaved roadway mileage and therefore has the highest unpaved road dust

emission estimates of the three counties in the Treasure Valley.

Table 3

- 1 0

. 2008 Annual Unpaved Road Dust Emission Estimates

County Annual (TPY)

PM 10 

### PM 2.5 

### Ada 966 55
Canyon 165 9

Elmore 2,648 262

Totals 3,779 327



### 3.1.5 Commercial Cooking

The commercial cooking category includes five subcategories: conveyerized (or c hain

driven) charbroiling, under

- fired charbroiling, deep fat frying, flat griddle frying, and clamshell

griddle frying.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 15 Commercial cooking emissions were estimated using the methodology (e.g., national

average number of equipment pieces, meat cooking qu antities, etc.) and associated emission

factors presented in the 2002 National Emissions Inventory documentation (U.S. EPA, 2006).

The number of county

- level establishments w as obtained from 2007 County Business Patterns

(U.S. Census, 2009a). The types o f restaurant were determined from the 2002 Economic Census

(U.S. Census, 2005 a ).

The equation for estimating emissions from each of the commercial cooking

subcategories is the following is:

Where:

E p 

### = Emissions for pollutant p (tons/year);

EF p 

### = Emis sion factor for pollutant p (lbs/ ton meat cooked);
EQ = Number of pieces of equipment ; and

M = Annual meat cooked per piece of equipment ( tons meat cooked/ equipment

- year).

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from

chain

- driven charbroilers is as follows:

EF VOC 

### = 4 lbs VOC/ ton meat cooked
EQ = 892 chain

- driven charbroilers

M = 1,623.6 lbs meat/equipment

- week × 52 weeks = 84,427.2 lbs/equipment

- year
E VOC 

### = 892 × 84,427.2 lbs/equipment

- year × 4 lbs VOC/ ton meat × (1 ton VOC /2,000

lbs VOC ) = 75.3 tons VOC

3.1.6 C onstruction

County

- level residential building permit data were obtained from the U.S. Census (U.S.

Census, 2010). Construction durations and construction dust emission factors were obtained

from the 2002 NEI methodology document for the following residence types: single family, two

family, three and four family, and five or more family units (U.S. EPA, 2006). Discussions with

government agencies that issue building permits indicated that industrial and c ommercial

building activity during 2008 was minimal and that relevant activity data were not available

( Webb, 2009; Radek, 2009; Hunter, 2009; Winterfield, 2009 )

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 16 3.1.7 Architectural Surface Coatings

The architectural surface coatings category was estimate d following the hybrid approach

outlined in the 2002 NEI methodology document (U.S. EPA, 2006). The hybrid approach

utilized national

- level emissions that were scaled down using both county

- level population and

county

- level employee statistics. The scali ng was weighted 40 percent for population and 60

percent for employees. The employee portion of the scaling was conducted in the same manner

as industrial surface coating (Section 3 .1.9), degreasing (Section 3 .1.10), and other per employee

source categori es (Section 3 .1.11) and was based on employee counts for NAICS 238320

( Painting and Wall Covering Contractors ).

3.1.8 T raffic Markings

Usage quantities of traffic markings within the three

- county area, as well as relevant

material safety data sheets (MSDS) and product specifications, were obtained through telephone

contacts with nine different government agencies (i.e., Idaho Transportation Department, county

highway departments, city public works departments, and local highway districts). The

identified t raffic marking usage quantities were 45,250 gallons for Ada County, 40,381 gallons

for Canyon County, and 6,590 gallons for Elmore County. The MSDSs and product

specifications indicated various VOC contents; however, 150 grams per liter (g/l) was the most

prevalent. Therefore, this VOC content was used for the estimating emissions. Emissions were

calculated using the methodologies identified in the EIIP guidance document (EIIP, 1997 b ).

3.1.9 Industrial Surface Coating

The industrial surface coating categ ory consists of 13 subcategories (e.g., factory finished

wood, wood furniture, plastic products, etc.) that were inventoried for the Treasure Valley

inventory. These subcategories were all estimated by ratioing emission estimates from the 2002

NEI. Each of the 13 industrial surface coating subcategories were assigned a specific NAICS

code for which county

- level employee data for 2002 and 2007 were obtained from County

Business Patterns (U.S. Census, 2009a ). Employee data were not available for 2008, so i t was

assumed that 2007 employee data were a reasonable approximation of 2008 employee data.

The specific county

- level NAICS code assignments for the 13 industrial surface coating

subcategories are shown in Table 3

- 1 1

. The 2007 employee data were adjusted downward based2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 17 upon employee counts obtained from telephone contacts with permitted point sources having

NAICS codes relevant to the industrial surface coating area source category. These adjustments

are also indicated in Table 3

- 1 1

.

Table 3

- 1 1 . NAICS Code Assignments for Industrial Surface Coating Subcategories

Industrial Surface Coating Subcategory NAICS Codes Factory Finished Wood 321XXX (Wood Product Manufacturing) a

Wood Furniture 337XXX (Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing) b

Metal Furni ture 337XXX (Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing) b

Paper 322XXX (Paper Manufacturing) c

Plastic Products 326XXX (Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing)

Miscellaneous Finished Metals 332XXX (Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing) b

Machinery and Equipment 333XXX (Machinery Manufacturing)

Electronic and Other Electrical 334XXX (Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing) a

Motor Vehicles 3362XX (Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Manufacturing) c

Aircraft 3364XX (Aerospace Products and Parts M anufacturing)

Marine 3366XX (Ship and Boat Building)

Railroad 3365XX (Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing) b

Miscellaneous Manufacturing 31XXXX (Manufacturing)

a Employee counts adjusted downward for Ada and Canyon counties.

b Employee counts adjusted do wnward for Ada County.

a Employee counts adjusted downward for Canyon County.



### The Area Source Matrix previously presented in the IPP/QAP indicated that emission

factors from EIIP guidance would be used for all industrial surface coating subcategories. As

d iscussed for other categories above, it was felt that the per capita factors from the 2002 NEI

documentation would be more representative of current conditions associated with industrial

surface coating since the EIIP guidance is from 1997.

The general e quation used to estimate emissions for the industrial surface coating

subcategories was:

Where:

E 2007 

### = Emissions for 2007 inventory year (tons/year);

E 2002 

### = Emissions for 2002 inventory year (tons/year);

EM 2007 

### = Employees for 2007 inventory year (adju sted for point source employment, if

necessary) (people); and

EM 2002 

### = Employees for 2002 inventory year (people).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 18 A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from

factory finished wood industrial surface coating in Ada Cou nty is as follows:

E 2002 

### = 79.9 tons VOC

EM 2002 

### = 883 people

EM 2007 

### = 1, 029 people

E 2007 

### = 79.9 tons VOC × (1, 029 people/883 people) = 93.1 tons VOC

3.1.10 Degreasing

The degreasing category consists of open top degreasing and cold cleaning for 13 sector s

(e.g., furniture and fixtures, primary metal industries, fabricated metal products, etc.) for a total of 26

subcategories that were inventoried for the Treasure Valley inventory. As with industrial surface

coating, these subcategories were estimated by ratioing emission estimates from the 2002 NEI with

employee count data . Each of the 26 degreasing subcategories were assigned a specific NAICS code

for which county

- level employee data for 2002 and 2007 were obtained from County Business

Patterns (U.S. Ce nsus, 2009a ). Employee data were not available for 2008, so it was assumed that

2007 employee data were a reasonable approximation of 2008 employee data.

The specific county

- level NAICS code assignments for the 26 degreasing subcategories are

shown in Tab le 3

- 1 2

. The 2007 employee data were adjusted downward based upon employee

counts obtained from telephone contacts with permitted point sources having NAICS codes relevant

to the degreasing area source categories. These adjustments are also indicated in Table 3

- 1 2

.

Table 3

- 1 2 . NAICS Code Assignments for Degreasing

Degreasing Subcategory (Open Top Degreasing and Cold Cleaning) NAICS Codes

Furniture and Fixtures 337XXX (Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing) a
Primary Metal Industries 331XXX (Prim ary Metal Manufacturing) Secondary Metal Industries 331XXX (Primary Metal Manufacturing)

Fabricated Metal Products 332XXX (Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing) a
Industrial Machinery and Equipment 333XXX (Machinery Manufacturing)

Electronic and Other Electrical 334XXX (Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing) b

335XXX (Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing) Transportation Equipment 336XXX (Transportation Equipment Manufacturing) b

Instruments and Related Products 3345XX (Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical and Control Instruments Manufacturing) Miscellaneous Manufacturing 339XXX (Miscellaneous Manufacturing) Transportation Maintenance Facilities 488XXX (Support Activities for Transportation)

Automotive Dealers 4411 XX (Automobile Dealers) Auto Repair Services 8111XX (Automotive Repair and Maintenance) a
Miscellaneous Repair Services 811XXX (Repair and Maintenance) except 8111XX (Automotive Repair and Maintenance)

a Employee counts adjusted downward for Ada County.

b Employee counts adjusted downward for Ada and Canyon counties.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 19 The Area Source Matrix previously presented in the IPP/QAP indicated that emission

factors from EIIP guidance would be used for all of the degreasing subcategories. As discussed

for other cate gories above, it was felt that the per capita factors from the 2002 NEI

documentation would be more representative of current conditions associated with degreasing

since the EIIP guidance is from 1997.

The general equation used to estimate emissions for the degreasing subcategories was:

Where:

E 2007 

### = Emissions for 2007 inventory year (tons/year);

E 2002 

### = Emissions for 2002 inventory year (tons/year);

EM 2007 

### = Employees for 2007 inventory year (adjusted for point source employment, if

necessary) (peop le); and

EM 2002 

### = Employees for 2002 inventory year (people).

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from

furniture and fixture open top degreasing in Ada County is as follows:

E 2002 

### = 12.6 tons VOC

EM 2002 

### = 3 2 5 people

EM 2007 

### = 5 6 6 people

E 2007 

### = 1 2.6 tons VOC × ( 5 6 6 people/ 3 2 5 people) = 21.9 tons VOC

3.1.11 Other Per Employee Emission Factor Source Categories

In addition to industrial surface coating and degreasing, there were three other area

source categories that we re estimated using employee counts and per employee emission factors.

These categories were autobody refinishing, industrial refrigeration/cold storage (NH 3 

### ), and

graphic arts.

County

- level employee data were obtained from County Business Patterns (U.S. C ensus,

2009a ) for 2007; employee data were not available for 2008, so it was assumed that 2007

employee data were a reasonable approximation of 2008 employee data. The specific county

level NAICS code assignments for autobody refinishing, industrial refri geration/cold storage,

and graphic arts are shown in Table 3

- 1 3

. For autobody refinishing and graphic arts, the 2007

employee data were adjusted downward based upon employee counts obtained from telephone2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 20 contacts with permitted point sources having relev ant NAICS codes. These adjustments are also

indicated in Table 3

- 1 3

.

Table 3

- 1 3 . NAICS Code Assignments for Autobody Refinishing, Industrial

Refrigeration/Cold Storage, and Graphic Arts Categories

Category NAICS Codes Autobody Refinishing 492XXX (Courie rs and Messengers) 5321XX (Automotive Equipment Rental and Leasing) 8111XX (Automotive Repair and Maintenance) a
Industrial Refrigeration/ Cold Storage 31132X (Chocolate and Confectionery Manufacturing from Cacao Beans) 31133X (Confectionery Manufact uring from Purchase Chocolate) 3114XX (Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing) 3115XX (Dairy Product Manufacturing) 3116XX (Animal Slaughtering and Processing) 3117XX (Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging)
31181X (Br ead and Bakery Product Manufacturing) 311991 (Perishable Prepared Food Manufacturing) 311999 (Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing) 3121XX (Beverage Manufacturing) 325211 (Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing) 493120 (Refrigerated Warehous ing and Storage) Graphic Arts 3222XX (Converted Paper Product Manufacturing) b

32311X (Printing)

a Employee counts adjusted downward for Ada County.

b Employee counts adjusted downward for Canyon County.



### For autobody refinishing and graphic arts, the per employee emission factors were

obtained from the 2002 NEI documentation (U.S. EPA, 2006). The Area Source Matrix

previously presented in the IPP/QAP indicated that emission factors from EIIP guidance would

be used for these categories (i.e. per employee f actors for autobody refinishing and per capita

factors for graphic arts). As discussed for other categories above, it was felt that the per capita

factors from the 2002 NEI documentation would be more representative of current conditions.

The per employe e emission factor for industrial refrigeration/cold storage was obtained from

EIIP ammonia guidance for anthropogenic nonagricultural sources (EIIP, 2004).

The general equation used to estimate emissions for categories using per employee

emission factors was:2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 21 Where:

E = Emissions (tons/year);

EF = Per capita emission factor (lbs/person

- year); and

EM = Employees (people).

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual NH 3 

### emissions from Ada

County cold storage is as follows:

EM = 635 peo ple

EF = 30 lbs NH 3 

### /person

E = 635 people × 30 lbs NH 3 

### /person × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 9.5 tons NH 3



### 3.1.12 Bakeries and Consumer Solvents

Two source categories were estimated using per capita emission factors. These

categories were bakeries and consumer solv ents (e.g., personal care products, household

products, etc.).

County

- level population data were obtained from the U.S. Census (U.S. Census, 2009b ).

For bakeries, an annual per capita bread consumption rate of 70 lbs of bread/person was

combined with an e mission factor of 5 lbs VOC per 1,000 lbs of sponge

- dough bread produced.

Both the emission factor and the consumption rate were obtained from EIIP guidance (EIIP,

1999). The per capita emission factors for consumer solvents were obtained from the 2002 N EI

documentation (U.S. EPA, 2006). The Area Source Matrix previously presented in the IPP/QAP

indicated that the per capita emission factors from EIIP guidance would be used for consumer

solvents; however, the EIIP guidance for consumer solvents is from 1 996 and it was felt that the

per capita factors from the 2002 NEI documentation would be more representative of current

conditions associated with consumer solvents.

The general equation used to estimate emissions for categories using per capita emission

factors was:

Where:

E = VOC emissions (tons/year);

EF = VOC per capita emission factor (lbs/person

- year); and

P = Population (people).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 22 A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from Ada

County consumer products (persona l care products) is as follows:

P = 380,920 people

EF = 2.04 lbs VOC/person

E = 380,920 people × 2.04 lbs VOC/person × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 388.5 tons VOC

3.1.13 Dry Cleaning

Activity data for dry cleaning were collected using a mail

- out survey (included as

Appendix C ) that was sent to dry cleaners located in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties in

October 2009. Additional follow

- up was conducted via phone during in January 2010. A total

of 24 dry cleaners were identified as conducting on

- site cleaning in the three counties. Of these

24 dry cleaners, 13 exclusively used perchloroethylene, 10 exclusively used petroleum solvents,

and 1 used both perchloroethylene and petroleum solvents. Since perchloroethylene is not a

VOC species, it was not included in the em ission calculations. The petroleum solvents used by

the 11 petroleum solvent dry cleaners included Stoddard solvent, ECOSOLV, and DF

- 2000. A

total of 1,815 gallons of petroleum solvent were identified for Ada County; while a total of 600

gallons of petro leum solvent were identified for Canyon County. Only two dry cleaners

identified solvent being sent off

- site; for both of these facilities, the off

- site quantities exceeded

the purchase statistics, so the purchase statistics for these facilities were excl uded. Solvent

densities were obtained from material safety data sheets (MSDSs) provided by the dry cleaners.

It was assumed that purchase statistics were equal to emissions (i.e., all purchased solvent was

used and subsequently evaporated).

3.1.14 As phalt Application

Usage quantities of asphalt within the three

- county area, as well as relevant material

safety data sheets (MSDS) and product specifications, were obtained through telephone contacts

with 11 different government agencies . These governmen t agencies included the following:

 Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), District 3 (Morrison, 2010a)

 Highway districts:

 Ada County Highway District (including City of Boise) (Nobel, 2010)

 Nampa (Canyon County) Highway District No. 1 (Kennedy, 2010)

 Notus

- Parma (Canyon County) Highway District No. 2 (Bowman, 2010b)

 Golden Gate (Canyon County) Highway District No. 3 (Norris, 2010b)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 23

 Canyon (Canyon County) Highway District No. 4 (Richard, 2010c)

 Mountain Home (Elmore County ) Highway District (Tindall, 2010b)

 City public works departments:

 City of Caldwell Streets Department (Caldwell, 2010)

 City of Middleton Public Works Department (Green, 2010)

 City of Mountain Home Public Works Department (Harvel, 2010)

 City of Nampa Public Works Department ( Barr , 2010)

U sa ge quantities were collected for hot mix asphalt, emulsified asphalt, and cutback

asphalt. However, based upon the survey

- based methodologies identified in EIIP guidance

documents (EIIP, 2001a)

, emissions were only estimated for emulsified asphalt and cut back

asphalt (i.e., emissions are typically not estimated for hot mix asphalt and an appropriate

methodology was not identified).

Most of the asphalt applied in the three

- county area is hot mix asphalt. Five agencies

(i.e., ITD District 3, Nampa Highway District No. 1, City of Middleton, City of Mountain Home,

and City of Nampa) used hot mix asphalt exclusively. Only two agencies (i.e., Golden Gate

Highway District No. 3 and Mountain Home Highway District) identified any cutback asphalt

usage with a tot al of only 75 tons. Emulsified asphalt usage was identified in four agencies (i.e.,

Ada County Highway District, Golden Gate Highway District No. 3, Canyon Highway District

No. 4, and Mountain Home Highway District) with a total of 7,875 tons.

Asphalt usa ge could not be obtained from Notus

- Parma Highway District No. 2 and the

City of Caldwell. Consideration was given to gap fill the missing data for these two agencies,

but a reasonable approach could not be identified. For the City of Caldwell, asphalt d ata from

the other three cities contacted was limited to hot mix asphalt, so there was no basis for

extrapolation of cutback or emulsified asphalt. For Notus

- Parma Highway District No.2, data

from the three other highway districts in Canyon County were ex amined. However, these three

highway districts did not provide a reasonable set of data to base a gap filling extrapolation upon

(i.e., hot mix asphalt only for Nampa Highway District No. 1, emulsified and cutback asphalt for

Golden Gate Highway District No. 3, and emulsified asphalt only for Canyon Highway District

No. 4.).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 24 A number of assumptions from the EIIP guidance were used to calculate emissions (EIIP,

2001a). The cutback asphalt was assumed to be medium cure cutback and the emulsified asphalt

was assumed to be medium set emulsified. In addition, asphalt densities of 7.8 lb/gal and 8.34

lb/gal were assumed for cutback and emulsified, respectively. Likewise, diluent densities of 6.67

lb/gal (cutback) and 8.34 lb/gal (emulsified) were also assum ed. It was assumed that the diluent

content of cutback asphalt was 35 percent (EIIP, 2001a), while r ecent research has indicated that

the diluent content of emulsified asphalt is approximately 12 percent ( Midwest, 2006 ). Finally,

it was assumed that 75 p ercent of the cutback diluent evaporated, while 100 percent of the

emulsified diluent evaporated.

.

Ozone seasonal daily emissions were estimated by dividing annual emissions by the

number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days). All of the agenci es contacted indicated that

a sphalt application is typically not conducted during the PM season, so PM seasonal daily

emissions were not calculated.

3.1.15 Pesticide Application

Emissions from agricultural pesticide application were estimated as indicated in the

IPP/QAP Area Source Matrix. Planted crop acreage data were obtained from the 2007 Census of

Agriculture (USDA, 2009). Pesticide application information (i.e., fraction of acreage applied,

quantity of active ingredient per acre, and applications pe r year) were obtained from crop

profiles: however, only 11 crop profiles were available (i.e., apples, barley, dry beans

, sweet

corn

, lentils, mint, dry peas

, green peas

, potatoes, sugar beets, and wheat ) (IPM Center, 2010).

Only pesticides with applicati on rates in terms of pounds per acre were considered; pesticides

with unusual application rates (e.g., ounces per hundredweight of seed, ounces per linear row,

etc.) were not included . Emissions were estimated using the methodology outlined in the EIIP

gu idance (EIIP, 2001c). Typical pesticide characteristics (i.e., percent active ingredient and

formulation type) were obtained from a pesticide database (PAN, 2010). Wherever possible, the

product names and/or formulation types indicated by the IPM Center crop profiles were

followed. If assumptions were made for specific pesticides, then pesticides with an active U.S.

product regulatory status were selected.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 25 Emissions were estimated using the methodology outlined in the EIIP guidance (EIIP,

2001c). Typica l pesticide characteristics (i.e., percent active ingredient and formulation type)

were obtained from a pesticide database (PAN, 2010). Wherever possible, the product names

and/or formulation types indicated by the IPM Center crop profiles were followed. If

assumptions were made for specific pesticides, then pesticides with an active U.S. product

regulatory status were selected.

The equation for estimating emissions from pesticide application wa s as follows:

Where:

E p,t 

### = Total emissions from pesticide p (tons VOC/year);

E p,a 

### = Emissions from active ingredient of pesticide p (tons VOC/year);

E p,i 

### = Emissions from inert ingredient of pesticide p (tons VOC/year);

R p 

### = Application rate of pesticide p (lbs/acre

- year);

A p 

### = Harvested acreage that had applic ation of pesticide p (acres);

a p 

### = Percent of active ingredient in pesticide p (%);

EF p 

### = Emission factor for active ingredient in pesticide p (lbs/ton);

i p 

### = Percent of inert ingredient in pesticide p (%); and

V p 

### = Volatile content of inert fraction o f pesticide p (%).

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from the

application of Bravo 500 (active ingredient chlorothalonil) on potatoes in Elmore County is as

follows:

R p 

### = 9.282 lbs/acre

- year
A p 

### = 8,967 acres × 0. 60 (application fraction) = 5,380.2 acres

a p 

### = 40.4 percent active ingredient

i p 

### = 59.6 percent inert ingredient

V p 

### = 56 percent volatile content of inert ingredient

EF p 

### = 1,160 lbs VOC/ton active ingredient applied (vapor pressure 1 × 10 - 3 

### mmHg)

E p,a 

### = 9. 282 lbs/acre

- year × 5,380.2 acres × 0.404 × 1,160 lbs VOC/ton active

ingredient applied × 1 ton VOC/2,000 lbs VOC = 5.85 tons VOC

E p, I 

### = 9.282 lbs/acre

- year × 5,380.2 acres × 0.596 × 0.56 × 1 ton VOC/2,000 lbs VOC

= 8.34 tons VOC

E p,t 

### = E p,a 

### + E p,i 

### = 5.85 tons VOC + 8.34 tons VOC = 14.19 tons VOC2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 26 3.1.16 Gasoline Distribution

State

- level gasoline consumption statistics were obtained from the Idaho Tax

Commission (Walters, 2010). These state

- level gasoline statistics were disaggregated down to

the individua l county

- level based upon 2008 population estim ates (U.S. Census, 2009b ).

Although 24 gasoline stations were identified as exceeding DEQ’s point source thresholds, all

gasoline stations were kept in the gasoline distribution area source category in order to avoid

potential modeling difficulty.

Emission factors for underground tank filling (Stage I), breathing and emptying losses,

and tank truck transit losses were obtained from EIIP guidance (EIIP, 2001 b ). It was assumed

that the Stage I underground tank filling was submerged fill throughout Ada, Canyon, and

Elmore counties. Refueling (Stage II) emission factors were developed from MOBILE6 input

files used by ENVIRON in their on

- road motor vehicle analysis (Grant, 2010).

The equation for estimating emiss ions from gasoline distribution is as follows:

Where:

E = Emissions (tons VOC/year);

EF = Emission factor (lbs/gal throughput); and

T = Annual fuel throughput (gal/year).

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from A da

County Stage I underground tank filling is as follows:

T = 1 5 1

, 687

, 67 4 gallons (or 15 1

, 687

. 67 4 × 10 3 

### gallons)

EF = 7.3 lbs VOC/10 3 

### gallons

E = 15 1

, 687

. 67 4 × 10 3 

### gallons × 7.3 lbs VOC/10 3 

### gallons × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 5 53

. 7

tons VOC

3.1.17 Wastewater Tre atment

Activity data for wastewater treatment were collected using a mail

- out survey (included

as Appendix C ) was that sent to wastewater treatment facilities located in Ada, Canyon, and

Elmore counties in October 2009. A total of 17 surveys were mailed o ut of which 14 surveys

were returned that identified the monthly quantities of wastewater treated. Additional follow

- up2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 27 was attempted for the three non

- respondent facilities (i.e., Glenns Ferry, Kuna, and Notus), but

contact could not be made. Since thes e non

- respondent facilities are located in small

communities, they are likely comparatively small facilities and their missing data is unlikely to

affect the overall uncertainty of the emission estimates. In addition, the wastewater quantities

from the Ea gle Sewer District Treatment Plant were not included since effluent from that facility

is pumped to the West Boise Wastewater Treatment Plant for further processing. The emission

factors were obtained from the 2002 NEI documentation report (U.S. EPA, 2006 ).

It should be noted that the WATER9 model was identified as the wastewater treatment

source category methodology in the IPP/QAP Area Source Matrix. However, further

investigation revealed that the collection of the activity data needed to run WATER9 was

extensive and it would be infeasible to collect for all of the wastewater treatment facilities

located in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. Therefore, the alternate emission factor

methodology described above was used to estimate emissions from wastewate r treatment.

3.1.18 Landfills

Landfill gas is generated by microorganism within the landfill under anaerobic

conditions. The primary landfill gas constituents are methane (CH 4 

### ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### );

however, lesser amounts of VOC are also generated ei ther from decomposition products or the

volatilization of biodegradable wastes.

Activity data for landfills were collected using a mail

- out survey (included as Appendix

C ) that was sent to landfills located in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties in October 20 09. A

total of 14 surveys were mailed out. However, not all locations identified as landfills were

actually landfills (e.g., slash piles, illegal dump sites, etc.). O nly 3 survey s were returned: Ada

County Landfill (i.e., Hidden Hollow), Pickles Butte Sanitary Landfill (Canyon County), and

Mountain Home AFB (Elmore County)

. Emissions calculations for these three landfills

confirmed that none of them exceed the VOC point source threshold of 10 tpy VOC. Therefore,

emissions from these landfills were inv entoried as an area source.

Emissions were estimated using the methodology outlined in Section 2.4 of AP

- 42 (U.S.

EPA, 2010). This methodology is based on a theoretical first

- order kinetic model of CH 4



### production.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 28 The equations for estimating emissions f rom landfills are as follows:

Where:

Q CH4 

### = Methane generation rate at time t (m 3 

### /yr);

L

o 

### = Methane generation potential (m 3 

### CH 4 

### /Mg) (default value of 100 m 3 

### CH 4 

### /Mg) ;
R = Average annual refuse acceptance rate during active life (Mg/yr);

k = Methane gener ation rate constant (yr - 1 

### ) (default value of 0.02) ;

c = Time since landfill closure (years); and

t = Time since the initial refuse placement (years).

Where:

Q VOC 

### = Emission rate of VOC (m 3 

### /yr);

C VOC 

### = Concentration of VOC in landfill gas (ppmv) (default value of 835 ppmv); and

C CH4 

### = Concentration of CH 4 

### in landfill gas (assumed to be 50% expressed as 0.5)

.

Where:

UM VOC 

### = Uncontrolled mass emissions of VOC (kg/yr);
Q VOC 

### = Emission rate of VOC (m 3 

### /yr);

MW VOC 

### = Molecular weight of VOC (g/gmol) (default value of 86.18 as hexane); and

T = Temperature of landfill gas ( ° C)

.

A sample calculation using these equations for estimating annual VOC emissions from

the Ada County Landfill is as follows:

L

o 

### = 100 m 3 

### CH 4 

### /Mg

R = 299,420 Mg refuse/year

k = 0.02

c = 0 yea rs (active landfill)

t = 35 years Q CH4 

### = 1.3(100 m 3 

### CH 4 

### /Mg)( 299,420 Mg refuse/year)(e - [0.02 × 0]



### – e - [0.02 × 35] 

### ) =

19,595,216 m 3 

### /yr CH 42008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 29 C VOC 

### = 835 ppmv

C CH4 

### = 0.5 Q VOC 

### = (19,595,216 m 3 

### /yr CH 4 

### × 835 ppmv)/(0.5 × 1,000,000) = 32,724 m 3 

### VOC/yr

MW VOC 

### = 8 6.18 g/gmol

T = 25 ° C

UM VOC 

### = [ (32,724 m 3 

### VOC/yr)( 86.18 g/gmol)(1 atm ) ] / { ( 0.00008205 m3

- atm/gmol

K )(1000 g/1 kg)(273 + 25K ) } = 5,038 kg VOC/yr = 5.6 ton VOC/yr

3.1.19 Open Burning (Yard Waste and Household Waste)

The methodology identified in the IPP/QA P Area Source Matrix was tentatively

identified as a mass balance approach which incorporates waste generation rates and local

landfilling and recycling rates. Some landfilling information was available; however, in general,

it was not possible to positiv ely distinguish between local landfill material (i.e., originating in

Ada, Canyon, or Elmore counties) and landfill material originating outside of the three

- county

area. In addition, conversations with Ada County Solid Waste Management Department staff

i ndicate that open burning activity, as reflected by public nuisance complaints, has dramatically

decreased in recent years. Furthermore, concerns over air quality and fire hazards have also

affected the public acceptance level of open burning (Hutchinson, 2010). Therefore, an

alternative methodology was used to estimate open burning emissions.

The city and county codes were examined for all government entities located within Ada,

Canyon, and Elmore counties. The codes were examined for mandatory resident ial waste

collection requirements and prohibitions of household and/or yard waste burning. This

examination was greatly facilitated by the availability of city/county codes on

- line. The Boise city

code was available from the City of Boise website (Boise, 2010). The city/county codes for 14

other government entities (i.e., Caldwell, Eagle, Garden City, Greenleaf, Kuna, Meridian,

Middleton, Mountain Home, Nampa, Parma, Star, Wilder, Ada County, and Canyon County) were

maintained on

- line by a codifying comp any (Sterling, 2010). The city/county codes for only four

government entities (i.e., Glenns Ferry, Melba, Notus, and Elmore County) could not be identified.

Based on the review of these city/county codes, the following information was determined:

 Mandato ry residential waste collection

 Required in most areas located within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties

 Not explicitly required in Glenns Ferry, Greenleaf, Melba, Notus, Parma, Star, and the unincorporated portions of Canyon and Elmore counties2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 30  Household wa ste burning

 Explicitly banned in most areas located within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore

counties

 Not explicitly banned in Glenns Ferry, Greenleaf, Melba, Notus, and the unincorporated portion of Elmore County

 Yard waste burning

 Explicitly banned in only a few a reas (i.e., Boise, Caldwell, Meridian, Nampa, and the unincorporated portion of Ada County)

 Allowed in the other areas subject to necessary burn permits (typically from local fire agencies) and sufficiently low air quality index (AQI) values.

It was assume d that household waste (i.e., municipal solid waste) and yard waste burning

was conducted in all areas without explicit codified bans. National per capita waste generation

rates for 2008 were derived from national statistics (U.S. EPA, 2009a). The per ca pita yard

waste generation was reduced by 50 percent to account for the grass clippings portion which is

typically not burned. These per capita waste generation rates were applied to the populations in

the non

- ban areas (i.e., 18,691 for household waste b urning and 139,846 for yard waste burning).

Based upon the methodology used in the 2002 NEI, it was assumed that 28 percent of the

household and yard waste generated was actually burned (U.S. EPA, 2006). Emission factors for

the residential and yard wast e burning were obtained from the documentation from the 2002

National Emissions Inventory (U.S. EPA, 2006).

The equation for estimating emissions open burning (household waste or yard waste) is:

Where:

E p 

### = Emissions for pollutant p (tons/year);

BF = Fr action of generated waste burned;

W = Per capita waste generation rate (tons/person

- day);

P = Population (people); and

EF p 

### = Emission factor for pollutant p (lbs/ton).

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from

Elmore County household waste burning is as follows:

BF = 28 % of generated waste is burned

W = 3.18 lbs waste/day

P = 16,615 people without household waste burning bans2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 31 EF p 

### = 30 lbs VOC/ton waste

E = 0.28 × 3.18 lbs waste/person

- day × 16,615 people × 366 days/year × 1 ton

waste/2,000 lbs waste × 30 lbs VOC/ton waste × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 40.6 tons

VOC

3.1.20 Agricultural Tilling and Harvesting

Emissions from both agricultural tilling and agricultural harvest operations were

estimated using per

- acre em ission factors developed by the California Air Resources Board

(CARB, 2003a; CARB, 2003b). It was assumed that these per

- acre emission factors provide a

reasonable approximation of conditions in the Treasure Valley. Planted and harvested crop

acreage dat a were obtained from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2009).

The equation for estimating emissions from agricultural tilling and harvest activities is as

follows:

Where:

E

c 

### = Emissions for crop c (tons PM 10 

### /year);

EF

c 

### = Emission factor for crop c (lbs PM 10 

### /acre planted/harvested); and

A

c 

### = Acres planted/harvested for crop c (acres/year).

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual PM 10 

### emissions from

sugarbeet tilling in Ada County household waste burning is as follows:

EF

c 

### = 22.8 lbs PM 10 

### /acre planted

A

c 

### = 1,976 planted acres of sugarbeets

E = 1,976 acres × 22.8 lbs PM 10 

### /acre × 1 ton/2,000 lbs = 22.5 tons PM 10



### 3.1.21 Agricultural Burning

– Fields

As part of the recently implemented Crop Residue Burning Program, agricultura l field

burning was only allowed between September 1 and October 31, 2008. County

- level field

burning acreage statistics for the Southwest Idaho Burn Management Area were obtained from

DEQ staff (Pettit, 2009). Field burning acreage was limited to 29.2 a cres of cereal grains in Ada

County and 202 acres of other crops in Canyon County. For estimation purposes, backfired

wheat fuel loading and emission factors were assumed for the Ada County cereal grain acreage.

Likewise, backfired alfalfa loading and em ission factors were assumed for the Canyon other2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 32 acreage. Fuel loadings and emissions were estimated using appropriate emission factors from

AP

- 42 ( U.S. EPA, 2010a ).

The equation for estimating emissions from agricultural open burning is as follows:

W here:

E p,c 

### = Emissions for pollutant p and crop c (tons/year);

AB

c 

### = Acreage burned for crop c (acres/year) ;
FL

c 

### = Fuel loading for crop c (tons/acre) ; and

EF p,c 

### = Emission factor for pollutant p and crop c (lbs/ton)

.

A sample calculation using thi s equation for estimating annual CO emissions from field

burning of other crops in Canyon County is as follows:

AB = 202 acres other crops (assumed to be alfal f a)

FL = 0.8 tons/acre

EF p,c 

### = 119 lbs CO/ton

E = 202 acres × 0.8 tons/acre × 119 lbs CO/t on × 1 ton/2,000 lbs = 9.6 tons CO

3.1.22 Agricultural Burning

– Irrigation Ditches

An additional source of agricultural burning that was not identified in the IPP/QAP Area

Source Matrix was the burning of weeds in irrigation canals and ditches. The weeds in the ditch

bottoms are typically burned during the month of March just before the irrigation water is first

released in the spring. Although the ditch width is quite variable (i.e., from 3 feet to over 70

feet), a typical ditch width was assumed to be 5 feet. The ditch length within a given irrigation

district or ditch company can be quite extensive, but not necessarily well quantified. For

instance, it was roughly estimated within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District that there

were 500 to 600 mi les of ditches (Anderson, 2010). A total of 56 irrigation districts and ditch

companies have been identified by the Idaho Department of Water Resources in Ada and Canyon

counties ( IDWR, 2006; IDWR, 2007 ). Therefore, it was not feasible to contact all of the

irrigation districts and ditch companies. An alternative data source for ditch lengths was

identified in the U.S. Geological Service’s National Hydrography Dataset (USGS, 2010); ditch

lengths were derived from a data layer of canals and ditches. Base d on the National

Hydrography Dataset, the county ditch lengths were estimated to be 796.28 kilometers (km) for2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 33 Ada County, 1,980.25 km for Canyon County, and 366.00 km for Elmore County. Emissions

were estimated using appropriate fuel loadings (assumed t o be unspecified weeds) and emission

factors from AP

- 42 ( U.S. EPA, 2010a ). The emission estimation equation is identical to that

used for agricultural field burning.

3.1.23 Beef Cattle Feedlots

This category includes PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions from beef ca ttle feedlots and VOC

emissions from all cattle and calves ; NH 3 

### emissions are addressed under the livestock ammonia

category in Section 3

. 1.2 6

.

The total number of cattle and calves was obtained from the 2007 Census of Agriculture

(USDA, 2009). In addit ion, t he number of cattle on feed was also obtained from the same data

source . The population of cattle on feed for Canyon County was explicitly reported; however,

the population of cattle on feed for Ada County and Elmore County were not presented due to

confidentiality reporting requirements. The overall population of cattle on feed for those

counties in Idaho with confidentiality “shielded” data (including Ada and Elmore) was

determined by subtracting known county populations of cattle on feed from the overall state

population of cattle on feed resulting in the state shielded population. The state shielded

population of cattle on feed was then allocated to the shielded counties based upon the reported

quantity of other cattle (i.e., not beef cows or mi lk cows). The total number of cattle and calves

was 66,476 head for Ada County, 129,561 head for Canyon County, and 109,065 head for

Elmore County . The total number of cattle on feed was 13,770 head for Ada County, 7,221 head

for Canyon County, and 24,86 2 head for Elmore County.

The emission factors were obtained from the California Air Resources Board (CARB,

2004). The PM 10 

### emission factor was 28.9 lbs/1000 head

- day, while the VOC emission factor

was 12.8 lbs/head

- year. Since the PM 10 

### emission factor was units of lbs/head

- day, it was

necessary to determine how long each head of cattle on feed is typically present in the feedlot. A

typical residence time of 136 days was obtained from a feedlot cattle behavioral study (Stanford

et al., 2009). The annua l VOC emissions were calculated for all cattle and calves regardless of

whether or not they were located on a feedlot.

The equation for estimating emissions from beef cattle feedlots is as follows:2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 34 Where:

E = Emissions (tons/year);

EF = Emission fa ctor (lbs/head); and

BC = Beef cattle population (head).

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from Ada

County is as follows:

BC = 66,476 head

EF = 12.8 lbs VOC/head

- year
E = 66,476 head × 12.8 lbs VOC/head

- year × ( 1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 425.4 tons VOC

3.1.24 Other Fires

The other fire source category includes structural fires and vehicle fires. County

- level

structural and vehicle fire statistics were obtained from the Idaho State Fire Marshal’s Idaho Fire

Incident Rep orting System (IFIRS) (Karnowski, 2009). Review of the statistics indicates nearly

100 percent reporting by the fire districts located in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. Based

on the IFIRS summary data, the assignment of fire types to the structural an d vehicle sources

categories is shown in Table 3

- 1 4 . The specific county

- level employee data obtained were for

the following NAICS codes:

Table 3

- 1 4 . Fire Code Assignments for the Structural Fire and Vehicle Fire Source Categories

Category IFIRS Codes

S tructural Fires 111 (Building fire) 112 (Fire in structures other than buildings) 120 (Fire in mobile property used as a fixed structure)
121 (Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence) 122 (Fire in motor home, camper, recreational vehicle used as fixed residence ) 123 (Fire in portable building at a fixed location)

Vehicle Fires 130 (Mobile property/vehicle fire) 131 (Passenger vehicle fire) 132 (Road freight or transport vehicle fire)
134 (Water vehicle fire) 137 (Camper or recreatio nal vehicle fire)
138 (Off

- road vehicle or heavy equipment fire)



### Emission factors for structural fires and vehicle fires were obtained from EIIP guidance

documents (EIIP, 2001 c ; EIIP, 2000 ). Based on the EIIP guidan ce documents, a fuel loading of2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 35 1.15 tons/fire was assumed for structural fires and a fuel loading of 0.25 tons/fire was assumed

for vehicle fires.

The general equation for estimating emissions from structural and vehicle fires is as

follows:

Where:

E p 

### = Emissions for pollutant p (tons/ye ar);

F = Annual structural or vehicle fires (fires/year);

FL = Fuel loading (tons material/fire); and

EF p 

### = Emission factor for pollutant p (lbs/tons material)

.

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual CO emissions from Ada

County structural fire is as follows:

F = 150 fires

FL = 1.15 tons material/fire

EF = 60 lbs CO/ton material

E = 150 fires × 1.15 tons/fire × 60 lbs CO/person × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 5.2 tons CO

3.1.25 Windblown Dust

The windblown fugitive dust emissions for the Tr easure Valley Airshed were developed

using the estimation methodology developed for the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) by a

team of contractors led by ENVIRON (ENVIRON, 2004a) and subsequently revised by Mansell and

others (Mansell, 2003a; 2003b; Mansell, et al. 2004). The methodology was based upon the results

of wind tunnel studies and a detailed characterization of vacant lands. Windblown dust emissions

were estimated hourly on a gridded modeling domain using hourly averaged wind speeds and ot her

meteorological parameters. Hourly emission estimates were developed for each hour in 2008. The

methodology involves application of wind speed

- and soil

- dependent emission factors to estimate

emissions rates on a gridded modeling domain. Land use cha racteristics were used to estimate

threshold friction velocities, based on gridded meteorological data, to determine the potential for

wind erosion. Additional agricultural adjustments were applied to capture the impacts of crop

specific planting and harv esting practices. A detailed description of the windblown dust model

estimation methodology and implementation is provided below.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 36 While the Treasure Valley Airshed emissions inventory is limited to Ada, Canyon, and

Elmore counties, the implementation of the modeling system for the development of windblown

fugitive dust PM emissions requires the use of a larger Cartesian modeling grid domain. As

such, the emission estimates described below include additional Idaho counties, as well as

neighboring counties in Oregon

. Figure 3

- 1 displays the modeling domain for which

windblown dust PM emissions were estimated. In addition, the model requires hourly gridded

meteorological data and generates emission estimates for each hour for the entire time period

consid ered. For the DEQ inventory, these estimates are aggregated to counties and summed

across all hours of calendar year 2008, as described below.

Figure 3

- 1. DEQ 4

- km Modeling Domain for Windblown Dust Emissions Development2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 37 Data Collection

Input data r equired by the model include:

 Soil characteristics;

 Land use/land cover data;

 Crop

- specific agricultural data; and

 Meteorol ogy

Soil Characteristics

Application of the emission factor relations, described below, requires the

characterization of soil textur e in terms of the four soil groups considered by the model. The

characteristics or type of soil is one of the parameters of primary importance for the application

of the emission estimation relations derived from wind tunnel study results.

The windblow n dust model utilized the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO)

available from the USDA (USDA, 2010). In some parts of the country, the SSURGO data are

incomplete. Alternatively, the State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) was used to gap

- fill

the SS URGO data for the modeling domain (USDA, 1994). The STATSGO database provides

detailed information concerning the taxonomy of the soils, including soil texture class,

percentage of sand, silt and clay, and the available water capacity of the soil. Figur e 3

- 2 displays

the f inal merged soil texture data, which combines the SSURGO and STATSGO databases, as

used in the windblown dust model.

Land Use

- Land Cover

Land use

- land cover (LULC) data required for the windblown dust model was derived

from crop

- specif

ic GIS data layers obtained from the USDA NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL)

Program and represent agricultural, as well as non

- agricultural, lands throughout the region

based on data for calendar year 2007 (NASS, 2007). The primary purpose of the CDL Program

is to use satellite imagery to provide acreage estimates to the Agricultural Statistics Board for the

state’s major commodities and produce digital, crop

- specific, categorized geo

- referenced output

products. These data were reviewed and processed for use in the windblown dust model. Figure

3

- 3 presents a display of the final land use/land cover data for the 4

- km modeling domain.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 38 Figure 3

- 2. Merged Soil Texture Data from the SSURGO and STATSGO Databases2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 39 Figure 3

- 3. Land Use/Land Cover Data U sed for the DEQ Windblown Dust PM Emissions Inventory Development2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 40 Agricultural Data

Unlike other types of vacant land, windblown dust emissions from agricultural land are

subject to a number of non

- climatic influences, including irrigation and seasonal c rop growth.

As a result, several non

- climatic correction or adjustment factors were developed for

applicability to the agricultural wind erosion emissions. These factors included:

 Long

- term effects of irrigation (i.e., soil “clodiness”);

 Crop canopy cove r;

 Post

- harvest vegetative cover (i.e., residue);

 Bare soil (i.e., barren areas within an agriculture field that do not develop crop canopy for various reasons, etc.); and

 Field borders (i.e., bare areas surrounding and adjacent to agricultural fields).

Th e methodology used to develop individual non

- climatic correction factors was based

upon previous work performed by the California Air Resources Board in their development of

California

- specific adjustment factors for the USDA’s Wind Erosion Equation (CARB, 1997).

In order to apply the agricultural adjustments described above, crop information,

including types of crops and planting schedules, were required. These crop data (i.e., crop types,

tilling and harvesting practices, crop calendars, and planting and harvesting schedules) were

obtained from the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (NASS, 2009b; USDA, 1997; USDA, 2009). In the windblown dust model, specific

crop types were mapped to those recognized by the mo del, based on the Conservation

Technology Information Center (CTIC) crop database, in order to provide a link between

specific crop planting and harvesting schedules, tilling and irrigation practices, and canopy

growth curves. Table 3

- 1 5 summarizes the Id aho

- specific crop types and the mapping between

DEQ ’s data and the CTIC crop types.

The windblown dust model used the percentage of canopy cover for each crop type as

crops are grown throughout the year to apply various adjustments to the estimated hourl y wind

blown dust emissions. For the 2008 inventory, the crop canopy cover data, developed from2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 41 crop report data (NASS, 2009b; USDA, 1997), are summarized in Table 3

- 1 6 , which provides

the percentage of canopy cover for each crop type in 15

- day incremen ts throughout the year.

Table 3

- 17 presents the Idaho crop canopy information regarding planting and harvesting dates

by crop type and region used in combination with the canopy growth curves shown in Table 3

-

1 6 . These data are available for broad region s within the State of Idaho including the Central

(C), Southwestern (SW) and South Central (SC) regions of the state, as indicated in Table 3

- 17

.

Table 3

- 1 5

. DEQ a nd CTIC Crop Type Mapping and Descriptions

DEQ Crop Code Description CTIC Crop

Name CTIC Crop

Code

FD01 Barley (grain) Barley BAR01

FD02 Corn (grain) Corn COR01

FD03 Dry edible beans (excluding limas) Peas/Beans BEA01

FD04 Dry lima beans Peas/Beans BEA01

FD05 Dry edible peas Peas/Beans BEA01

FD06 Mustard seed Canola POT01

FD07 Oats (grain) Oats OAT01

FD08 Safflower Canola POT01

FD09 Sugarbeets (sugar) Sugar Beets SUG01

FD10 Triticale Wheat WHE02

FD11 Winter wheat (grain) Wheat WHE02

FD12 Durum wheat (grain) Wheat WHE01

FD13 Spring wheat (grain) Wheat WHE01

SH01 All grass seeds Forage Crops HAY01

SH02 Hay (alfalfa) Forage Crops ALF01

SH03 Hay (small grain) Forage Crops HAY01

SH04 Hay (other tame) Forage Crops HAY01

SH05 Hay (wild) Forage Crops HAY01

SH06 Corn (silage and greenchop) Corn COR01

OT01 Hops n/a n/a

OT02 Mint for oil ( peppermint) Canola POT01

OT03 Mint for oil (spearmint) Canola POT01

OT04 Sweet corn (for seed) Corn COR01

VG01 Onions, Dry Vegetables ONI01

VG02 Peas, Chinese (sugar and snow) Vegetables PEA01

VG03 Potatoes Potatoes POT01

VG04 Sweet Corn Corn COR01

FR01 Apples n/a n/a

FR02 Cherries, Sweet n/a n/a

FR03 Grapes n/a n/a

FR04 Peaches n/a n/a

FR05 Plums and Prunes n/a n/a2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 42 Table 3

- 1 6

. Idaho Crop Canopy Cover b y Crop Type and Julian Day Since Planting (%)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Em issions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 43 Table 3

- 17

. Idaho Planting and Harvestin g Dates ( Julian Day) and Crop Canopy Crop Type

Crop

Code Crop Description Region Plant_Spr Harv_Spr Plant_Fall Harv_Fall Canopy_Spr Canopy_

Fall

FD01 Barley (grain) SW 91 218 BAR01

FD01 Barley (grain) SC 102 228 BAR01

FD01 Barley (grain) E 129 251 BAR01

FD02 Corn (grain) SW 134 299 COR01

FD02 Corn (grain) SC 134 299 COR01

FD02 Corn (grain) E 134 299 COR01

FD03 Dry edible beans SW 148 261 BEA01

FD03 Dry edible beans SC 148 261 BEA01

FD03 Dry edible beans E 148 261 BEA01

FD04 Dry lima beans SW 148 261 BEA01

FD04 Dry lima beans SC 148 261 BEA01

FD04 Dry lima beans E 148 261 BEA01

FD05 Dry edible peas SW 133 235 BEA01

FD05 Dry edible peas SC 133 235 BEA01

FD05 Dry edible peas E 133 235 BEA01

FD06 Mus tard seed SW 116 207 POT01

FD06 Mustard seed SC 116 207 POT01

FD06 Mustard seed E 116 207 POT01

FD07 Oats (grain) SW 118 242 OAT01

FD07 Oats (grain) SC 118 242 OAT01

FD07 Oats (grain) E 118 242 OAT01

FD08 Safflower SW 116 269 POT0 1

FD08 Safflower SC 116 269 POT01

FD08 Safflower E 116 269 POT01

FD09 Sugarbeets (sugar) SW 99 303 SUG01

FD09 Sugarbeets (sugar) SC 107 300 SUG01

FD09 Sugarbeets (sugar) E 114 295 SUG01

FD10 Triticale SW 268 217 WHE02

FD10 Tritica le SC 265 225 WHE02

FD10 Triticale E 269 233 WHE02

FD11 Winter wheat (grain) SW 268 217 WHE02

FD11 Winter wheat (grain) SC 265 225 WHE02

FD11 Winter wheat (grain) E 269 233 WHE02

FD12 Durum wheat (grain) SW 83 220 WHE01

FD12 Durum w heat (grain) SC 90 227 WHE01

FD12 Durum wheat (grain) E 118 246 WHE01

FD13 Spring wheat (grain) SW 83 220 WHE01

FD13 Spring wheat (grain) SC 90 227 WHE01

FD13 Spring wheat (grain) E 118 246 WHE01

FR01 Apples SW

FR01 Apples SC

FR01 Apples E

FR02 Cherries, Sweet SW

FR02 Cherries, Sweet SC

FR02 Cherries, Sweet E

FR03 Grapes SW

FR03 Grapes SC

FR03 Grapes E

FR04 Peaches SW

FR04 Peaches SC

FR04 Peaches E

FR05 P lums and Prunes SW

FR05 Plums and Prunes SC

FR05 Plums and Prunes E

### Table 3

- 20 . Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 44 Crop

Code Crop Description Region Plant_Spr Harv_Spr Plant_Fall Harv_Fall Canopy_Spr Canopy_

Fall

OT01 Hops SW

OT01 Hops SC

OT01 Hops E

OT02 Mint for oil (peppermint) SW

OT02 Mint for oil (peppermint) SC

OT02 Mint for oil (pepperm int) E

OT03 Mint for oil (spearmint) SW

OT03 Mint for oil (spearmint) SC

OT03 Mint for oil (spearmint) E

OT04 Sweet corn (for seed) SW 131 233 COR01

OT04 Sweet corn (for seed) SC 131 233 COR01

OT04 Sweet corn (for seed) E 131 233 COR01

SH01 All grass seeds SW 106 105 HAY01

SH01 All grass seeds SC 106 105 HAY01

SH01 All grass seeds E 106 105 HAY01

SH02 Hay (alfalfa) SW 122 121 ALF01

SH02 Hay (alfalfa) SC 122 121 ALF01

SH02 Hay (alfalfa) E 122 121 ALF01

SH03 Hay (small grain) SW 106 105 HAY01

SH03 Hay (small grain) SC 106 105 HAY01

SH03 Hay (small grain) E 106 105 HAY01

SH04 Hay (other tame) SW 106 105 HAY01

SH04 Hay (other tame) SC 106 105 HAY01

SH04 Hay (other tame) E 106 105 HAY01

SH05 Hay (wild) SW 106 105 HAY01

SH05 Hay (wild) SC 106 105 HAY01

SH05 Hay (wild) E 106 105 HAY01

SH06 Corn (silage/greenchop) SW 134 277 COR01

SH06 Corn (silage/greenchop) SC 134 277 COR01

SH06 Corn (silage/greenchop) E 134 277 COR01

VG01 Onions, Dry SW 96 263 ONI01

VG01 Onions, Dry SC 96 263 ONI01

VG01 Onions, Dry E 96 263 ONI01

VG02 Peas, Chinese SW 106 172 PEA01

VG02 Peas, Chinese SC 106 172 PEA01

VG02 Peas, Chinese E 106 172 PEA01

VG03 Potat oes SW 112 257 POT01

VG03 Potatoes SC 116 278 POT01

VG03 Potatoes E 133 280 POT01

VG04 Sweet Corn SW 131 233 COR01

VG04 Sweet Corn SC 131 233 COR01

VG04 Sweet Corn E 131 233 COR012008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 45 Meteorological Data

Gridded hourly meteorological data, required for the dust estimation methodology, were

based on MM5/WRF model simulation results provided by DEQ (Zhang, 2009). Required data

fields included wind speeds, precipitation rates, soil temperatures and ice/snow cover. These

data were obtai ned from DEQ and then reviewed and formatted for use in the windblown dust

model.

Emission s Calculation

As noted above, the windblown fugitive dust PM emissions for the Treasure Valley

Airshed were developed for each day of 2008 using the estimation met hodology previously

developed for the WRAP and were estimated hourly on a gridded modeling domain using hourly

averaged meteorology, surface characteristics (soil and land use) and crop

- specific agricultural

information as described above. The windblown d ust model estimation methodology was

developed b ased on a review of wind tunnel studies which noted that the two important components

to characterize the dust emission process from an erodible surface were the threshold friction velocity

that defines the i nception of the emission process as a function of the wind speed and as influenced

by the surface characteristics, and the strength of the emissions that follow the commencement of

particle movement. The two critical factors affecting emission strength ar e the wind speed (wind

friction velocity) that drives the saltation system, and the soil characteristics.



### Friction Velocities

Surface friction velocities are determined from the aerodynamic surface roughness

lengths and wind speeds derived from the MM5/W RF model simulations. Friction velocity, u * 

### , is related to the slope of the velocity versus the natural logarithm of height through the

relationship:

W here :

u z 

### = wind velocity at height z (m/s) ;

u * 

### = friction velocity (m/s) ;

 = von Karman’s constant (0.4) ; and

z 0 

### = aerodynamic roughness height (m)

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 46 The threshold friction velocities, u *t 

### , are determined using empirical relationships that are

functions of the aerodynamic surface roughness length, z 0 

### (Marticorena et al., 1997). Surface

friction veloci ties, including the threshold friction velocity, are a function of the aerodynamic

surface roughness lengths. The surface friction velocities are, in turn, dependent upon surface

characteristics, particularly land use/land cover. The empirical relationsh ips implemented in the

model are shown in Figure 3

- 4

.

Figure 3

- 4

. Comparison B etween the Marticorena et al . (1997) M odeled

R elationship of T hreshold F riction V elocity and A erodynamic R oughness L ength

and W ind T unnel D ata from Gillette et al . (1980, 1982) , Gillette (1988) and Nickling and Gillies (1989)

Emission Fluxes

Emission fluxes, or emission rates, are determined as a function of surface friction

velocity and soil texture. Key relationships were established between the 12 soil types in the

classica l soil texture triangle and their four dry soil types ( i.e., silt [FSS], sandy silt [FS], silty

sand [MS], and sand [CS]) (Chatenet et al., 1996). Dust emission fluxes were estimated using

relationships developed for each of the soil texture groups (Alfar o and Gomes, 2001; Alfaro et2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 47 al., 2004). These relationships are presented in Figure 3

- 5 . The mapping used to relate the soil

textures to the soil groups are presented in Table 3

- 18

.

Figure 3

- 5

. The E mission F lux as a F unction of F riction V elo city P redicted by the

Alfaro and Gomes (2001) M odel C onstrained by the F our S oil G eometric M ean

D iameter C lasses of Alfaro et al. (2004)

Table 3

- 18

. Soil Texture and Soil Group Codes

Soil Texture Soil Texture Code Soil Group Soil Group Code

No Data 0 N/ A 0

Sand 1 CS 4 Loamy Sand 2 CS 4 Sandy Loam 3 MS 3

Silt Loam 4 FS 2

Silt 5 FSS 1

Loam 6 MS 3 Sandy Clay Loam 7 MS 3 Silty Clay Loam 8 FSS 1 Clay Loam 9 MS 3 Sandy Clay 10 MS 3 Silty Clay 11 FSS 1 Clay 12 FS 22008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 48 Surface Roughness Lengths

Surfa ce roughness lengths can vary considerably for a given land type, and are assigned

as a function of land use type based on a review of information reported in the literature. The

disturbance level of various surfaces has the effect of altering the surface roughness lengths,

which in turn impact the potential for vacant lands to emit dust from wind erosion.

An examination of the relationship between the threshold surface friction velocity and the

aerodynamic surface roughness length, reveals that for surfac e roughness lengths larger than

approximately 0.1 cm, the threshold friction velocities increase rapidly above values that can be

realistically expected to occur in the meteorological data used in the model implementation.

Therefore to simplify the model implementation, only those land types with roughness length

less than or equal to 0.1 cm are considered as potentially erodible surfaces.

For a given surface roughness, as determined by the land use type, the threshold friction

velocity has a constant valu e. Thus, the land use data is mapped to an internal dust code used

within the model to minimize computer resource requirements and coding efforts. The mapping

of land use types to dust codes 3 (agricultural), 4 (grassland), 6 (shrubland), and 7 (barren) is

presented in Table 3

- 19 ; dust codes 1 (water/wetlands), 2 (forest/urban), and 5

(orchards/vineyards) are not included.

Table 3

- 19 . Surface Characteristics by Dust Code and Land Use Category

Dust Code 3 4 6 7 Land use category Agricultural Grassland Shr ubland Barren Surface roughness length, Z 0 (cm) 0.031 0.1 0.05 0.002 Threshold friction velocity (m/s) 3.72 6.17 4.30 3.04 Threshold wind velocity at 10 meter height (m/s [mph]) 13.2
[29.5] 19.8

[44.3] 14.6

[32.8] 12.7

[28.5]



### Soil Reservoir Characteris tics

Soil r eservoirs are classified as limited for stable land parcels and unlimited for unstable

land parcels. Classification of soil reservoirs as limited or unlimited has implications with

respect to the duration of time over which the dust emissions a re generated. In general, soil

reservoirs should be classified in terms of the type of soils, the depth of the soil layer, soil

moisture content and meteorological parameters. Finally, the time required for a soil reservoir to2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 49 recharge following a wind e vent is influenced by a number of factors, including precipitation and

snow events and freezing conditions of the soils. A recharge time of 24 hours was assigned to all

surfaces. In addition, it was assumed that no surface will generate emissions for mor e than 10

hours in any 24

- hour period.

The duration and amount of precipitation and snow and freeze events will also affect the

dust emissions from wind erosion. A set of conditions were developed for treating these events

based on seasons, soil character istics and the amounts of rainfall and snow cover (Barnard,

2003). In addition, the time necessary to re

- initiate wind erosion after a precipitation event

ranges from 1 to 10 days, depending on the soil type, season of the year, and whether the

precipitat ion event rainfall amount exceeds 2 inches.

Soil Disturbance

The disturbance level of a surface has the effect of lowering the threshold surface friction

velocity. Except for agricultural lands, which are treated separately in the model as described

belo w, vacant land parcels are typically undisturbed unless some activity is present such as to

cause a disturbance (e.g., off

- road recreational vehicle activity in desert lands, animal grazing on

rangelands, etc.). It was assumed that all non

- agricultural la nd types were undisturbed, since

there is no a priori information to indicate otherwise for the regional scale modeling domain.

Other Adjustments

Two other adjustments to modeled air quality impacts related to fugitive dust transportability

and partitio ning between fine and coarse fractions of PM 10 

### . Transport fractions as a function of land

use were assigned to all emission estimates (Pace, 2003; Pace, 2005). In addition, new fine fraction

values developed from controlled wind tunnel studies of western soils were applied to determine the

fine and coarse fractions of wind

- generated fugitive dust emissions (MRI, 2005).

Model Application

The windblown fugitive dust model was applied for the entire calendar year 2008 at a

spatial resolution of 4

- km on a mo deling domain encompassing the Treasure Valley Airshed.

The model generates estimates of PM 10 

### dust emissions. The fine fraction of dust is obtained by2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 50 using a PM 2.5 

### /PM 10 

### ratio of 0.10 (MRI, 2005). Gridded emissions estimates were allocated to

counties u sing GIS processing techniques and are summarized below.

Emission Results for 2008

Annual 2008 windblown dust emissions are presented in Table 3

- 2 0 for Ada, Canyon and

Elmore counties. Annual emissions were calculated by summing hourly emission estima tes

across all days in calendar year 2008.

Table 3

- 2 0

. 2008 Annual Windblown Fugitive PM Dust Emission s for Ada

, Canyon

and Elmore Counties (Tons/Year)

Annual 2008 (tpy) County FIPS PM 10 

### (tpy) PM 2.5 

### (tpy)

Ada 16001 8,606 861 Canyon 16027 888 89

Elmo re 16039 17,720 1,772

Total 27,214 2,721



### 3.1.26 Ammonia Emissions

Ammonia emissions come from a variety sources including: livestock, agricultural

fertilizer application, natural soils, domestic sources, wild animals, and ammonia from cold

storage /ind ustrial refrigeration . With the exception of ammonia from cold storage /industrial

refrigeration (see Section 3

. 1.11 ), emissions have been developed using a GIS

- based ammonia

emissions modeling system developed for the WRAP (Chitjian and Mansell, 2003a; Ch itjian and

Mansell, 2003b; Mansell, 2005). The activity and emission factor data and sources are described

below. A description of the emission estimation methodology, as well as summaries of the

ammonia emission estimates are also provided.

Like the win dblown dust model, the implementation of the modeling system for the

development of ammonia emissions for the Treasure Valley Airshed emissions inventory requires the

use of a Cartesian modeling grid domain that is larger than Ada, Canyon, and Elmore count ies . As

such, the emission estimates described below include additional Idaho counties, as well as neighboring

counties in Oreg on

. Figure 3

- 6 displays the modeling domain for which ammonia emissions were

estimated. In addition, the model requires hourly gridded meteorological data and generates emission

estimates for each hour for the entire time period considered. For the DEQ inventory, these estimates

are aggregated to counties and summed across all hours of calendar year 2008, as described below.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 51 F igure 3

- 6. DEQ 4

- km Modeling Domain for Ammonia Emissions Development

Data Collection

Input data required by the model for each subcategory (i.e., livestock, fertilizer

application, natural soil, domestic sources, wild animals, etc.) include:

 Activit y data;

 Emission factors; and

 Temporal variations.

In addition, land use/land cover data and meteorology data for the inventory domain were

used to run the model.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 52 Livestock Activity Data

Ammonia emissions from livestock were developed using county

- level he ad counts and

dairy and beef cattle feedlot estimates provided by the DEQ ( Strachan, 2009 ). The DEQ

obtained these data (i.e., headcounts for dairy cattle and beef cattle on feedlots, including specific

locations of dairies and feedlots) from the Idaho St ate Department of Agriculture . However, in

order to avoid disclosure of detailed information regarding any particular dairy or feedlot, DEQ

subsequently aggregated these data to the 4

- km grid cells within the modeling domain. The

gridded dairy and beef c attle data for all Idaho counties were then used to spatially allocate

county

- level headcounts for 2008, obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics

Service (NASS, 2009a). All other livestock ammonia emissions (i.e., poultry, swine, sheep and

horses) within Idaho were estimated based on 2007 county

- level head counts, which were

obtained from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2009) and spatially allocated using

gridding surrogates. For the portions of the two Oregon counties (i.e., Baker a nd Malheur)

within the domain, livestock emissions were developed based on county

- level activity data

obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and spatially allocated as

described below. Estimates for sheep, poultry and swine were obtained from NASS (NASS,

2009a). Table 3

- 2 1 summarizes the county

- level livestock activity data for calendar year 2008.

Livestock Emission Factors

The approach used in the WRAP ammonia model does not treat the individual processes

leading to ammonia em issions from various manure management practices, as has been the

subject of recent research in the emission inventory development community. Instead, emission

factors based on a “whole animal” approach are used. The emission factors are based on a recen t

literature review and are presented in Table 3

- 2 2 (Chinkin et al., 2003).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 53

Table 3

- 2 1 . 2008 Annual County

- Level Livestock Head Counts

County Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Swine Poultry Sheep Horses

Ada 10,065 56,411 1,837 1,948 1,806 3,904

Adams 6,1 75 6,543 41 206 609 749

Blaine 8,042 7,700 11 67 13,789 915

Boise 1,827 457 0 144 0 338

Camas 3,938 1,287 0 57 0 100 Canyon 13,908 115,653 1,534 6,737 19,627 6,525

Custer 18,057 8,008 99 218 481 1,625

Elmore 23,904 85,971 56 654 717 1,161

Gem 10,939 11,799 74 911 6,138 2,831 Gooding 11,035 270,877 160 459 0 1,826

Jerome 10,231 209,322 282 298 1,081 1,386

Lincoln 8,701 61,162 0 301 537 1,182 Owyhee 36,586 109,786 149 687 5,228 2,687
Payette 9,095 53,598 332 887 1,289 2,410

Twin Falls 25,898 146,861 0 982 14,007 2,457 Valley 3,024 3,545 18 196 120 235 Washington 19,154 28,522 300 400 15,532 1,551
Baker (OR) 46,608 34,273 111 663 5,509 4,211
Malheur (OR) 70,562 142,763 311 811 10,104 5,825



### Table 3

- 2 2

. Ammoni a Emission Factors f or Livestock

Source Category Emission Factor (kg/animal

- yr)

Beef Cattle 9 .0 Dairy Cattle 25 .0 Poultry 0.1

Swine 7.0

Horses 8.0 Sheep 1.3 4

Livestock Temporal Variations

A review of current literature reveals a lack in consistency of results quantifying temporal

variations in ammonia emissions from livestock (Chitjian and Mansell, 2003a). However, a

preponderance of the studies cited concluded that ammonia emissions from livestock display

both a seasonal and diurnal variation cons istent, in general, with increased ammonia emissions

associated with warmer temperatures.

Seasonal allocation factors have been developed using inverse modeling results (Chinkin

et al., 2003; Gilliland et al., 2003). The factors were further adjusted to reflect the current ORD

-2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 54 recommended emission factors, which were not available when the initial modeling methodology

was developed ( U.S. EPA, 2002 a ), which were not available at the time the modeling was

performed by Gilliland et al. The adjusted factors are shown on Table 3

- 2 3 , which indicates over

a threefold increase in emissions during the warmest months and minimum emissions during the

late fall, as opposed to the coldest months. The minimum in the fall is explained by the

relatively dry conditions a t that time of the year.

Table 3

- 2 3 . Monthly Livestock Allocation Factors

Month Temporal Allocation Factor
January 67 February 75

March 75 April 82
May 126

June 164 July 183 August 154 September 115

October 73

November 51

December 51



### The diurnal variation of livestock ammonia emissions was also previously investigated

(Chitjian and Mansell, 2003a). In general, the literature reports an increase in daytime emissions

relative to nighttime emissions. A theoretical equation (i.e., Russell a nd Cass equation) was

developed to predict diurnal emission variations as a function of meteorological data (Russell

and Cass, 1986). The Russell and Cass equation relates hourly ammonia emission rates to

temperature and wind speed as follows:

W here :

E i 

### = emission rate at hour i from animal waste decomposition ;

A = daily total emission rate for ammonia from animal waste =  E i 

### ;
T i 

### = ambient temperature in degrees Kelvin at hour i ; and

V i 

### = wind speed in meters per second (m/s) at hour i (a minimum wind speed of 0.1

m/s)

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31 , 2010 

### 3

- 55 Although the seasonal and diurnal variations presented above are empirically based, they

are consiste nt with the theory that greater temperatures and greater wind speeds will result in

larger ammonia volatilization rates.

For the 2008 DEQ inventory, the Russell and Cass equation was used to provide the

diurnal variation of livestock ammonia emissions. T his approach is consistent with first principal

assumptions and with measurements showing increased ammonia release with increased

temperature and wind speed. The monthly livestock allocation factors shown in Table 3

- 2 3 were

used to allocate annual emissi on estimates to each month of the year.

Fertilizer Application Activity

Although the Idaho State Department of Agriculture ( ISDA ) was contacted in order to

obtain local county

- level data, ISDA only maintains these data at a state

- wide basis. Additionall y,

ISDA ’s state

- wide data did not include details on the specific types of fertilizers applied, as

required by the WRAP GIS NH 3 

### model. Therefore, ammonia emissions from fertilizer application

were developed using monthly county

- level fertilizer activity d ata obtained from the Carnegie

Mellon University (CMU) Ammonia Model input database developed from the USDA’s National

Agricultural Statistics Survey (NASS) (Strader et al., 2004). Table 3

- 2 4 summarizes the annual

county

- level fertilizer activity data use d for modeling of the Treasure Valley inventory domain.

Fertilizer Emission Factors

Emission factors for ammonia emissions from fertilizer application were based upon data

from the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2002) as recommended by the WRAP model

methodology (Chitjian and Mansell, 2003b). Emission factors for fertilizer application are

presented in Table 3

- 2 5 . As discussed in the WRAP model methodology (Chitjian and Mansell,

2003a), fertilizer emission factors were adjusted as a function of the so il pH. Based upon recent

research, the emission factors are scaled according to the following relation as a function of the

soil pH (Potter et al., 2001):2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

3

- 56 Final, August 31

, 2010 

### Table 3

- 2 4 . 2008 Annual Fertilizer Application Data by Type a nd County (kg/year)

County Stat e Anhydrous

Ammonia Aqueous

Ammonia Nitrogen

Solutions Urea Ammonium

Nitrate Ammonium

Sulfate Ammonium

Thiosulfate Ammonium

Phosphates Calcium

Ammonium

Nitrate Potassium

Nitrate

Ada Idaho 313,638 14,867 332,092 898,450 300,150 284,480 48,777 3,050,300 325 34

Adams Idaho 12,072 571 12,766 34,549 11,540 10,930 1,876 117,230 12 1

Blaine Idaho 107,032 5,077 113,318 306,690 102,476 97,060 16,658 1,041,600 111 11

Boise Idaho 4,426 210 4,690 12,698 4,243 4,020 689 43,076 4 0

Camas Idaho 60,099 2,845 63,575 17 2,068 57,507 54,452 9,336 584,340 62 6

Canyon Idaho 1,562,920 74,098 1,655,040 4,478,000 1,495,900 1,416,830 243,278 15,191,000 1,622 169

Custer Idaho 34,458 1,632 36,479 98,748 32,971 31,237 5,365 334,960 35 3

Elmore Idaho 541,010 25,648 572,460 1,549, 100 517,810 490,700 84,235 5,257,700 561 58

Gem Idaho 94,452 4,472 99,886 270,264 90,382 85,546 14,695 917,980 97 10

Gooding Idaho 446,610 21,192 473,140 1,281,720 428,290 405,640 69,552 4,348,700 464 48

Jerome Idaho 669,030 31,704 707,470 1,916,560 640 ,480 606,120 104,098 6,502,500 695 72

Lincoln Idaho 151,368 7,163 160,234 432,790 144,836 137,088 23,523 1,473,100 157 16

Owyhee Idaho 432,650 20,498 457,880 1,239,260 413,780 392,120 67,301 4,206,700 449 47

Payette Idaho 259,124 12,298 274,398 741,760 248,242 235,088 40,327 2,519,900 269 28

Twin Falls Idaho 1,131,320 53,482 1,201,180 3,269,500 1,091,410 1,038,610 177,732 11,252,000 1,151 124

Valley Idaho 19,078 904 20,181 54,558 18,260 17,288 2,968 185,470 20 2

Washington Idaho 193,948 9,191 205,400 555,660 185,754 175,930 30,170 1,884,600 201 21

Baker Oregon 177,090 6,235 301,240 796,800 97,240 155,110 8,280 623,200 1,487 538

Malheur Oregon 1,320,700 46,564 2,248,600 5,944,000 726,000 1,157,000 61,724 4,651,400 11,087 4,0112008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 57 Table 3

- 2 5

. Ammonia E missions Factors f or Fertilizer Application

Fertilizer Type %N volatized as NH 3 

### kg NH 3 

### /kg fertilizer applied Anhydrous a mmonia 4 0.04857 Aqueous a mmonia 2.4 0.02914 Nitrogen s olutions 8 0.09714

Urea 15 0.18214

Ammonium n itrate 2 0.02428

Ammonium s ulf

ate 10 0.12143

Calcium a mmonium n itrate 2 0.02428

Ammonium t hiosulfate 2.4 0.02914

Other s traight n itrogen 2.4 0.02914

Ammonium p hosphates 5 0.06071

N

- P

- K 2 0.02428

Potassium n itrate 2.4 0.02914



### Soil pH scalars were not applied to urea emission fac tors as research has indicated that

urea emissions are not affected by initial soil pH. Soil pH data used for the Treasure Valley

emissions inventory are described below.

Fertilizer Temporal Variation

Emissions from fertilizer application were temporally allocated monthly based on the

monthly activity data. Diurnal variations in fertilizer emissions are expected as temperature and

wind speed affect ammonia production and volatilization. The Russell and Cass equation,

described above, was used to temporal ly allocate daily emissions to each hour of the day as a

function of temperature and wind speed, as was done for livestock emissions.

Natural Soil Activity

Ammonia emissions from natural soils are based on land use/land cover acreages. The

same databas e used for the windblown dust model was used for the estimation of ammonia

emissions from natural soils. Land use

- land cover (LULC) data required for the windblown dust

model was derived from crop

- specific GIS data layers obtained from the USDA NASS Cropl and

Data Layer (CDL) Program and represent agricultural, as well as non

- agricultural, lands

throughout the region based on data for calendar year 2007 (NASS, 2007). The primary purpose

of the CDL Program is to use satellite imagery to provide acreage esti mates to the Agricultural

Statistics Board for the state’s major commodities and produce digital, crop

- specific, categorized

geo

- referenced output products. These data were reviewed and processed for use in the2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 58 windblown dust model. Figure 3

- 3 ( windblown dust section ) presents a display of the final land

use/land cover data for the 4

- km modeling domain.

Natural Soil Emission Factors:

Natural soil ammonia emissions were estimated based on emission factors developed

from recent research (Battye et al., 2003 ; Chinkin et al., 2003); these emission factors are

presented in Table 3

- 2 6

.

Table 3

- 2 6

. Ammonia Emission Factors f or Native Soils

Land type Emission Factor (kg/km 2



### - yr)

Urban 10

Barren/Desert land 10

Deciduous Forest 174
Evergreen Forest 54

Mixe d Forest 114

Shrubland 400

Grasslands 400

Fallow 205

Urban/Recreational Grasses 400

Wetlands 400



### A previous study estimated ammonia emissions from native soils based on several

environmental variables including monthly rainfall, surface air tempera ture, solar radiation, soil

texture, land cover type and vegetative type (Potter et al., 2001). The model first calculated the

available mineral nitrogen substrate for ammonia emissions and then modified this value by

applying scalars for soil surface temp erature (T

s 

### ), pH, and soil moisture content (M). The scalars

are of the form:

where ‘c’ is a constant, which determines the sensitivity to pH. The study authors used ‘c’

values of 1.3 (i.e., consistent with measurements made) and 10 (i.e, to produce results with

minimal pH effects). The emission factors presented in Table 3

- 2 6 were modified for

temperature and pH effects using these scalars using a ‘c’ value of 1.3. Soil temperature and soil

moisture content are taken from the meteorological data us ed for the project as discussed below.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 59 Natural Soil Temporal Variation

The temporal allocation of native soil ammonia emissions were calculated using the

emission factor scalars described above, which are temporally resolved based on the hourly

meteorolo gical data.

Domestic Sources Activity Data

Domestic sources of ammonia emissions considered in the current inventory include

human respiration and perspiration, disposable and cloth diapers and domestic pets (cats and

dogs). Ammonia emissions from domesti c sources use county

- level populations as activity data.

County

- level populations were obtained from the U.S. Census (U.S. Census, 2009 c ). Estimates

of total county

- level populations are needed for human perspiration and respiration. The number

of cats and dogs are scaled based on total population. County

- level estimates of infant

populations are used to estimate ammonia emissions from cloth and disposable diapers. The

2008 county

- level population estimates are presented in Table 3

- 27 for all counties within the 4

-
km modeling domain used for the project.

Table 3

- 27 . 2008 County

- Level Population Estimates

County State Total Population Infant Population

Ada Idaho 380,920 29,211

Adams Idaho 3,499 184

Blaine Idaho 21,731 1,437

Boise Idaho 7,504 314

Camas Idaho 1,126 85 Canyon Idaho 183,939 17,764

Custer Idaho 4,254 180

Elmore Idaho 28,997 2,594

Gem Idaho 16,513 1,113 Gooding Idaho 14,295 1,212

Jerome Idaho 20,468 1,955

Lincoln Idaho 4,503 417 Owyhee Idaho 10,877 852
Payette Idaho 22,966 1,694

Twin Falls Idaho 74,284 6,008 Valley Idaho 8,862 531 Washington Idaho 10,206 659

Baker Oregon 15,983 791

Malheur Oregon 30,907 2,192

Total 861,834 69,1932008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 60 Domestic Source Emission Factors

Dom estic source emissions were estimated based on emission factors recommended by

recent studies (Chitjian et al., 2000; Chitjian and Mansell, 2003a). Table 3

- 28 presents the

emission factors used for the project.

Table 3

- 28

. Ammonia Emission Factors f or Do mestic Ammonia Sources

Source Emission Factor Unit

Cats 0.348 lb N/cat

- yr Dogs 2.17 lb N/dog

- yr Human Perspiration 0.55 lb NH 3 

### /person

- yr Human Respiration 0.0035 lb NH 3 

### /person

- yr Cloth Diapers 6.9 lb NH 3 

### /infant

- yr Disposable Diapers 0.36 lb NH 3 

### /infa nt

- yr



### Domestic Sources Temporal Variation

The ammonia emissions from domestic sources were assumed to be temporally invariant.

Wild Animal Activity Data

Although ammonia emissions from wild animals constitute a comparatively small portion

of the overal l ammonia emission inventory, these emissions were included given the availability

of activity data. Ammonia emissions from wild animals are based upon estimates of the number

of animals at the county level. These data were obtained from the Carnegie Mel lon University

(CMU) Ammonia Model input database (Strader et al., 2004). It should be noted that county

level wild animal populations are obtained from state

- level data allocated to counties based on

surrogates. Consequently, the county

- level population s may result in fractional numbers,

particularly for those animals with relatively small overall populations.

Wild Animal Emission Factors

Ammonia emissions from wild animals were estimated using emission factors obtained

from the CMU NH 3 

### model (Strader, et al., 2004) and are presented in Table 3

- 29

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 61 Table 3

- 29

. Ammonia Emission Factors f or Wild Animal Ammonia Sources

Wild Animal Temporal Variations

The ammonia emissions from wild animals were assumed to be temporally invariant.

Land Use/Land Cover Data

The Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) data used for the ammonia inventory were developed

from th e NASS CDL database described above (NASS, 2007). LULC data is directly used for

estimating natural soil ammonia emissions, as well as for spatial allocation of livestock and

fertilizer application emissions, as described below. The land use classificati ons available in the

CDL database are presented in Table 3

- 3 0

. Figure 3

- 7 displays the CDL data for the 4

- km DEQ

modeling and are summarized at the county

- level in Table 3

- 3 1

.

Soil pH is used in the ammonia model for applying adjustments to emission facto rs for

natural soil and fertilizer application emissions. The State Soil Geographic Database

(STATSGO) was used to specify the soil pH necessary for the development of the emission

inventory for the project (USDA, 1994). Figure 3

- 8 displays the mean soil pH for the DEQ

modeling domain.

Meteorology

Gridded hourly meteorological data required for the model include wind speeds, ambient

temperatures, soil temperatures and soil moisture and are based on the MM5/WRF model

simulation results provided by DEQ (Zha ng, 2009).

Emission Calculation

Model Application

A GIS

- based modeling system was used to generate the gridded ammonia emissions

inventory incorporating various improvements as implemented for the WRAP (Chitjian and

Source Emission Factor Unit

Black bears 4.536 kg NH 3 

### /animal

- yr Grizzly bears 4.536 kg NH 3 

### /animal

- yr

Elk 24.48 kg NH 3 

### /animal

- yr

Deer 4.536 kg NH 3 

### /animal

- yr2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 62 Table 3

- 3 0

. CDL Classifications a n d NH 3 

### Model Cross

- References

CDL Code NH 3 Code Crop Description LU Description

1 10 Corn Row Crops

2 10 Cotton Row Crops

3 10 Rice Row Crops

4 10 Sorghum Row Crops

5 10 Soybeans Row Crops

6 10 Sunflowers Row Crops

10 10 Peanuts Row Crops

11 10 Toba cco Row Crops

21 10 Barley Grains/Hays/Seeds

22 10 Durum Wheat Grains/Hays/Seeds

23 10 Spring Wheat Grains/Hays/Seeds

24 10 Winter Wheat Grains/Hays/Seeds

25 10 Other Small Grains Grains/Hays/Seeds

26 10 Winter Wheat/Soybeans Double

- Cropped Grains/H ays/Seeds

27 10 Rye Grains/Hays/Seeds

28 10 Oats Grains/Hays/Seeds

29 10 Millet Grains/Hays/Seeds

30 10 Speltz Grains/Hays/Seeds

31 10 Canola Grains/Hays/Seeds

32 10 Flaxseed Grains/Hays/Seeds

33 10 Safflower Grains/Hays/Seeds

34 10 Rape seed Grain s/Hays/Seeds

35 10 Mustard Grains/Hays/Seeds

36 10 Alfalfa Grains/Hays/Seeds

37 10 Other Hays Grains/Hays/Seeds

41 10 Sugarbeets Other Crops

42 10 Dry Beans Other Crops

43 10 Potatoes Other Crops

44 10 Other Crops Other Crops

45 10 Sugarcane Other Crops

46 10 Sweet Potatoes Other Crops

47 10 Miscellaneous Vegetables & Fruit Other Crops

48 10 Watermelon Other Crops

50 10 Pickles Other Crops

51 10 Chick Peas Other Crops

52 10 Lentils Other Crops

53 10 Peas Other Crops

58 10 Clover/Wildflowers Other Crops

61 12 Fallow/Idle Cropland Open Non

- Crop

62 9 Grass/Pasture/Non

- agricultural Open Non

- Crop

63 5 Woodland Open Non

- Crop

64 6 Shrubland Open Non

- Crop

65 2 Barren Open Non

- Crop

67 10 Peaches Tree Crops

68 10 Apples Tree Crops

69 10 Grapes Tree Crops

### Table 3

- 3 0 . Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 63 CDL Code NH 3 Code Crop Description LU Description

70 10 Christmas Trees Tree Crops

71 10 Other Tree Nuts & Fruit Tree Crops

72 10 Citrus Tree Crops

73 10 Other Tree Fruit Tree Crops

80 10 Other Non

- Tree Fruit Tree Crops

81 13 Clouds Other Non

- Crops

82 1 Urban/Developed Other Non

- Crops

8 3 13 Water Other Non

- Crops

87 8 Wetlands Other Non

- Crops

92 13 Aquaculture Other Non

- Crops

111 13 NLCD

- Open Water NLCD Non

- Crop

112 13 NLCD

- Perennial Ice/Snow NLCD Non

- Crop

121 1 NLCD

- Developed/Open Space NLCD Non

- Crop

122 1 NLCD

- Developed/Low Intens ity NLCD Non

- Crop

123 1 NLCD

- Developed/Medium Intensity NLCD Non

- Crop

124 1 NLCD

- Developed/High Intensity NLCD Non

- Crop

131 2 NLCD

- Barren NLCD Non

- Crop

141 3 NLCD

- Deciduous Forest NLCD Non

- Crop

142 4 NLCD

- Evergreen Forest NLCD Non

- Crop

143 5 NLCD

- Mix ed Forest NLCD Non

- Crop

152 6 NLCD

- Shrubland NLCD Non

- Crop

171 7 NLCD

- Grassland Herbaceous NLCD Non

- Crop

181 9 NLCD

- Pasture/Hay NLCD Non

- Crop

182 10 NLCD

- Cultivated Crop NLCD Non

- Crop

190 8 NLCD

- Woody Wetlands NLCD Non

- Crop

195 8 NLCD

- Herbaceous Wetl ands NLCD Non

- Crop2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 64 Figure 3

- 7. Land Use/Land Cover Data Used for the DEQ Ammonia Emissions Inventory Development2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 65 Table 3

- 3 1

. Land Use Summary b y Category a nd County f or t he 4

- Km Modeling Domain (Acres)

County State Urban

Land Forest

Land/Wetl ands Agricultural

Lands Grasslands Shrublands Barren

Lands

Ada Idaho 100,990 7,539 46,682 354,735 157,842 2,327

Adams Idaho 2,078 113,107 494 18,003 152,634 0

Blaine Idaho 655 170,408 140 59,807 81,215 2,988

Boise Idaho 4,690 676,163 27 9 152,293 375,662 1,147

Camas Idaho 5,950 167,759 29,348 196,542 257,873 1,346 Canyon Idaho 80,459 3,183 186,583 83,998 9,364 4,942

Custer Idaho 1,730 840,939 185 200,777 254,396 10,205

Elmore Idaho 34,270 388,334 74,469 721,049 734,830 4,836

Gem Idaho 10,231 51,890 23,639 117,980 153,711 309 Gooding Idaho 23,664 844 107,229 104,031 226,637 556

Jerome Idaho 5,171 0 21,756 7,751 4,025 62

Lemhi Idaho 0 39,380 0 8,521 10,170 0

Lincoln Idaho 2,093 0 6,552 12,035 50,0 50 62 Owyhee Idaho 20,011 86,658 104,867 411,322 1,174,541 4,633
Payette Idaho 12,667 2,612 39,963 159,559 41,392 1,173

Twin Falls Idaho 5,831 453 33,579 50,096 30,445 310 Valley Idaho 3,577 735,764 124 75,919 214,516 0 Washington Idaho 9,404 117,440 30,869 199,095 549,927 611

Baker Oregon 6,354 41,817 3,818 48,107 418,567 0

Malheur Oregon 40,403 24,951 126,640 491,460 1,626,267 29,037

Domain Total 370,227 3,469,242 837,215 3,473,078 6,524,066 64,545



### Figure 3

- 8. Me an Soil pH for the DEQ Modeling Domain from the STAT S GO

Database2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 66 Mansell, 2003a; Chitjian and Mansell, 2003b; Mansell, 2005). The county level activity data were

used in conjunction with the emission factors and environmental factors described above to

ge nerate a gridded inventory of ammonia emissions on the DEQ 4

- km resolution modeling domain.

The gridded emission inventory was temporally resolved hourly.

The modeling system applied gridding surrogates (described below) to the county

- level

emission estim ates on an annual basis (or monthly for fertilizer application emissions). The

effects of soil pH on the emis s ion factors for fertilizer application were applied to the annual

gridded ammonia emission estimates. Other environmental factors were incorpora ted in the

temporal allocation modules since these factors impact the diurnal variation of emissions through

gridded, hourly temperatures and wind speeds. For natural soil emissions estimates, the effects

of soil conditions (pH and moisture) and meteorolo gical data were both incorporated in the

emissions estimates during the temporal allocation process.

Spatial Surrogate

The GIS model used for estimating ammonia emissions applied gridded spatial surrogates

to county

- level activity and emission factor data to generate gridded hourly emission estimates.

Spatial surrogates were developed based on population and land use/land cover data. The land

use data used for the project was processed for developing spatial surrogates through aggregation

of individual l and use classes into more broadly defined classes for spatial allocation of

emissions. The spatial surrogate codes, associated land use classes and descriptions, as used in

the model, are presented in Table 3

- 3 2 and displayed graphically in Figure 3

- 7 abo ve. Each

ammonia emission source category considered was then cross

- referenced to the appropriate

spatial surrogate code (both primary and secondary surrogate assignments), as shown in Table 3

-

3 3 . It should be not ed that for beef and dairy cattle emissi ons, spatial surrogates were only used

for the portions of the domain within Washington. Within Idaho, beef and dairy cattle were

spatially allocated based on the gridded distribution of dairies and feedlots, as discussed above.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 67

Table 3

- 3 2

. Land Use/S urrogate Cross

- Reference

Surrogate Number CDL Classes Description

1 1 Urban

2 2 Barren

3 3 Deciduous Forest

4 4 Evergreen Forest

5 5 Mixed Forest

6 6 Shrublands

7 7 Grasslands

8 8 Wetlands

9 9 Grass + Pasture

10 10 Agricultural

11 3

- 1 0 ,12 Rural

12 12 Fallow

13 13 Water

14 3

- 5,7 Forest + Shrub + Grasslands

Table 3

- 3 3 . Source Category/Surrogate Cross

- Reference

Source category Primary Surrogate Code and Description Secondary Surrogate Code and Description

Fertilizers 10

– Agr icultural 11

– Rural

Livestock

– Dairy & Beef Cattle 9

– Grass + Pasture 11

– Rural

Livestock

– Other 9

– Grass + Pasture 11

– Rural

Domestic Respiration Population Population

Native Soils

– Urban 1

– Urban 1

– Urban

Native Soils

– Barren 2

– Barren 2

– Barren

Native Soils

– Deciduous Forest 3

– Deciduous Forest 3

– Deciduous Forest

Native Soils

– Evergreen Forest 4

– Evergreen Forest 4

– Evergreen Forest

Native Soils

– Mixed Forest 5

– Mixed Forest 5

– Mixed Forest

Native Soils

– Shrubland 6

– Sh rublands 5

– Mixed Forest

Native Soils

– Grassland 7

– Grasslands 7

– Grasslands

Native Soils

– Fallow 12

– Fallow 12

– Fallow

Native Soils

– Urban Grass 1

– Urban 1

– Urban

Native Soils

– Wetlands 8

– Wetlands 8

– Wetlands

Wild Animals 14

– Forest + Shrub + Grasslands 14

– Forest + Shrub + Grasslands



### Emission Results

The GIS NH 3 

### model was applied using the data as described above for each day in

calendar year 2008 on the 4

- km modeling domain. For reporting purposes, the hourly, gridded

emissions w ere aggregated to the county level using a GIS processing approach. For each county

border

- line grid cell, emissions were distributed among the counties intersecting the grid cell in

proportion to the area of each of these counties within the grid cell.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 68 An nual 2008 ammonia emissions by source category are presented in Table 3

- 3 4 for Ada,

Canyon and Elmore counties. Annual emissions were calculated by summing hourly emission

estimates across all days in calendar year 2008. A comparison with previous invent ories

developed for calendar year 2010 by ERG/ENVIRON (ENVIRON and ERG, 2002) shows that

the 2008 annual ammonia emission estimates for the Ada and Canyon counties are relatively

consistent with the current estimates based on the WRAP GIS

- based NH 3 

### model ( 11,535 tpy

from all sources or 8,040 tpy from all non

- soil sources versus 6,228 tpy based on previous work

not inclusive of soils ). Likely reasons for the 30 percent increase in emission estimates are

differences in activity data and methodologies

.

3.2 Emiss ions Calculation Methodologies

– Ozone and PM Season

After the annual area source emissions were estimated using the methodologies described

in the various subsections of Section 3 .1, the daily ozone season and PM season emission

estimates were developed. The ozone season extends from April 1 through October 31 (i.e., 214

days), while the PM season is from November 1 through February 29 (2008 wa s a leap year)

(i.e., 121 days). Wherever possible, Idaho

- specific activity/surrogate data were used to develop

temporal allocation profiles. If Idaho

- specific data were not available, then U.S. EPA’s default

temporal allocation profiles from its emissions modeling clearinghouse were used instead (U.S.

EPA, 2002b).

3.2.1 Fuel Combustion

As part of the fuel survey mailed out to fuel dealers and distributors, monthly fuel

quantity data were requested. In general, fuel respondents were able to furnish relevant monthly

statistics. In a few cases, respondents were contacted by phone to clarify the appropriate

seasonal distribution. These monthly fuel quantity data were used to develop seasonal fuel

quantities which were then divided by the number of days in the season resulting in seasonal

daily fuel use. As pointed out by several respondents, it should be noted that the monthly fuel

quantity data were based upon fuel deliveries and not actual consumption. As a result, the

reported monthly fuel quantity data probably lead consumption by a few weeks (i.e., fuel would

ordered and stockpiled prior to the winter heating season).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 69 Table 3

- 3 4 . 2008 Annual Ammonia Emissions for Ada

, Canyon

, a nd Elmore

Counties by Source Category (T ons/Year )

2008 Annual Ammonia Emissions (tpy)

SCC Description Ada Canyon Elmore

2805023300 Dairy Cattle 1,554.56 3,187.14 2,369.17

280500310 0 Beef Cattle 99.85 137.98 237.15

2805025000 Swine 14.17 11.84 0.43

2805030000 Poultry 0.21 0.74 0.07

2805035000 Horses 34.43 57.54 10.24

2805040000 Sheep 2.67 28.99 1.06

Total Livestock 1,705.9 3,424.2 2,618.1

9999101002 Native Soils

– Urban 26.41 2 7.04 14.54

9999101003 Native Soils

– Barren 0.00 0.00 0.24

9999101004 Native Soils

– Deciduous Forest 0.19 0.00 0.02

9999101005 Native Soils

– Evergreen Forest 4.92 0.45 103.55

9999101006 Native Soils

– Mixed Forest 0.47 0.00 0.00

9999101007 Native So ils

– Shrubland 49.55 3.10 100.11

9999101008 Native Soils

– Grassland 127.48 22.80 173.45

9999101009 Native Soils

– Fallow 19.45 31.57 19.30

9999101010 Native Soils

– Urban Grass 1,056.44 1,081.63 581.46

9999101011 Native Soils

– Wetlands 6.90 30.11 13 .04

Total Native Soils 1,291.8 1,196.7 1,005.7

8888101001 Wild Animals

– Black bears 1.26 0.12 4.58

8888101002 Wild Animals

– Grizzly bears 0.00 0.00 0.01

8888101003 Wild Animals

– Elk 35.08 3.32 127.37

8888101004 Wild Animals

– Deer 2.07 0.20 7.55

T otal Wild Animals 38.4 3.6 139.5

6906950001 Domestic

– Respiration 0.66 0.32 0.05

6906950002 Domestic

– Perspiration 104.75 50.58 7.97

6906950006 Domestic

– Cloth Diapers 100.78 61.29 8.95

6906950007 Domestic

– Disposable Diapers 5.26 3.20 0.47

690695 0008 Domestic

– Cats 6.43 3.10 0.49

6906950010 Domestic

– Dogs 59.72 28.84 4.55

Total Domestic 277.6 147.3 22.5

2801700001 Fertilizer

– Anhydrous Ammonia 21.52 109.18 39.05

2801700002 Fertilizer

– Aqueous Ammonia 0.61 3.11 1.11

2801700003 Fertilizer

– Nitrogen Solutions 45.57 231.23 82.63

2801700004 Fertili z er

– Urea 180.39 899.07 311.02

2801700005 Fertilizer

– Ammonium Nitrate 10.29 52.24 18.68

2801700006 Fertilizer

– Ammonium Sulfate 48.80 247.45 88.54

2801700007 Fertilizer

– Ammonium Thiosulfate 2.01 10.20 3.65

2801700009 Fertilizer

– All Ammonium Phosphates 261.59 1,326.44 474.30

2801700011 Fertilizer

– Calcium Ammonium Nitrate 0.01 0.06 0.02

2801700012 Fertilizer

– Potassium Nitrate 0.00 0.01 0.00

Total Fertilizers 570.8 2,879.0 1,019.0

Gr and Total 3,884 7,651 4, 8052008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 70 3 .2.2 Residential Wood Combustion

Annual residential wood quantities were allocated to the ozone and PM seasons based

upon results from the residential wood combustion survey (Aurora, 2010). The seasonal

fractions were derive d from survey responses concerning the number of times a particular device

(i.e., fireplace, woodstove, insert, or pellet stove) was used each month. Seasonal fractions were

estimated for each county and device type. These seasonal fractions were then mu ltiplied by the

annual residential wood quantities resulting in seasonal wood quantities. Finally, these seasonal

wood quantities were then divided by the number of days in each season.

3 .2.3 Paved Road Dust

The temporal allocation factors developed for o n

- road motor vehicles using traffic

counter data were also used for paved road dust emissions . This is discussed further in

Apppendix E of the Northern Ada County PM 10 

### Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update

. Nonwinter “ubiquitous” silt loadings were ass umed for the ozone season, while w inter season

“ubiquitous” silt loadings were assumed for the PM season to reflect the higher silt that results

from roadway sanding

. Precipitation adjustment factors were estimated for each month based

on the number of da ys with at least 0.01 inches of rain

.

Seasonal e mission estimates by county are shown in Table 3

- 3 5 . As shown, emissions are

higher in the winter PM season than the summer ozone season due to silt loadings that were

generally higher in winter than in non

- winter. Although precipitation factors and temporal

activity factors have the effect of decreasing emissions in the PM season relative to the ozone

season, differences in silt loading, relating to antiskid treatments

, cause higher emissions in the

PM seas on relative to the ozone season.

3.2.4 Unpaved Road Dust

Temporal allocation of unpaved road dust emissions was performed in the same way as

described in Section 3.2.3 for paved road dust. Although it is possible that unpaved road dust

temporal allocation s may differ from paved road dust allocations, there were no seasonal activity

data available specific to unpaved roads. Therefore, paved road temporal allocations were

assumed. Summer and winter road surface material silt content estimates taken from th e

TVRDS were used for the ozone and winter season, respectively.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 71 Emission estimates by county are presented in Table 3

- 3 6 . As noted in Section 3 .1.4,

Elmore County contains the highest unpaved roadway mileage and the highest unpaved road dust

emission est imates of all counties in the Treasure Valley. Ozone season emission estimates are

considerably higher than PM season emission estimates due to seasonal precipitation adjustments

and higher estimated activity levels in the ozone season.

Table 3

- 3 5 . 2008 Seasonal Paved Road Dust Emission Estimates

Roadway Type PM Season (TPD) Ozone Season (TPD)

PM 10 

### PM 2.5 

### PM 10 

### PM 2.5 

### Ada County a 

### 34.8 2 10.4 0.6

Canyon County a 

### 34.8 2 10.4 0.6

Elmore County b 

### 5.1 1.2 1.7 0.3

a Ada and Canyon counties p aved road dust upd ated by DEQ in 2012 ; see Appendix E of the No rthern Ada

Co unty PM

10 Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update

. b Elmor e County r oad d ust original estimates. Elmore County emissions were n ot needed for the Northern Ada County PM

10 Limited Maintenance Plan T en

- Year Update and were not updated.



### Table 3

- 3 6

. 2008 Seasonal Unpaved Road Dust Emission Estimates

County PM Season (TPD) Ozone Season (TPD)

PM 10 

### PM 2.5 

### PM 10 

### PM 2.5 

### Ada 1.65 0.09 3.03 0.17
Canyon 0.28 0.02 0.52 0.03

Elmore 3.44 0.34 12.20 1.21

Tot als 5.36 0.45 15.75 1.41



### 3 .2.5 Commercial Cooking

No definite seasonality could be established for the five commercial cooking

subcategories. Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally distributed throughout the

year, so seasonal daily emiss ions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366.

3 .2.6 Construction

Inclement weather can possibly affect construction activities in the winter . The seasonal

profile for construction activities was developed using precipitation adjustment factors based on

the number of days with at least 0.01 inches of rain. For any day with precipitation, it was

assumed that either construction activity did not occur or that the construction activities did

occur did not have emissions due to wet soil.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 72 3 .2.7 Arch itectural Surface Coatings

Idaho

- specific temporal usage patterns were not identified for architectural surface

coatings. Therefore, the U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions

modeling clearinghouse were used for architectural surface coating (U.S. EPA, 2002b). This

temporal allocation profile is shown in Table 3

- 37

.

Table 3

- 37 . Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Architectural Surface Coating

Category Profile

ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ozone

Fac tor PM

Factor

Architectural

Surface Coating 199 82 82 81 81 81 85 85 85 85 85 85 82 0.5876 0.3313



### 3 .2.8 Traffic Markings

Local staff at the Idaho Transportation Department and the Canyon Highway District

were contacted regarding the seasonality of traff ic marking application (Morrison, 2010 b ;

Newlun, 2010; Richard, 2010 c ). These staff indicated that generally traffic marking application

corresponds with the ozone season months and is not conducted during the winter (i.e., PM

season). Therefore, daily o zone season traffic marking emissions were calculated by dividing

annual emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days).

3 .2.9 Industrial Surface Coating

Idaho

- specific temporal usage patterns were not identified for industrial surfac e coating.

Therefore, the U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions modeling

clearinghouse were used for the 13 industrial surface subcategories (U.S. EPA, 2002b). The

assignment of the se temporal allocation profiles is shown in Table 3

- 38 . The monthly values

shown in Table 3

- 38 represent the monthly fractional value out of an annual total of 1,000. The

ozone season and PM season factors are calculated by summing up the monthly fractional values

for the respective seasons and th en dividing by 1,000.

Table 3

- 38 . Temporal Allocation Profile Assignments for Industrial Surface Coating Subcategories

Subcategory Profile

ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ozone

Factor PM

Factor Factory

Finished Wood 173 81 81 82 82 82 86 86 86 85 85 85 81 0.5908 0.3273

Wood Furniture 287 84 84 79 79 79 84 84 84 86 86 86 84 0.5826 0.3383

Metal Furniture 287 84 84 79 79 79 84 84 84 86 86 86 84 0.5826 0.3383
Paper 257 83 83 82 82 82 84 84 84 84 84 84 83 0.5846 0.33332008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 73 Subcategory Profile

ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ozone

Factor PM

Factor

Plastic Products 2 00 82 82 81 81 81 86 86 86 85 85 85 82 0.5888 0.3303

Miscellaneous

Finished Metals 253 83 83 81 81 81 84 84 84 85 85 85 83 0.5846 0.3343 Machinery and Equipment 253 83 83 81 81 81 84 84 84 85 85 85 83 0.5846 0.3343

Electronic and

Other Electrical 253 83 83 81 81 81 84 84 84 85 85 85 83 0.5846 0.3343

Motor Vehicles 140 80 80 79 79 79 87 87 87 87 87 87 80 0.5936 0.3273

Aircraft 169 81 81 80 80 80 87 87 87 86 86 86 81 0.5918 0.3283

Marine 266 83 83 83 83 83 84 84 84 83 83 83 83 0.5846 0.3323

Railroad 16 9 81 81 80 80 80 87 87 87 86 86 86 81 0.5918 0.3283

Miscellaneous Manufacturing 260 83 83 82 82 82 85 85 85 85 85 85 83 0.5861 0.3323



### 3 .2.10 Degreasing

Idaho

- specific temporal usage patterns were not identified for degreasing. Therefore, the

U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions modeling clearinghouse were

used for degreasing (U.S. EPA, 2002b). Unlike industrial surface coating , the same temporal

allocation profile was assigned to all of the degreasing subcategories. This temporal allocation

profile is shown in Table 3

- 39

.

Table 3

- 39 . Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Degreasing

Category Profile

ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ozone

Factor PM

Factor Degreasing 253 83 83 81 81 81 84 84 84 85 85 85 83 0.5846 0.3343



### 3 .2.11 Other Per Employee Emission Factor Source Categories

No Idaho

- specific seasonality could be established for two of the per employee emission

factor source categories (i.e., autobody refinishing and industrial refrigeration/col d storage).

Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally distributed throughout the year, so

seasonal daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366.

For graphic arts, the U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions

model ing clearinghouse were used (U.S. EPA, 2002b). This temporal allocation profile is shown

in Table 3

- 4 0

.

Table 3

- 4 0 . Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Graphic Arts

Category Profile

ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ozone

Factor PM

Factor Graphic

Arts 257 83 83 82 82 82 84 84 84 84 84 84 83 0.5846 0.33332008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 74 3 .2.12 Bakeries and Consumer Solvents

No Idaho

- specific seasonality could be established for the per capita emission factor

source categories (i.e., consume r bakeries and solvents ). Therefore, it was assumed that

emissions were equally distributed throughout the year, so seasonal daily emissions were

calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366.

3 .2.13 Dry Cleaning

Although the dry cleaning survey included a question regarding month

- to

- month

variations, al most all of the dry cleaning facilities that returned the survey did not respond to this

question. Therefore, the U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions

modeling clearinghouse were used for dry cleaning (U.S. EPA, 2002b). This temporal allocation

profile is shown in Table 3

- 4 1

.

Table 3

- 4 1 . Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Dry Cleaning

Category Profile

ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ozone

Factor PM

Factor Dry Cleaning 199 82 82 81 81 81 85 85 85 85 85 85 82 0.5876 0.3313



### 3.2 .14 Asphalt Application

Local staff at the Idaho Transportation Department and the Canyon Highway District

were contacted regarding the seasonality of asphalt application (Mor rison, 2010 b ; Newlun, 2010;

Richard, 2010b). These staff indicated that generally asphalt application corresponds with the

ozone season months and is not conducted during the winter (i.e., PM season). Therefore, daily

ozone season asphalt emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by the number of

days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days).

3 .2.15 Pesticide Application

As discussed below in Section 3 .2. 20 , it was assumed that all tilling and harvesting

activities occur during the ozone season. Based upon this assumption, it is also reasonable to

assume that most pesticide application also occurs during the ozone season (i.e., between tilling

and harvesting). The crop profiles examined during the development of the annual pesticide

application emissions indicate only minimal amounts of pre

- planting or off

- season pesticide use.

Daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by the number of days in the

ozone season (i.e., 214 days).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 75 3 .2.16 Gasoline Distribution

The gasoline distr ibution statistics were originally provided on a monthly basis. These

monthly gasoline quantities were then used to develop seasonal gasoline quantities which were

then divided by the number of days in the season resulting in seasonal daily gasoline use.

3 .2.17 Wastewater Treatment

As part of the fuel survey mailed out to wastewater treatment facilities, monthly

treatment quantities were requested. In general, the treatment facilities were able to furnish

relevant monthly statistics. In a few cases, res pondents were contacted by phone to clarify the

appropriate seasonal distribution. These monthly treatment quantities were used to develop

seasonal treatment quantities which were then divided by the number of days in the season

resulting in seasonal dail y treatment quantities.

3 .2.18 Landfills

Although emissions from landfills are affected by the landfill gas temperature, it was not

clear what the relationship between landfill gas temperature and ambient temperature was.

Therefore, it was assumed that e missions were equally distributed throughout the year, so

seasonal daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366.

3 .2. 19 Open Burning (Yard Waste and Household Waste)

No definite seasonality could be established for the open burning of yard waste and

household waste. Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally distributed throughout

the year, so seasonal daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366. It is

possible that a n announced burn ban might pre vent open burning on a particular day with poor

air quality, but the open burning would likely only be postponed to the next allowable burn day

and would not significantly affect the overall temporal profile. It is also possible that an

announced burn ban might also be ignored.

3 .2. 20 Agricultural Tilling and Harvesting

Based upon the Idaho Crop Progress and Condition Reports issued by the National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS, 2009b), the weekly crop progress (from April 6 to

October 28) was ide ntified. These weekly progress reports indicate regional climate, crop

growth progress, and percent planted and harvested for the primary Idaho crops in four different2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 76 regions. Nearly all of the Idaho crops within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties are pla nted and

harvested during the crop progress reporting period. Since the crop progress reporting period

very closely corresponds to the ozone season, it was assumed that all tilling and harvesting

activities occur during the ozone season. Daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual

emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days).

3 .2. 21 Agricultural Burning

– Fields

As indicated in Section 3

. 1 .2 1 , agricultural field burning was only allowed between

September 1 and October 31, 20 08. Daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual

emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days).

3 .2. 22 Agricultural Burning

– Irrigation Ditches

As indicated in Section 3

. 1 .2 2 , irrigation ditch burning is typically conducted d uring the

month of March. Since March is not included in either the ozone season or PM season, no daily

seasonal emissions were calculated.

3

. 2

. 23 Beef Cattle Feedlots

No definite seasonality could be established for beef cattle feedlots. Therefore, it was

assumed that emissions were equally distributed throughout the year, so seasonal daily emissions

were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366.

3

. 2

. 24 Other Fires

The Idaho Fire Incident Reporting System (IFIRS) did not provide any seasonal

dist ribution of structure fires or vehicles. Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally

distributed throughout the year, so seasonal daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual

emissions by 366.

3

. 2

. 25 Windblown Dust

As discussed in Section 3

. 1 .2 5 , annual emissions were calculated by summing hourly

emission estimates across all days in calendar year 2008. Ozone season day emissions were

calculated by summing all hourly estimates across all days in the season (April through October)

and divi ding by the total number of days in the ozone season. Similarly, PM season emission2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 77 estimates were obtained by summing across all hours from November through February and

dividing by the total number of days in the PM season.

3

. 2

. 26 Ammonia Emissions

As discussed in Section 3

. 1 .2 6 , the GIS NH 3 

### model was run for each day in the 2008

calendar year on the 4

- km modeling domain. Annual emissions were calculated by summing

hourly emission estimates across all days in calendar year 2008. Ozone season day emiss ions

were calculated by summing all hourly estimates across all days in the season (April through

October) and dividing by the total number of days in the ozone season. Similarly, PM season

emission estimates were obtained by summing across all hours from November through February

and dividing by the total number of days in the PM season.

3.3 Emission Results

The 2008 annual area source emissions are presented in Table 3

- 4 2 (all counties), 3

- 4 3

(Ada County), 3

- 4 4 (Canyon County), and 3

- 4 5 (Elmore County). The se emissions have been

presented for aggregated source categories. Detailed 2008 annual area source emission

inventories are presented in Appendix G

. The paved road dust PM 10 

### and PM

2.5 

### emissions were

updated by DEQ in 2012, as described in Appendix E of the Northern Ada County PM 10 

### Limited

Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 78 Table 3

- 4 2 . Summarized 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions

– All Counties

Aggregated Source Category NO

x

(tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy)

Industrial Combustion 269 2 13 194 19 17 9

Commercial/Institutional

Combustion 311 11 15 226 22 22 4

Residential Combustion (excluding wood) 689 5 39 280 53 52 129

Residential Wood

Combustion 269 33 2,760 14,774 2,712 2,712 0

Commercial Cooking 0 0 191 600 1,201 1,133 0

Other Industrial

Activities a 0 0 104 0 161 16 51

Industrial Surface Coating 0 0 3,235 0 0 0 0

Other Surface Coating b 0 0 1,245 0 0 0 0

Degreasing 0 0 7,383 0 0 0 0

Consumer Solvents 0 0 2,142 0 0 0 0

Other Solvent Application c 0 0 1,541 0 0 0 0

Gasoline Transport and

Distribution 0 0 1,397 0 0 0 0

Open Burning 9 2 70 262 87 82 0

Other Fires 1 0 5 23 7 7 0

Waste Disposal d 0 0 88 0 0 0 1

Agricultural Burning 0 0 20 174 31 31 0

Other Agricultural e 0 0 1,953 0 1,408 387 0

Paved R oad Dust f 0 0 0 0 12,908 949 0

Unpaved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 3,779 327 0

Windblown Dust 0 0 0 0 27,214 2,722 0

Ammonia

- Fertilizer 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,469

Ammonia

- Livestock 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,748

Ammonia

- Domestic

Ammonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 447

Ammonia

- Wild

Animals 0 0 0 0 0 0 182

Ammonia

- Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,494

Total f 1,547 52 22,201 16,533 49,602 8,457 16,534

a I ncludes bakeries, construction, and industrial refrigeration.

b Includes architectural surface coating, autobody refinishing, and traffic markings.

c Inc ludes dry cleaning, graphic arts, asphalt application, and pesticides application.

d Includes landfills and wastewater treatment.

e Includes agricultural tilling, agricultural harvesting, and beef cattle feedlots.

f Paved road dust emissions for Ada and Canyo n counties (PM 10 and PM

2.5 ) were revised in 2012.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 79 Table 3

- 4 3 . Summarized 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions

– Ada County

Aggregated Source Category NO

x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO

(tpy) PM 10

(tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy)

Industrial Combustion 110 1 5 80 8 7 4

Commercial/Institutional

Combustion 225 8 11 168 16 16 2

Residential Combustion (excluding wood) 463 3 27 194 37 37 94

Residential Wood Combustion 122 15 1,239 6,713 1,208 1,208 0 Commercial Cooking 0 0 145 455 912 860 0

Other Industrial Activit ies a 0 0 67 0 94 9 10 Industrial Surface Coating 0 0 2,229 0 0 0 0 Other Surface Coating b 0 0 889 0 0 0 0 Degreasing 0 0 4,749 0 0 0 0

Consumer Solvents 0 0 1,374 0 0 0 0 Other Solvent Application c 0 0 837 0 0 0 0 Gasoline Transport and Distribution 0 0 887 0 0 0 0 Open Burning 0 0 9 47 10 10 0

Other Fires 0 0 3 13 4 4 0 Waste Disposal d 0 0 63 0 0 0 1 Agricultural Burning 0 0 5 44 8 8 0 Other Agricultural e 0 0 425 0 185 49 0

Paved Road Dust f 0 0 0 0 7

, 501 428 0 Unpaved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 966 55 0

Windblown Dust 0 0 0 0 8,606 861 0

Ammonia

- Fertilizer 0 0 0 0 0 0 571

Ammonia

- Livestock 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,706

Ammonia

- Domestic Ammonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 278

Ammonia

- Wild Animals 0 0 0 0 0 0 38

Ammonia

- Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,292

Total f 921 27 12,963 7 ,715 19,555 3,552 3,995

a Includes bakeries, construction, and industrial refrigeration.

b Includes architectural surface coating, autobody refinishing, and traffic markings.

c Includes dry cleaning, graphic arts, asphalt application, and pesticides appl ication.

d Includes landfills and wastewater treatment.

e Includes agricultural tilling, agricultural harvesting, and beef cattle feedlots.

f Paved road dust emissions for Ada and Canyon counties (PM 10 and PM

2.5 ) were revised in 2012.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 80 Table 3

- 4 4 . Summariz ed 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions

– Canyon County

Aggregated Source Category NO

x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO

(tpy) PM 10

(tpy) PM 2.5

(tpy) NH 3

(tpy)

Industrial Combustion 156 1 7 112 11 10 5

Commercial/Institutional

Combustion 71 2 3 51 5 5 1

Reside ntial Combustion (excluding wood) 195 2 10 74 14 13 31

Residential Wood Combustion 123 14 1,269 6,670 1,251 1,251 0 Commercial Cooking 0 0 39 123 246 232 0

Other Industrial Activities a 0 0 32 0 59 6 39 Industrial Surface Coating 0 0 905 0 0 0 0

Other Surface Coating b 0 0 327 0 0 0 0 Degreasing 0 0 2,403 0 0 0 0

Consumer Solvents 0 0 663 0 0 0 0 Other Solvent Application c 0 0 539 0 0 0 0 Gasoline Transport and Distribution 0 0 428 0 0 0 0 Open Burning 1 0 16 73 19 19 0

Other Fires 0 0 2 8 3 3 0

W aste Disposal d 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 Agricultural Burning 0 0 13 111 20 20 0 Other Agricultural e 0 0 829 0 720 206 0

Paved Road Dust f 0 0 0 0 4

, 154 237 0 Unpaved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 165 9 0

Windblown Dust 0 0 0 0 888 89 0

Ammonia

- Fertilizer 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,87 9

Ammonia

- Livestock 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,424

Ammonia

- Domestic Ammonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 147

Ammonia

- Wild Animals 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Ammonia

- Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,197

Total f 546 19 7,508 7,222 7,555 2,100 7,727

a Includes bakeries, construction, and industrial ref rigeration.

b Includes architectural surface coating, autobody refinishing, and traffic markings.

c Includes dry cleaning, graphic arts, asphalt application, and pesticides application.

d Includes landfills and wastewater treatment.

e Includes agricultural til ling, agricultural harvesting, and beef cattle feedlots.

f Paved road dust emissions for Ada and Canyon (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) were revised in 2012.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 81 Table 3

- 4 5 . Summarized 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions

– Elmore County

Aggregated Source Category NO

x (tpy) S O 2

(tpy) VOC

(tpy) CO

(tpy) PM 10

(tpy) PM 2.5

(tpy) NH 3

(tpy)

Industrial Combustion 3 0 0 2 0 0 0

Commercial/Institutional

Combustion 14 1 0 7 1 1 0

Residential Combustion (excluding wood) 30 0 2 12 2 2 4

Residential Wood

Combustion 25 3 252 1,391 254 254 0 Commercial Cooking 0 0 7 22 44 41 0

Other Industrial

Activities a 0 0 5 0 8 1 3

Industrial Surface Coating 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 Other Surface Coating b 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 Degreasing 0 0 231 0 0 0 0

Consumer Solvents 0 0 105 0 0 0 0

Other Solvent Applicat ion c 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 Gasoline Transport and

Distribution 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 Open Burning 8 1 46 142 57 53 0

Other Fires 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Waste Disposal d 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Agricultural Burning 0 0 2 19 3 3 0 Other Agricultural e 0 0 698 0 502 133 0

Paved Road Du st 0 0 0 0 1,253 284 0 Unpaved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 2,648 262 0

Windblown Dust 0 0 0 0 17,720 1,772 0

Ammonia

- Fertilizer 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,019

Ammonia

- Livestock 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,618

Ammonia

- Domestic

Ammonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 22

Ammonia

– Wild

Animals 0 0 0 0 0 0 140

Ammonia

- Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,006

Total 80 6 1,730 1,596 22,492 2,806 4,812

a Includes bakeries, construction, and industrial refrigeration.

b Includes architectural surface coating, autobody refinishing, and traffic markings.

c Includes dry cleanin g, graphic arts, asphalt application, and pesticides application.

d Includes landfills and wastewater treatment.

e Includes agricultural tilling, agricultural harvesting, and beef cattle feedlots.



### 3.4 QA/QC Procedures

For the area source inventory development, the procedures described in the project

IPP/QAP (ERG and ENVIRON, 2009) were used to check, and correct when necessary, the area

source emission estimates. Area source emissions were estimated using calculational

spreadsheets. Separate spreadsheets were developed for each area source category; these2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 3

- 82 category

- specific spreadsheets were then linked to a summary spreadsheet. The calculation

spreadsheets were well

- documented and clearly identify the source of various activity data. All

emission calculation s were internally checked by senior ERG staff and reviewed by the project

QA/QC manager. Special attention was paid to the source categories for which a survey was

conducted (i.e., fuel dealers and distributors, dry cleaners, wastewater treatment, and lan dfills).

After obtaining the returned survey forms in scanned PDF format, ERG manually transcribed the

data into an Access database using a front

- end form. All input data were checked against the

returned survey forms by senior ERG staff for accuracy.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 4

- 1 4.0 2008 ON

- ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE S OURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORIE S

On

- road mobile source e mission estimates prepared by Enviro n and DEQ in 20 10 for

this e mission i nventory were originally develop ed using U.S. EPA’s MOBILE6 .2 vehicle

emissions model. U.S. EPA rec ently (December 20 10 ) released a n entirely new vehicle

emissions model, the M

o tor Vehicle Emission Simulator 2010 , Version a or MOVES2010 a (U.S.

EPA , 2010c )

. Refer r ed to generically as “ MOVES

, ” this model is now the official U.S. EPA

vehicle emissions mod el required to be used in all SIP modeling and conformity determinations

.

MOVES will completely replace its predecessor model

, MOBILE6 .2

, after March 2013, which is

the end of the grace period for SIPs that were already in progress at the time of the new m odel’s

release. B ecause the conformity requirement s will be based on the MOVES model by March

2013 , it became necessary for the purposes of the Northern Ada County PM 10 

### Limited

Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update to establish new motor vehicle emission budget s (MVEB)

based on the same model. As a result, DEQ proceeded with MOVES modeling to update the on

road mobile portion of this e missions i nventory. DEQ us ed appro ximately the same

methodologies originally used by Environ for processing Travel Demand Model o utputs from

COMPASS and detailed traffic count data and motor vehicle registration data from the Idaho

Transportation Department in the prepar ation of local input s for the MOVES2010a model. The

source s of information and methods for processing the data int o the MOVES input database are

described in Appendix E of the Northern Ada County PM 10 

### Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year

Update

, entitled “

Development of the Base

- and Future

- Year Mobile Source Emission

Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho. ” Results from the updated MOVES modeling

conducted by DEQ for Ada and Canyon counties are summarized in Table 4

- 1 . A ll subsequent

tables in this report summarizing on

- road and area source emissions are updated to reflect the

revised MOVES modeling and road dust em issions computations prepared by DEQ after

ERG/Environ compl et ed th e emission s inventories in 2010. In all updated tables, DEQ

- revised

values based on the updated MOVES and paved road dust computations are shown in italic

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 4

- 2 Table 4

- 1. 2008 On

- road Emiss ions Summary (Tons /Year and Tons/Day ) a



### Averaging Period County NO X 

### SO 2 

### VOC CO PM 10 

### PM 2

. 5 

### NH 3



### Annual Ada 9

, 775.4 67.4 4

, 182.3 47

, 168.3 412.7 330.4 152.9 Canyon 5

, 847.8 35 3

, 202.1 36

, 404.4 258.2 212.1 81.8

Elmore 576.6 3.1 529.8 5,460.8 14.7 9.3 3 0.7

Average Ozone Season Day Ada 28.5 0.2 10.9 110.9 1.09 0.86 0.45

Canyon 16.7 0.1 8.4 87.9 0.65 0.52 0.24

Elmore 1.5 0.0 1.5 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Average PM Season Day Ada 24 0.16 12.3 156.4 1.19 0.98 0.38

Canyon 14.8 0.09 9.28 117.1 0.8 0.67 0.2

E lmore 1.6 0.0 1.1 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

a On

- road emission estimates were revised in 2012 for the Northern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance

Plan Ten

- Year Update using the MOVES2010a model . Ada and Canyon counties on

- road emissions values are from Appendix E of the Ten

- Year Update

, entitled “ Development of the Base

- and Future

- Year Mobile Source Emission Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho ." Elmore County emissions based on the MOBILE6.2

model were not revised. Table values revised in 2012 are shown in italic.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 3 5.0 2008 NONROAD MOBILE SOURC E EMISSIONS INVENTORY

Nonroad mobile sources encompass a wide variety of equipment types that either move

under their own power or are capable of being moved from site to site. Nonroad mobile

equipment sources, not licens ed or certified as highway vehicles, are defined as those that move

or are moved within a 12 month period and are covered under the U.S. EPA's emissions

regulations as nonroad mobile sources. There are three types of nonroad mobile sources:

nonroad equip ment, locomotives, and aircraft

5.1 Emission C alculation M ethodologies

– A nnual

The methodologies used to calculate annual nonroad mobile source emissions for the

2008 base year are presented in this section. Methods pertaining to nonroad equipment, aircr aft,

and locomotives are discussed

.

5 .1.1 Nonroad Equipment

The largest group of nonroad mobile sources are nonroad equipment that are estimated

with the NONROAD 2008 model ( U.S. EPA, 2009b ). The NONROAD model estimates

emissions from nonroad equipment i n the categories shown below; Treasure Valley emissions

from all listed categories but airport ground support equipment were estimated using the

NONROAD model.

 Agricultural equipment (e.g., tractors, combines, balers, etc.)

 Airport ground support (e.g., te rminal tractors , etc.)

 Construction equipment (e.g., g raders , back hoes , etc.)

 Industrial and commercial equipment (e.g., fork lifts , sweepers, etc.)

 Recreational vehicles (e.g., all

- terrain vehicles

, off

- road motorcycles , etc.)

 Residential and commercial la wn and garden equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, leaf blowers, snow blowers, etc.)

 Logging equipment (e.g., s hredders

, large chain saws , etc.)

 Recreational equipment (e.g., off

- road motorbikes

, snowmobiles , etc.)

 Recreational marine vessels (e.g., power boats , e tc.)

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 4 Data Collection

Key inputs for determining nonroad equipment emissions using the NONROAD model

are equipment population and activity data, and allocation factors. Nonroad equipment

population by county is estimated in the model by geographically al locating national engine

population through the use of econometric indicators, such as construction valuation. U.S. EPA

encourages state and local agencies to develop local data from surveys, but such work is

expensive and difficult to carry out, and only a few agencies in the country have done so.

However, some local information for Idaho populations was available and these data were used

to update the NONROAD model data as described below.

Pleasure Craft and Recreational Equipment Population

Pleasure craft and recreational equipment p opulation data were collected from the Idaho

Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR, 2009 a; IDPR, 2009b ). The state registration data

were assumed to be equal to the state total pleasure craft and recreational equipment population.

Although county

- level registration data were available, county

- level data were not used for

county allocation purposes. Registration is not considered to be a suitable surrogate for pleasure

craft or recreational equipment activity because th ese types of equipment are often used in

counties other than where they are registered. The current U.S. EPA NONROAD allocation

method uses water surface area for pleasure craft and the number of RV parks and recreational

camps (NAICS code 72121X) from Co unty Business Patterns because they are considered to be

better indications of actual usage in each area.

Table 5

- 1 shows a comparison of NONROAD model default and Parks and Recreation

derived by

- county population estimates for 2008.

Table 5

- 1 . 2008 Ple asure Craft and Recreational Equipment Populations

NONROAD Default Revised Equipment Type Ada Canyon Elmore Ada Canyon Elmore

Pleasure Craft

Inboards 94 242 396 100 256 420

Outboards 379 976 1599 412 1060 1737

Personal w atercraft 51 132 216 56 143 23 5 Recreational Equipment

All t errain v ehicles 12539 1567 3135 10113 1264 2528 Motorcycles: o ff

- r oad 3033 379 758 3093 387 7732008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 5 One potential source of double

- counting could not be eliminated in the recreational

marine data. The Idaho Department of Park s and Recreation does not make a distinction in its

boat registrations for boats that are completely non

- motorized (i.e., sailboats with no on

- board

engines). Although these boats do not contribute to emissions, there was no way to determine

the fraction of the registered boats that fit this category. It was assumed that these non

motorized sailboats comprise a negligible portion of the recreational marine population.

Agricultural Equipment Population

Agricultural equipment population estimates obtained from the 2007 Census of

Agriculture (USDA, 2009) were used to modify the NONROAD default population files. Table

5

- 2 shows the NONROAD model default and revised agricultural equipment populations. Given

the large differences in agricultural tractor popul ation estimates between the NONROAD model

and the Census of Agriculture , it is important to note that the Census of Agriculture statistics may

not be fully compatible with the NONROAD model activity estimates (hours per year).

NONROAD equipment population estimates may consider only those pieces of equipment that

are active, while the Census of Agriculture counts all equipment types including those pieces of

equipment that are rarely used. In the NONROAD model, agricultural equipment population

estimates are derived by allocating the nationwide population to the state level according to the

fraction of harvested cropland within each state; statewide population is then allocated to the

county level using the same metric. The advantage of using the Census o f Agriculture is that it

contains actual population estimates for specific types of agricultural equipment in each county,

as opposed to the NONROAD model, which relies on the scaling of nationwide data to the

county level.

Table 5

- 2 . NONROAD Model Defaul t and Revised Agricultural Equipment Populations

Equipment Type NONROAD Default Revised

Ada Canyon Elmore Ada Canyon Elmore Agricultural Equipment

2

- Wheel t ractors 1 4 2 14 23 4 Agricultural t ractors 320 971 482 1921 4335 878

Combines 65 196 97 59 20 1 342008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 6 Agricultural Equipment Temporal Profile

Areas of harvested crop acreage and crop budgets were obtained from the National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (NASS, 2009a; NASS, 2009b). This information was

used to develop the monthly agricultu ral equipment usage profile shown in Figure 5

- 1 . Similar

to the default profile, the local profile shows high activity for agricultural equipment in the

summer, and it also incorporates higher activity in spring and fall months due to planting and

harvest ing operations which occur during these seasons.

Figure 5

- 1 . Local O ff

- R oad A gricultural E quipment M onthly T emporal P rofile

Construction Equip ment Temporal Profile

Telephone interviews were conducted with municipal government staff located within the

inventory domain with knowledge of various types of construction (McCain, 2010; Winterfeld,

2010; Walter, 2010; Chase, 2010; Girard, 2010). Based on employee input, local construction

equipment monthly temporal profiles were estimated as shown in Figure 5

- 2 . Similar to the

default profile, the local profile shows high activity for construction equipment in the summer,

and it incorporates higher activity in the late spring months relative to the default profile.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 7 Figure 5

- 2 . Local C onstruction E quipmen t M onthly T emporal P rofile

Lawn and G arden Equipment T emporal Profiles

Lawn and garden equipment temporal profiles were developed using a methodology

similar to what was applied to develop lawn and garden equipment temporal profiles for the

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (ECR, 2005). Lawn and garden equipment was

divided into four usage associations: lawn

- related, soil

- related, leaf

- related, and wood

- related,

the details of these usage associations are shown in Table 5

- 3

.

Staff from the City of Boise Park and Recreational Service Department (Woodward,

2010; Teddicken, 2010), Ada County Highway District (Mills, 2010) and the City of Nampa

Parks (Moran 2010) were contacted regarding monthly temporal profiles for the usage of each of

these types of equipment. Based upon these local data, local lawn and garden equipment

seasonal usage profiles were estimated as shown in Figures 5

- 3 and 5

- 4 . The NONROAD

default temporal profile is a single profile applied to all types of lawn and garden equipment and

shows the highest activity in the summer and relatively lower activity in the spring and fall and

very little activity in the winter. Local data indicated that lawn

- related equipment usage was

highest in the summer, as expected, with activity in the spri ng slightly higher than activity in the

autumn and very low activity in the winter. For soil

- related equipment, the highest activity was2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 8 associated with the spring and fall due to activities such as planting and plant removal which

occur during these seas ons. Wood

- related equipment activity was estimated to be the highest in

the spring due to wood cutting activity that occurs during this season.

Table 5

- 3 . Lawn and Garden Equipment Temporal Profile Groupings

Equipment Type Usage Association

Front m owers

Lawn Lawn & g arden t

ractors

Lawn mowers

Other l awn & g arden e quipment

Rear e ngine r iding m owers
Trimmers/ e dgers/ b rush c utters

Leafblowers/ v acuums Leaf

Commercial t urf e quipment Soil Rotary t illers < 6 HP

Chain s aws < 6 HP

Wood Chippers/ s tump g rinders

Shredders < 6 HP

Wood s plitters



### Figure 5

- 3 . Local L awn

- , S oil

- , and L eaf

- R elated L awn and G arden E quipment

M onthly T emporal P rofiles2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 9 Figure 5

- 4 . Local W ood

- R elated L awn and G arden E quipment M onthly T emporal

P rofile

Emission C alculation Methodology

In order to incorporate seasonal changes in climate and fuels, annual emissions were

estimated by running the NONROAD model for each of the four seasons, then summing the

seasonal emissions to generate annual emissions. Seasonal av erage maximum, minimum, and

mean temperatures were based on period of record monthly averages from the Western Regional

Climate Center for the following stations: Boise WSFO Airport (Ada County), Nampa Sugar

Factory (Canyon County), and Mountain Home (Elm ore County) (WRCC, 2009). Gasoline Reid

vapor pressure (RVP) consistent with on

- road MOBILE6 inputs by county and season are shown

in Table 5

- 4 . Gasoline was assumed to have a fuel sulfur content of 30 parts per million,

consistent with on

- road gasoline, while diesel fuel was assumed to have a fuel sulfur content of

500 parts per million per the federal Tier 4 nonroad diesel rule.

Table 5

- 4 . 2008 G asoline RVP (psi) by S eason

Season Ada County Canyon County Elmore County

Winter 15 15 15 Spring 15 15 13 .5

Summer 8.6 8.6 9

Autumn 8.6 8.6 11.52008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 10 Annual b ase year 2008 nonroad equipment emissions are shown in Table 5

- 5 and Table

5

- 6 by county and equipment type, respectively. A majority of the nonroad equipment emissions

for all pollutants we re emitted in Ada County. Like most nonroad emission inventories, the

primary source of VOC and CO emissions wa s lawn and garden equipment which is primarily

made up of gasoline fueled equipment. The highest contributors to NO

x 

### , PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , SO 2 

### , and

NH 3 

### emissions we r e agricultural and construction equipment, which are primarily diesel

- fueled

equipment.

Table 5

- 5 . 2008 Annual Nonroad Equipment Emissions by County

County VOC CO NO

x 

### PM 10 

### PM 2.5 

### SO 2 

### NH 3 

### Annual Total (tons/year)

Ada 1,946 23,923 2,402 236 226 66 2.5

Can yon 656 7,345 1,515 147 142 44 1.4

Elmore 316 1,566 328 35 34 9 0.3

Total 2,918 32,835 4,245 418 402 119 4.2



### Table 5

- 6 . 2008 Annual Nonroad Equipment Emissions by E quipment T ype (Ada,

Canyon, and Elmore C ounties C ombined)

Category VOC CO NO

x PM 10 PM 2. 5 SO 2 NH 3 Annual Total (tons/year)

Agricultural Equipment 146 1,040 1,254 130 126 38 1.0

Commercial Equipment 343 6,766 240 21 20 5 0.4 Construction and Mining Equipment 284 2,326 1,919 171 166 64 1.8

Industrial Equipment 141 2,336 552 21 20 8 0.2

La wn and Garden Equipment 1,162 17,215 214 52 48 3 0.7

Logging Equipment 4 38 7 1 1 0 0.0

Pleasure Craft 261 829 35 5 4 0 0.1

Railroad Equipment 1 12 5 1 1 0 0.0

Recreational Equipment 576 2,273 19 17 16 0 0.1

Underground Mining Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0

Total 2,918 32,835 4,245 418 402 119 4.2



### 5. 1.2 Aircraft

Base year 2008 emissions from aircraft and associate d equipment (i.e., auxiliary power

units [APU] and airport ground support equipment [GSE], for 2008 were obtained from work

performed to develo p U.S. EPA’s 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI2008). Activity data

for aircraft emissions are landing

- takeoff cycles (LTOs), and emission factors are primarily from

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System

(E DMS).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 11 The FAA EDMS model combines specified aircraft and activity levels with default

emissions factors in order to estimate annual inventories for a specific airport. Aircraft activity

levels in EDMS are expressed in terms of LTOs, which consist of the f our aircraft operating

modes: taxi and queue, take

- off, climb

- out, and landing. Default values for the amount of time a

specific aircraft spends in each mode, or the time

- in

- modes (TIMs), are coded into EDMS.

Aircraft emissions were estimated for four ai rcraft categories:

 Air carriers (i.e., larger turbine

- powered commercial aircraft with at least 60 seats or 18,000 lbs payload capacity);

 Air taxis (i.e., commercial turbine or piston

- powered aircraft with less than 60 seats or 18,000 lbs payload capacity) ;

 General aviation aircraft (i.e., small piston

- powered, non

- commercial aircraft); and

 Military aircraft.

Airport GSE includes equipment such as fuel trucks, cabin service truck, baggage belt

loaders, and pushback tugs and tractors. Auxiliary power u nits are used to power ventilation,

cooling, and heating systems when an aircraft’s engine is off and to provide power to start the

main aircraft engines.

Necessary LTO activity and emissions data in database format , as well as aircraft

emissions documenta tion (ERG, 2010) were obtained from U.S. EPA’s NEI2008 website (U.S.

EPA, 2010b).

The Boise airport was the only airport in the study region for which EDMS was run with

airport specific activity data. For all other airports, LTO data were applied to ave rage LTO time

in

- mode and emission factors. Additional calculations were performed to estimate ammonia

emissions, which were not included in the NEI2008 data. For ammonia, air carriers and military

aircraft were assumed to be dominated by turbine

- powered aircraft running lean, thus producing

a negligible amount of ammonia. For general aviation and air taxi piston engine aircraft LTOs,

ammonia emissions were estimated using a fleet

- average fuel consumption rate from the EDMS

data for piston engines, opera tional mode

- specific fuel flow rates weighted by the typical time

spent in each mode, average hours of operation estimated from FAA data, and a grams per gallon

emission factor for non

- catalyst light

- duty gasoline engines.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 12 Airport GSE and APU emissions wer e estimated for the NEI2008 by using EDMS

activity defaults associated with commercial aircraft LTOs and time

- in

- mode. Airport GSE

emission factors in EDMS are derived from EPA’s NONROAD2005 model. The main change

to NONROAD2008 emission rates was incorp orating recreational marine diesel and spark

ignition engine standards; airport ground equipment emission rates did not undergo major

changes. The NONROAD model estimates county level 2008 airport GSE populations by

growing historic national population to 2008, and allocating national population according to

2002 National Emission Inventory (NEI2002) NO

x 

### emissions. The NEI2008 airport GSE

emission estimates were used because these emissions we re based on actual 2008 commercial

aircraft data rather than es timates based on growth projections and allocations used in the

NONROAD model.

A ircraft associated emissions (including aircraft, APUs, and airport GSE) are presented

by airport in Table 5

- 7 and graphically by emission source in Figure 5

- 5 . Consistent wit h LTO

activity distribution, Treasure Valley 2008 aircraft associated emissions were dominated by a

few major airports: Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field, Caldwell Industrial, and Nampa Muni.

Together, these airports accounted for 80 percent or more of the a ircraft emissions for all

pollutants, except for NH 3 

### . NO

x 

### and SO 2 

### emissions are dominated by commercial aircraft, while

VOC, CO, PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , and NH 3 

### emissions are primarily from general aviation aircraft.

5.1.3 Locomotives

Locomotive emissions are a sign ificant source of NO

x 

### and PM emissions. The

overwhelming majority of locomotive activity in the United States is from a handful of Class 1

freight railways, and only one of these, Union Pacific, operates in the Treasure Valley study region.

Railroads oper ate two types of locomotives

– line

- haul or switching. Line

- haul

locomotives pull trains over the main line rail system primarily between yards, but may also

serve individual customers. Switching locomotives assemble and disassemble trains, and serve

ind ividual customers usually with small trains or individual cars. The line

- haul locomotives are

usually not based at any individual rail yard, and so can operate over a wide region, even across

the entire country. Switching locomotives are based at individ ual rail yards for a longer period

(i.e., 6 months or longer) and therefore operate close to that rail yard.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 13 Table 5

- 7 . 2008 Aircraft Associated Emissions by Airport (T ons/ Y ear )

Facility Name VOC NO

x CO PM 10 PM 2.5 SO 2 NH 3 Ada County

Boise Air Terminal/ Gowen Field 64.573 208.339 856.022 12.532 9.991 21.498 0.0111

Boise Plaza 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000

Green Acres 1.486 0.086 15.810 0.311 0.215 0.013 0.0006

Larkin 1.142 0.066 12.151 0.239 0.165 0.010 0.0005

Nampa Valley 0.080 0.005 0.8 47 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000

Peaceful Cove 1.371 0.079 14.590 0.287 0.198 0.012 0.0006

St

. Alphonsus 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000

St

. Luke’s Boise Medical Center 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000

Young 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.01 2 0.001 0.0000

Ada County Total 68.97 208.59 902.81 13.45 10.63 21.54 0.01

Canyon County

Caldwell Industrial 39.367 2.351 433.518 8.590 5.927 0.352 0.0170

Hubler Field 2.908 0.167 30.951 0.610 0.421 0.026 0.0012

Mercy 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.0 01 0.0000

Nampa Muni cipal 30.940 1.785 329.965 6.502 4.487 0.274 0.0132

Parma 0.960 0.055 10.212 0.201 0.139 0.009 0.0004

Sky Ranch North 1.075 0.062 11.436 0.225 0.155 0.010 0.0005

Sky Ranch South 1.075 0.062 11.436 0.225 0.155 0.010 0.0005

Snake Riv er Skydiving 1.075 0.062 11.436 0.225 0.155 0.010 0.0005

Symms 0.960 0.055 10.217 0.201 0.139 0.009 0.0004

Whelan’s 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000

Canyon County Total 78.52 4.61 850.87 16.81 11.60 0.70 0.03

Elmore County

Atlanta 0.254 0.01 5 2.703 0.053 0.037 0.002 0.0001

Coyote Run 0.850 0.049 9.049 0.178 0.123 0.008 0.0004

Dorothy Roeber Memorial 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000

Elmore Medical Center 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000

Glenns Ferry Muni cipal 0.113 0.00 7 1.201 0.024 0.016 0.001 0.0000

Graham USFS 0.254 0.015 2.703 0.053 0.037 0.002 0.0001

Health Center 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000

Mountain Home AFB 3.601 1.464 38.188 0.757 0.526 0.112 0.0015

Mountain Home Muni cipal 5.613 0.373 68.615 1. 370 0.946 0.054 0.0024

P and R Field 1.944 0.112 20.688 0.408 0.281 0.017 0.0008

Pine 0.395 0.023 4.205 0.083 0.057 0.004 0.0002

Red Baron Airpark 1.996 0.115 21.245 0.419 0.289 0.018 0.0009

Smith Prairie 0.339 0.020 3.604 0.071 0.049 0.003 0.0001

Sou th Fork Ranch 3.544 0.204 37.715 0.743 0.513 0.031 0.0015

Weatherby USFS 0.212 0.012 2.253 0.044 0.031 0.002 0.0001

Elmore County Total 19.35 2.42 214.71 4.25 2.94 0.26 0.01

Treasure Valley Total 166.84 215.62 1968.38 34.52 25.17 22.49 0.062008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 14

Figure 5

- 5 . 2008 A ircraft A ssociated E missions C ontributions

Data for the Idaho Treasure Valley study region was gathered from the railroads

operating within the region and public sources. The line

- haul activity data were obtained

through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with the permission of the Class 1 railroad

(Union Pacific) in the region. Smaller railroads received a data request for 2008 line

- haul and

switching locomo tive activity estimates . Switching data was gathered by requesting for the

ty pical shift schedules within each rail yard. The activity data gathered is presented in the

sections below along with the procedures used to estimate emissions for 2008 and future years.

Line

- haul

The activity data used for the line haul emission calcula tions were gathered from the FRA

and through data requests. The primary activity data collected under this program are gross

tonnage (combines the weight of the locomotives, cars, and freight) that are combined with the

rail link length to estimate gross ton

- miles of freight movements ( Wright, 2010 ). Permission was

obtained from the Class 1 railroad Union Pacific to release the railroad specific activity data for

2008 within the study domain. Public databases of rail activity for the National Transportat ion

Atlas Database only provide link

- level mainline activity in activity ranges (BTS, 2009), but the

FRA data gathered specific activity for the purpose of estimating emission inventories. The FRA2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 15 data was developed as a result of the request of the Easte rn Regional Technical Advisory

Committee Rail Subgroup, a group of s tate air quality agencies, to provide accurate rail activity

estimates.

The FRA data set attributes are described in Table 5

- 8

. The FRA dataset provide d

information about rail links and no des in the form of ArcGIS shapefiles that provide attribute

information and location for all rail links at a 1:100,000 scale and wa s designed for use in

regional network analysis applications. Rail links we re spatially defined polylines that contain a

lar ge amount of attributes describing a link. The link data relevant to the project included the rail

line spatial descriptions

, as well as the specific activity. The node descriptions we re latitude and

longitude point estimates with actual sinuous link len gth between nodes. The rail owner field

define d the primary owner and other railroads that operate on the link. The link status include d

what type of track ( i.e., main line, siding

, or yard trackage)

, as well as whether the link is in

operation or abando ned. The FRA dataset is more precise than the National Transportation Atlas

Data public databases that only provide ranges of gross ton activity rather than the specific

values used in this report.

Table 5

- 8 . FRA Rail Link Definitions

Data Field Descri ption

FRA Link ID Numeric i dentifier Link Node Descriptions Spatial d escription Length Actual length of link

State County

Rail Owner Primary and s econdary

Link Status Operational, main line, etc. Freight Density Specific a nnual g ross t onnage



### Ra il ownership was described within the FRA shapefiles in three separate fields. The

primary owner was assumed to be the first, and most populated, rail owner provided in the

dataset. Link status provided a code value describing whether the rail link was a bandoned, an

active mainline, or an active non

- mainline. Upon review of the active mainline and non

mainline links, it was determined that active mainline links were representative of line

- haul

tracks and non

- mainline links were representative of switch o r siding tracks. In addition to the

link route data, the FRA link nodes file spatially describe d the beginning and end point2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 16 coordinates of every link. The detailed FRA freight tonnage data w ere cross

- referenced with the

mainline link route data. Figure 5

- 6 shows the network densities within the study domain.

Figure 5

- 6 . FRA L ine

- H aul F reight D ensity

The FRA data did not include the Idaho Northern Pacific Railroad (INPR) shortline activity

that occurs between Boise and Nampa. INPR activity data wer e obtained through a data request to

the company ( Olmanson, 2010 ) . The data received from INPR is provided in Table 5

- 9 below.

Table 5

- 9 . I daho Northern Pacific Railroad Activity Data

INPR Data Request

Locomotive m odel GP30s

Train c ount 1 train

Locomot ives per t rain 2 locomotives

Weekly a ctivity 5 days/week

Daily a ctivity 9 hours/day

Fuel c onsumption a 226 gal/day

Annual f uel c onsumption 44,070 gal/year

a Fuel consumption based on 24 hours of operation per day2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 17 Line

- haul

The 2008 line

- haul emissi ons were estimated using the methodology described in the

U.S. EPA final emission standards (U.S. EPA, 2009 c ). This method converted rail gross ton

miles to fuel consumption using railroad freight efficiency to estimate fuel consumption for each

rail link . The U.S. EPA guidance provided fleet averaged emission factors in terms of grams per

gallon. This calculation is as follows:

W here:

E = emissions (grams);

FT = freight tonnage (tons);

M = rail link mileage (miles);

FE = freight efficiency (g allons/ton

- mile); and

EF = emission factor (grams/gallons)

The U.S. EPA final emission standards included an analysis of the expected benefit of

normal fleet turnover and the additional benefit of the U.S. EPA rule. The emission standards

included bot h new engine and existing equipment retrofit standards. Existing Tier 0, 1, and 2

engines will be subject to retrofit at the time of rebuild; so the engines will be rebuilt gradually

throughout their remaining useful life. The emission standards and impl ementation dates are

provided in Tables 5

- 10 and 5

- 11 for line

- haul and switching locomotives; the emission standard

values depend primarily upon the duty cycle (i.e., a schedule of time in modes).

The U.S. EPA final emission standards forecasted average e mission factors for

hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO

x 

### ), and particulate matter (PM)

in terms of grams per gallon for the calendar years from 2006 to 2040. These U.S. EPA

forecasts included the impact of new engine emissions sta ndards and the expected rates of new

locomotive purchases and older locomotive retirements.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 18 Table 5

- 10 . Locomotive Emission S tandards for L ine

- haul ( D uty C ycle) E ngines

Emission Standard Applicable

Year HC

(g/hp

- hr) CO

(g/hp

- hr) NO

x



### (g/hp

- hr) PM

(g/hp

- h r)

Uncontrolled Emissions Pre

- 1973 0.48 1.28 13.0 0.32

Tier 0

– original 1973

- 2001 1.00 5.0 9.5 0.60

Tier 0

– final a 

### 2008/2010 1.00 5.0 8.0 0.22

Tier 1

– original 2002

- 2004 0.55 2.2 7.4 0.45

Tier 1

– final a 

### 2008/2010 0.55 5.0 7.4 0.22

Tier 2

– origi nal 2005 0.30 1.5 5.5 0.20

Tier 2

– final a 

### 2010/2013 0.30 1.5 5.5 0.10

Tier 3 2012

- 2014 0.30 1.5 5.5 0.10

Tier 4 b 

### 2015 0.14 1.5 1.3 0.03

a R etrofit standards at the time of rebuild and phased in as retrofit kit availability.

b The Tier 4 NO

x standard ca n be a 1.4 NO

x + HC standard.



### Table 5

- 11 . Locomotive Emission Standards for Switching (Duty Cycle) Engines

Emission Standard Applicable

Year HC

(g/hp

- hr) CO

(g/hp

- hr) NO

x



### (g/hp

- hr) PM

(g/hp

- hr)

Uncontrolled Emissions Pre

- 1973 1.01 1.83 17.4 0.44

Tier 0

– original 1973

- 2001 2.10 8.0 14.00 0.72

Tier 0

– final a 

### 2008/2010 2.10 8.0 11.80 0.26

Tier 1

– original 2002

- 2004 1.20 2.5 11.00 0.54

Tier 1

– final a 

### 2008/2010 1.20 2.5 11.00 0.26

Tier 2

– original 2005 0.60 2.4 8.10 0.24

Tier 2

– final a 

### 2010/201 3 0.60 2.4 8.10 0.13

Tier 3 2012

- 2014 0.60 2.4 5.00 0.10

Tier 4 b 

### 2015 0.14 2.4 1.30 0.03

a These are retrofit standards at the time of rebuild and phased in as retrofit kit availability allows.

b The Tier 4 NO

x standard can be a 1.3 NO

x + HC standard.



### T he U.S. EPA forecast emission factors were scaled from the 1999 uncontrolled emission

factors (see Table 5

- 12 ) on a yearly basis (U.S. EPA, 1997b) . The uncontrolled emission factors

(g/hp

- hr) are shown above in Table 5

- 10 and the 2008, 2015, and 2023 emiss ion factors (g/gal)

are provided in Table 5

- 13 . The forecast emission factors were converted to grams per gallon of

fuel using an average of 20.8 horsepower

- hours per gallon of fuel for the larger Class 1 railroads

and 18.2 horsepower

- hours per gallon of f uel for other smaller Class 2/3 railroads as described in

the U.S. EPA standards (U.S. EPA, 2009 c )

. The CO emission rates were not predicted to change

with the emission controls, so the CO emission rates remain 26.6 grams per gallon for Class 1

and 23.3 g ram s per gallon for smaller railroads for all calendar years. The SO 2 

### emission rates

were determined by converting the fuel sulfur where the fuel sulfur level was assumed to be 3512008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 19 ppm for 2008 based on the U.S. EPA standards (U.S. EPA, 2009 c ) and 15 ppm f or 2015 and

2023 based on the implementation schedule for locomotive fuel regulations.

Table 5

- 12 . Locomotive Emission Factors for Calendar Years 1999 and Earlier

Locomotive Type HC (g/hp

- hr) CO

(g/hp

- hr) NO

x



### (g/hp

- hr) PM

(g/hp

- hr) Fuel Consumption

(hp

- h r/gallon)

Line

- Haul a 

### 0.48 1.28 13.0 0.32 20.8

a Line

- haul locomotives over the line

- haul duty

- cycle.



### Table 5

- 13 . Average Line

- Haul Locomotive Emission Factors

Class 1 Class 2/3 Line

- Haul

Year HC

(g/gal) NO

x



### (g/gal) PM

(g/gal) HC

(g/gal) NO

x



### (g/gal) P M

(g/gal)

2008 9.0 169 5.1 11.7 242 5.7

2015 5.7 129 3.4 11.7 240 5.5

2023 3.0 84 1.9 11.7 223 5.2



### In order to derive emission factors in terms of the gross tonnage activity, conversion

factors from grams per gallon to grams per gross tonnage were est imated. F uel usage and gross

tonnage by railroad for the entire system

- wide activity were obtained from the AAR (AAR,

2009)

. Table 5

- 14 presents the average system

- wide fuel efficiency as well as the individual

system

- wide fuel efficiency for the Class 1 railroad operating in the study region. Combining the

emission factors in Table 5

- 13 with the fuel efficiency estimate s in Table 5

- 14 , emission factors

in units of grams per gross ton

- mile (GTM) were develop ed as shown in Table 5

- 15

.

Table 5

- 14 . Fuel Eff iciency by Railroad

Railroad Fuel Gal/ (GTM)

Average Class 1 0.001020

UP 0.000971



### Table 5

- 15 . Class 1 Railroad Emission Factors for 2008

Year Railroad HC

(g/GTM) CO

(g/GTM) NO

x



### (g/GTM) PM

(g/GTM)

2008 Average 0.0092 0.027 0.172 0.0052

2008 UP 0.0087 0.026 0.164 0.0050



### The emissions factors from Table 5

- 15 were applied to the FRA activity data by link and

summed by county; the line

- haul emissions results are shown in Table 5

- 16

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 20

Table 5

- 16 . 2008 L ine

- haul L ocomotive E missions ( T ons/ Y ear)

Railroad County HC VOC CO NO

x 

### PM 10 

### SO 2 

### NH 3 

### UP Ada 14.68 15.46 43.43 275.70 8.32 3.06 0.19

Canyon 17.91 18.86 52.97 336.24 10.15 3.74 0.23

Elmore 31.11 32.76 92.03 584.18 17.63 6.49 0.40

Total 74.30 78.23 219.79 1395.13 42.10 15.50 0.96

INPR

Shortline Ada 0 .41 0.43 0.82 8.52 0.20 0.004 0.07

Canyon 0.16 0.16 0.31 3.24 0.08 0.002 0.03

T otal 0.57 0.60 1.13 11.76 0.28 0.01 0.09



### Switching

Switching locomotives are used for a variety of tasks. The primary task for switchers is

to break and assemble trains a nd shuttle rail cars around a rail yard; however, switchers also

perform short haul duty that includes whole trains, sets of cars, and repositioning equipment

along the mainline rail lines. The switching locomotives that reposition or short haul freight

a long the mainline were captured under the line

- haul gross tonnage, so only the in

- yard activity

was considered for switching locomotive emissions estimates to avoid double counting the

activity.

Shift schedules or other estimates of the hours of operation for switching locomotives

were requested in order to identify the total engine hours of operation at each yard. In general,

typical shifts were eight or twelve hours using one or two locomotives in tandem. The number

of hours for each shift was assumed to be the engine operating time; however, this could be an

overestimate if the engines have idle reduction devices or operators are encouraged to shut off

the engines during inactive periods of the shift.

At any given time, the roster of switching locomoti ves assigned to a given yard was

usually available and was collected as part of the information request. The roster of these

locomotives could change from week to week, but in general, a sample of the locomotive roster

at any time in 2008 could be conside red a relatively constant fleet mix. The reported switching

engines ranged from 1,200 to 3,800 rated horsepower. The switching locomotive models were

all either Tier 0 or precontrolled with no Tier 1 or 2 models. The data in Table 5

- 17 represented

the sw itching activity data for the Nampa Yard obtained from the railroad survey.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 21 Table 5

- 17 . Switching Locomotive Activity Data for the Nampa Yard

Number Days per

Week Days per Year Hours per Day Hours per Year

Switcher No. 1 5 260 4.5 1170

Switcher No. 2 5 260 7.5 1950

Switcher No. 3 5 260 8.0 2080

Switcher No. 4 1 52 7.5 390

Switcher No. 5 5 260 7.5 1950



### Base emission factors and expected forecasted emission rates for switching locomotives

were provided in U.S. EPA documentation (U.S. EPA, 2008) and are shown in Table 5

- 18

.

Table 5

- 18 . Switching L ocomotive E mission F actors

Year HC

(g/gal) CO

(g/gal) NO

x

(g/gal) PM

(g/gal)

2008 14.5 27.8 243 5.5

2015 12.6 27.8 215 4.8

2023 9.5 27.8 172 3.7



### A daily fuel consumption estimate of 226 gallons of fu el per day was provided by other

U.S. EPA locomotive guidance documentation (U.S. EPA, 1992) . The provided fuel

consumption estimate assumes continuous 24 hour activity resulting in a per hour fuel

consumption of 9.42 gallons. Annual fuel consumption ca n be estimated using the following

equation:

W here:

FC = fuel consumption (gallons/year) ;
A = activity (hours/year) ; and

C = fuel consumption per hour (9.42 gallons/hour)

.

T he emission factors provided in Table 5

- 18 were combined with the engi ne

- hours in

Table 5

- 17 and 9.42 gallons per hour average fuel consumption rate to estimate per yard

emissions as shown in Table 5

- 19

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 22

Table 5

- 19 . Estimated Switching Locomotive Emissions in 2008

Year Fuel Consumption (gal) HC

(tons) VOC

(tons) CO

(tons) NO X

(tons) PM 10

(tons) SO 2

(tons) NH 3

(tons)

2008 71,002 0.92 0.96 1.82 18.94 0.45 0.01 0.15



### PM 2.5 

### emission estimates were estimated based on PM 10 

### emission estimates. The

percentage of PM 10 

### emissions expected to be PM 2.5 

### is assumed to be 97% for locom otives (U.S.

EPA, 2009 c )

In general, t he county assignment for the rail yard emissions was straightforward because

the switching locomotive activity was specific to a particular yard. However, Nampa operations

could span up to two counties since most of t he Nampa tracks are in Canyon County where the

emissions were allocated, but the tracks may also reach into Ada County.

The 2008 annual emissions by source category are provided in Table 5

- 20

.

Table 5

- 20 . 2008 Annual Locomotive Emissions by Source Catego ry

SCC SCC Description County FIPS NO

x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy)

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul

Locomotives:

C lass I operations Ada 16001 275.70 3.06 15.46 43.43 8.32 8.07 0.19

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul

Locomotiv es: Class I operations Canyon 16027 336.24 3.74 18.86 52.97 10.15 9.84 0.23

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul

Locomotives: Class I operations Elmore 16039 584.18 6.49 32.76 92.03 17.63 17.10 0.40

2285002007 Diesel Line Haul

Locomotives: Class II/III operati ons Ada 16001 8.52 0.00 0.43 0.82 0.20 0.19 0.07

2285002007 Diesel Line Haul

Locomotives: Class II/III operations Canyon 16027 3.24 0.00 0.16 0.31 0.08 0.07 0.03

2285002010 Diesel Yard Operations Canyon 16027 18.94 0.01 0.96 1.82 0.45 0.43 0.152008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 23 5.2 Em ission C alculation M ethodologies

– O zone and PM Season

After the annual nonroad mobile source emissions were estimated using the

methodologies described in Section 2.4.1, the daily ozone season and PM season emission

estimates were developed. The ozone se ason extends from April 1 through October 31 (i.e., 214

days), while the PM season is from November 1 through February 29 (2008 is a leap year) (i.e.,

121 days).

5 .2.1 Nonroad Equipment

Ozone and PM season daily emission estimates for nonroad equipment w ere based on

NONROAD model runs for the summer and winter season, respectively. Fuel properties for the

ozone and PM 2.5 

### season were set to summer and winter season values, respectively, as described

in Section 2.4.1.1. Climate inputs were derived based o n ozone and PM season averages as

obtained from the WRCC (WRCC, 2009).

Seasonal b ase year 2008 nonroad equipment emissions are shown in Table 5

- 21 and

Table 5

- 22 by county and equipment type, respectively. Since most equipment (except

snowmobiles and sno wblowers ) were used more frequently in the summer compared to the

winter, o zone season emissions are greater than PM season emissions in all counties

.

Table 5

- 21 . 2008 Seasonal Nonroad Equipment Emissions by County

County VOC CO NO

x PM 10 PM 2.5 SO 2 NH 3

Oz one Season (tons/day)

Ada 6.97 82.83 8.70 0.87 0.84 0.24 0.009

Canyon 2.51 26.38 5.84 0.58 0.56 0.17 0.005

Elmore 1.56 7.18 1.35 0.15 0.14 0.04 0.001

Total 11.03 116.40 15.89 1.59 1.53 0.45 0.016

PM Season (tons/day)

Ada 4.24 60.18 4.21 0.36 0.35 0.1 0 0.005

Canyon 1.20 16.85 1.88 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.002

Elmore 0.34 2.36 0.32 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.000

Total 5.78 79.39 6.42 0.56 0.54 0.16 0.0072008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 24 Table 5

- 22 . 2008 Seasonal Nonroad Equipment Emissions by Equipment Type

(Ada, Canyon, and Elmore C ounties C ombi ned)

Category VOC CO NO

x PM 10 PM 2.5 SO 2 NH 3 Ozone Season (tons/day)

Agricultural e quipment 0.59 4.26 5.12 0.53 0.52 0.15 0.004

Commercial e quipment 0.93 18.69 0.64 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.001

Construction and m ining

e quipment 1.07 8.86 7.27 0.65 0.63 0.24 0.0 07

Industrial e quipment 0.46 7.64 1.80 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.001

Lawn and g arden e quipment 3.79 60.76 0.73 0.18 0.16 0.01 0.002

Logging e quipment 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

Pleasure c raft 1.52 5.16 0.22 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.000

Railroad e quipment 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

Recreational e quipment 2.65 10.89 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.001

Underground m ining e quipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

Total 11.03 116.40 15.89 1.59 1.53 0.45 0.016

PM Season (tons/day)

Agricultural e quipment 0.10 0.69 0.84 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.001

Commercial e quipment 0.90 18.30 0.70 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.001

Construction and m ining

e quipment 0.43 3.48 2.92 0.26 0.25 0.10 0.003

Industrial e quipment 0.32 5.20 1.24 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.001

Lawn and g arden e quipment 3.09 48.3 3 0.64 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.002

Logging e quipment 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

Pleasure c raft 0.15 0.44 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

Railroad e quipment 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

Recreational e quipment 0.78 2.81 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.000

Unde rground m ining e quipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

Total 5.78 79.39 6.42 0.56 0.54 0.16 0.007



### 5 .2.2 Aircraft

To estimate seasonal emission inventories, the monthly distribution of activity for the

Boise airport in the Treasure Valley study re gion was obtained from the FAA’s Air Traffic

Activity Data System (ATADS) (FAA, 2010). The ATADS is the official source for historical

monthly or annual air traffic statistics for airports with FAA

- operated or FAA

- contracted traffic

control towers. The a verage seasonal activity fractions were calculated by aircraft type from the

ATADS dataset. The seasonal activity fractions (shown in Table 5

- 23 ) were then applied to the

Treasure Valley annual emission by aircraft type to derive the ozone and PM season e missions.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 25 Table 5

- 23 . Fraction of A ircraft A ctivity O ccurring in the O zone and PM S easons

Type Ozone Season PM Season

Commercial a ircraft 59% 32%

Ground s upport e quipment 59% 32%
Auxiliary p ower u nits 59% 32%

Air t axi a ircraft 62% 28%

General a via tion a ircraft 66% 26%
Military a ircraft 61% 30%



### 5 .2.3 Locomotives

The daily emissions for locomotives are reported as the equivalent of the annual

emissions on a daily scale. The railroads do not report temporal activity and typical of

locomotive emis sion inventories, emissions are assumed to be constant year

- round. The daily

emissions were determined by dividing the annual emissions by 365 days per year.

The 2008 ozone and PM season daily emissions by source category are provided in Table

5

- 24

.

Table 5

- 24 . 2008 Ozone and PM Season Daily Locomotive Emission Estimates by Source Category

SCC SCC Description County FIPS NO

x (tpd) SO 2 (tpd) VOC (tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd) NH 3

(tpd)

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul

Locomotives: Class I operations Ada 16001 0.755 0.008 0.042 0.119 0.023 0.022 0.0005

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul

Locomotives: Class I operations Canyon 16027 0.921 0.010 0.052 0.145 0.028 0.027 0.0006

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul

Locomotives: Class I operations Elmore 16039 1.600 0.018 0.0 90 0.252 0.048 0.047 0.0011

2285002007 Diesel Line Haul

Locomotives: Class II/III operations Ada 16001 0.023 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.0002

2285002007 Diesel Line Haul

Locomotives: Class II/III operations Canyon 16027 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.0001

2285002010 Diesel Yard

Operations Canyon 16027 0.052 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.00042008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 5

- 26 5.3 QA/QC procedures

In order to ensure the highest quality emissions estimates, a number of different QA/QC

steps were implemented during the development of the nonroad mobile source emissions

inventory . These are outlined below:

 Nonroad Equipment

 NONROAD model inputs, outputs and message files were checked by the data generator and reviewed by QA/QC staff.

 QA/QC staff reviewed local data collected and ev aluated against national

defaults.

 Base year emission inventories were compared to U.S.EPA NEI inventories.

 Aircraft

 Aircraft compilation spreadsheets were reviewed by QA/QC staff.

 For airports in the FAA TAF database, NEI2008 LTO activity was checked agai nst FAA TAF activity.

 Locomotives

 Locomotive spreadsheets were reviewed by the data generator and reviewed by QA/QC staff to assure that calculation inputs and equations were correct.

 Senior QA/QC staff approved emission estimation methodologies and review ed the reference activity data for validity.

 Source identification and data collection were approved by the DEQ staff.

 Senior QA/QC staff confirmed thorough pollutant coverage.

 QA/QC staff reviewed and approved the emission factors and activity data used

w ithin the emission calculations.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 6

- 1 6.0 2008 BIOGENIC SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY

Under Task 8 of the contract, the ERG/ENVIRON team provided review of DEQ’s 2008

biogenic emissions inventory. This review was summarized in a technical memorandum

submitted to DEQ (Mansell and Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009) ; this technical memo is provided in

Appendix F . The technical memo examined the available biogenic emission inventory modeling

systems, as well as the land cover and vegetation data required for implementation of the se

models. The review also focused on a comparison between DEQ’s biogenics inventory

developed using the Biogenic Emission Inventory System (BEIS) and an alternative inventory

developed by ENVIRON using the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosol from Nat ure

(MEGAN).

6.1 Emissions Calculation Methodologies

– Annual

Input from DEQ modeling staff indicate that the BEIS emission estimates should be

incorporated into the draft final report and its emission inventory (Hardy, 2010) . Therefore, the

annual biogenic emission summaries for BEIS from Table 2 of the memo were used (Mansell

and Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009).

6.2 Emissions Calculation Methodologies

– Ozone and PM Season

Monthly biogenic emission summaries for BEIS from Table 2 of the memo were used to

develop ozone and PM season daily emissions (Mansell and Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009). The

monthly emissions from April to October were summed and then divided by 214 (i.e., the

number of days in the ozone season) to derive ozone season daily emissions. Likewise, the

mon thly emissions from November to February were summed and then divided by 121 (i.e., the

number of days in the PM season) to derive PM season daily emissions.

6.3 Emission Results

The emissions presented in the biogenics technical memorandum were developed for

nitric oxide (NO), CO, VOC , and isoprene. These emissions are shown in Table 6

- 1.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 6

- 2 Table 6

- 1. Annual, Ozone Season, and PM Season Biogenic Emissions

Ada Canyon Elmore Total

Annual

– NO (tpy) 202.3 283.9 465.2 951.3

Annual

– CO (tpy) 2,246.5 1,650. 2 6,425.0 10,321.8

Annual

– VOC (tpy) 12,802.5 8,902.4 30,982.3 52,687.1

Annual

– Isoprene (tpy) 741.2 139.1 2,073.0 2,953.4

Ozone Season

– NO (tpd) 0.7 1.0 1.7 3.4

Ozone Season

– CO (tpd) 9.4 6.9 26.7 43.0

Ozone Season

– VOC (tpd) 55.6 38.5 132.4 226 .5

Ozone Season

– Isoprene (tpd) 3.4 0.6 9.6 13.6

PM Season

– NO (tpd) 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.4

PM Season

– CO (tpd) 1.5 1.1 4.7 7.3

PM Season

– VOC (tpd) 5.8 4.2 17.3 27.2

PM Season

– Isoprene (tpd) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2



### For purposes of the overall summary tables (Tables 7

- 5 through 7

- 16), NO was considered to be

equivalent to NO

x 

### while isoprene was not included since it is a VOC species

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 1 7.0 2015 AND 2023 PROJEC TED EMISSIONS INVENT ORIES

The development of the 2008 base year emissions inventory was described in Sec tion s

2.0 through 6.0 . This was followed by the development of projected emissions inventories for

the future years of 2015 and 2023. The methodologies used to develop these projections are

described in this s ection

. In general, the projection methodolog ies identified in the IPP/QAP

were used; however, some minor adjustments were made based upon projections information

availability and are identified herein

.

7.1 Development of 2015 and 2023 Projection Factors

7 .1.1 Point Sources

In an effort to ascertain the future plans for expansion, etc., (on which to base growth

factors) for the point source facilities located in the Treasure Valley, a total of 18 permitted point

source facilities were contacted by telephone in May 2010. The facility contacts were informa lly

surveyed regarding overall short

- and long

- term growth and expansion plans. The 18 permitted

point source facilities constitute d the 10 largest VOC emitting facilities, the 3 largest NH 3



### emitting facilities, and the 5 largest emitting facilities for e ach of the other pollutants; in some

cases, a particular facility was a significant emitter of multiple pollutants. Of the 18 facilities

contact ed , a total of 14 contacts responded to the request for information. The facilities that

responded included th e following (listed alphabetically):

 Boise Packaging and Newsprint

 C & B Quality Trailer Works

 Fiber Composites LLC

 Micron Technology

 MotivePower

 Mountain Home Air Force Base

 Northwest Pipeline

 Pacific Press Publishing Association

 Plum Creek Northwest Lumb er2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 2  Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center

 Sinclair Boise Products Terminal

 Sorrento Lactalis

 TASCO

– Nampa

 Tesoro Refining and Marketing

Based on these contacts’ responses, the overall short

- term outlook (i.e., out to 2015) for

these facilities is essent ially “maintenance of the current status quo”; while the long

- term outlook

(i.e., out to 2023) is basically “unforeseeable”, but some minimal growth is expected. The recent

economic recession apparently has dampened most expectations for growth in the nea r

- term with

most facilities moving into a survival posture until the recession has passed. Given these

anecdotal responses, a 2015 growth factor of 1.0000 (i.e., no growth) and a 2023 growth factor

of 1.1000 (i.e., minimal 10 percent growth between the ye ars 2015 and 2023) were assigned to

all point sources. The only exception to this general growth factor assignment w as that Sorrento

Lactalis is currently expanding their facility processing capacity from 4 million gallons of milk

per day to 5 million gal lons of milk per day. This expansion commenced after the 2008 annual

emissions submittal and so it is not reflected in the base year 2008 inventory (York, 2010).

Thus, a growth factor of 1.2500 reflecting expanded facility capacity was assigned to both 2 015

and 2023 for the Sorrento Lactalis facility.

7 .1.2 Area Sources

The 2015 and 2023 area source projections were developed using a variety of sources of

projections data. These are described below.

7

. 1.2. 1 Fuel Combustion

All fuel combustion area sour ce categories (i.e., distillate, natural gas, liquefied

petroleum gas [LPG], kerosene, and wood for the industrial, commercial/ institutional, and

residential sectors) were estimated using projections data from the Annual Energy Outlook

(AEO) published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) (EIA, 2010). Regional

consumption projections for the Mountain Census Division (i.e., Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 3 Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) were used to develop growth factors for

2015 and 20 23.

7 .1.2.2 Population

Population projections were used to develop projection factors for a wide range of area

source categories where population is an appropriate surrogate for growth. These categories

include the following:

 Commercial cooking (i.e., ch arbroiling and frying)

 Architectural surface coating

 Graphic arts

 Consumer solvents

 Open burning (i.e., yard waste and household waste)

 Wastewater treatment

 Structure fires

 Vehicle fires

Population projections for Ada and Canyon counties were obtained fro m the

Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) (COMPASS, 2010).

However, county

- level population projections were not available for Elmore County; therefore,

the overall state

- level population projections for Idaho were used as a surrog ate for Elmore

County (U.S. Census, 2005 b ). The population projections for 2015 were used directly, while the

population projection for 2023 was derived from a linear interpolation of the 2020 and 2025

population projections.

7 .1.2.3 Industrial Output Pr ojections

Industrial output projections for 2008, 2015, and 2023 (in terms of constant 2000 year

dollars) were used to project emissions for a number of industrial area sources, including:

 Industrial surface coating (all subcategories)

 Degreasing (all subc ategories)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 4  Autobody refinishing

 Dry cleaning

 Construction

 Bakeries

 Industrial refrigeration /cold storage

Appropriate output projections were selected at the 4

- digit NAICS level from data

obtained from Economy.com (Economy.com, 2010). The growth factors we re developed by

ratioing the future year output for a particular NAICS code by the 2008 year output for the same

NAICS code.

7 .1.2.4 Long

- Term Agricultural Averages

Unlike many other area source categories, agricultural sources are thought to be

som ewhat cyclical in nature. This is due to limited arable land, cyclical commodity prices, and a

number of other factors. As a result, long

- term averages of county

- level agricultural acreage

w ere used to develop appropriate projection factors. Specificall y, the total average acreage of

significant Idaho field crops (i.e., alfalfa, barley, corn for grain, corn for silage, potatoes,

sugarbeets, and wheat) from 1988 to 2007 was calculated. Data were obtained from the National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (NASS, 2010). The projection factor is the ratio of this

total average acreage divided by the 2008 acreage for these same crops. The result ant factors are

1.1548 for Ada County, 1.0562 for Canyon County, and 0.8255 for Elmore County.

7 .1.2.5 Ve hicle Miles Travelled (VMT)

As is typically done, future year vehicle miles travelled ( VMT ) projections were

developed for estimating projected on

- road motor vehicle emissions (see Section 3.1.3) . These

future year VMT projections were also used to develo p growth factors for the source categories

associated with gasoline marketing (i.e., Stage I, Stage II, breathing and emptying losses, and

tank truck transport). As described in Section 7.1.1, the effects of Idaho R ule 592 were also

incorporated with futu re year area source Stage I emissions.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 5 7 .1.2.6 No Growth

For a few area source categories, no growth (i.e., a growth factor of 1.0000) was assigned. In

these cases, either no growth was anticipated to occur in the future or no appropriate growth surrogat e

could be reasonably determined. These categories included the following:

 Traffic markings

 Asphalt application

 Irrigation ditch burning

 Beef cattle feedlots

7 .1.2.7 Ammonia Sources

With the exception of ammonia from industrial refrigeration /cold storage , ammonia

emissions were estimated using an ammonia model as described in the previous progress reports.

The projected ammonia emissions were also modeled using the same model. Finally, a few area

source categories emitting ammonia were assigned no growt h (i.e., a growth factor of 1.0000).

The following assumptions were made for the various modeled ammonia emission source

categories:

 Population projection factors described above (Section 7 .1.2.2) were used for

domestic ammonia emissions ;

 Long

- term agricu ltural average projection factors described above (Section 7 .1.2.4)

were used for fertilizer emissions ; and

 No growth was assumed for livestock (i.e., due to apparent cyclical production trends), wild animals, and soils

7 .1.2.8 Road Dust

Future year emis sions for paved road dust were estimated using the same methodology as

used for the 2008 base year (see Section 2.3) along with estimates of 2015 and 2023 VMT.

Elmore County 2015 and 2023 VMT estimates were based on data developed for the on

- road

vehicle emission estimates as described above. Ada and Canyon County VMT estimates were

taken from COMPASS transportation demand model (TDM) output for 2015 and 2025.

COMPASS 2015 VMT estimates were used directly while 2023 VMT was estimated by linearly2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 6 interpol ating between the 2015 and 2025 data provided by COMPASS. No change in the per

VMT paved road dust emission rates was estimated based on the assumption of unchanged future

maintenance practices ; however

, VMT estimates increase in future years based on the

COMPASS TDM

, result ing in increased paved road dust.

Future year emissions for unpaved road dust were estimated using the same methodology

as the base year. In Ada County, a reduction in VMT of 1.95 percent per year was assumed per

the Ada County conform ity documentation (COMPASS, 2005). For all other areas, unpaved

roadway VMT was assumed unchanged from 2008 based on conversations with local highway

districts and municipalities

, which indicated that even minimal projected conversion of unpaved

to paved roads in future years would depend on funding levels. No change in unpaved road dust

emission rates was estimated based on the assumption of unchanged future maintenance

practices.

7.1.3 On

- Road Motor Vehicles

Ada and Canyon count ies on

- road emissions in future years 2015

, 2023

, and 2050 were

estimated by DEQ as an update to this emissions inventory (DEQ, 2012) . COMPASS provided

DEQ with TDM output from 2015 and 202 3 . DEQ ran MOVES2010a using the TDM output for

2008

, 2015

, and 2023 for those calendar year s. To generate the 20 50 VMT and emissions data

required for establishing motor vehicle emission budgets for conformity evaluations of the

COMPASS long

- range transportation plan out to 2050, COMPASS provided DEQ with

population and VMT forecasts for 2050

. DEQ used these forecasts along with the 20 15 TDM

model runs to develop 2050 motor vehicle emission estimates for the species used in the

s peciated l inear r ollback modeling attainment demonstration (NOx, SO 2 

### , PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### ).

Anti

- tampering and I/M programs were not in place for Canyon County in 2008, but

were added for 2015 and 2023

. T he parameters are similar to the 2008 Ada County programs,

except for the program change to biennial testing and testing of light

- duty vehicles only . Tables

7

- 1 and 7

- 2 show t he future year updated parameters for anti

- tampering and I/M, respectively.

Alcohol blend E10 market share also changed from 68% in 2008 to 100% in future years. There

were no other changes in inputs for the future year MOVES2010a modeling work.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 7 Table 7

- 1. 2015 and 2023 I/M Inputs by County: Anti

- Tampering Program

Parameters a

Anti

- Tampering Program

Parameters Ada County Canyon County Elmore County
Program Start Year 2010 2010

-

First Vehicle Model Year Applied Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008

-

Las t Vehicle Model Year Applied Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008

-

Vehicle Types Applied Same as Ada 2008 LDGV, LDGT1,
LDGT2 LDGT3,

LDGT4 -

Inspection Frequency Biennial Biennial

- Compliance Rate Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008

- Inspection Conducted Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008

-

a See Appendix E of No rthern Ada C ounty PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update for 2008 I/M

parameters

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 8 Table 7

- 2. 2015, 2023

, and 2030 MOBILE6 Inputs by County: I/M Program

Parameters a

I/M Program Type I/M Program Parameters Ada County Canyon County Elmore County

Exhaust Test Only Program

– Two speed test (idle

and 2500
RPM) Start Year 2010 2010

-

End Year 2050 2050

- Frequency Biennial Biennial

-
First Vehicle Model Year Applied 1981 1981

-

Last V ehicle Model Year Applied 1995 1995

-

Vehicle Types Applied Same as Ada 2008 LDGV, LDGT1,
LDGT2, LDGT3,

LDGT4 -

Stringency (pre

- 1981 only) Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008

- Compliance Rate Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008

- Waiver Rate (expresse d as a percentage of the vehicles that fail the I/M program) Same as Ada 2008

- Same as Ada 2008

Grace Period (the age at

which vehicle first become subject to I/M testing) 4 5

-

Exhaust Test Only Program

– OBD I/M Start Year 2010 2010

-

End Year 2050 2050

- Frequency Biennial Biennial

-
First Vehicle Model Year Applied Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008

-

Last Vehicle Model Year Applied 2050 2050

-

Vehicle Types Applied Same as Ada 2008 LDGV, LDGT1,
LDGT2, LDGT3,

LDGT4 -

Stringe ncy (expected exhaust inspection failure rate for pre

- 1981 model year vehicles) Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008

-

Compliance Rate Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008

- Waiver Rate (expressed as a percentage of the vehicles that fail the I/M program) Same as Ada 2008

- Same as Ada 2008

Grace Period (the age at

which vehicle first become subject to I/M testing) 4 5

-

a See Appendix E of No rthern Ada Co unty PM 10 Limited Maintenance Pla n Ten

- Year Update for 2008 I/M

parameters

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 9 Elmore Count

y motor vehicle emissions were not used in the Northern Ada County PM 10



### Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update demonstration and were not updated by DEQ in

2010 using MOVES2010a. Thus, the original MOBILE6 .2 emissions appear for Elmore County

in the rem ainder of this document as originally prepared by DEQ/Environ for 2008 and future

years 2015 and 2023 . For the future years, Elmore County emissions were estimated by

multiplying emission factors specific to 2015 and 2023 with projected VMT increases from 2008

to the future years. Elmore County emissions were not estimated for 20 5 0. Emission factors for

2015 and 2023 were generated by running MOBILE6 .2 for those calendar years, which accounts

for federally mandated gasoline sulfur reductions by calendar y ear and captures emission rat e

reductions due to increasingly string ent vehicle emission standards. The MOBILE6 .2 national

default registration distribution was used in all three years 2008, 2015 and 2023. Per DEQ , fuel

parameters and vehicle inspection a nd maintenance programs do not change from 2008 in

Elmore County. The MOBILE6 .2 national default registration distribution was used in all three

years 2008, 2015 and 2023. In addition, MOBILE6 .2 accounts for federally mandated gasoline

sulfur reductions by year and contains estimates of emission rate reductions due to increasingly

stringent vehicle emission standards.

2008 Elmore County VMT was projected to 2015 and 2023 using scaling factors based

on the COMPASS TDM outputs for 2008, 2015 and 2025. The COMPASS TDM includes link

level volumes and distances (thus VMT) by urban and rural roadway types that were readily

classifiable into the three road types of the original 2008 Elmore County total VMT: “interstate,”

“arterial,” and “other” for roadways tha t were not interstate or arterial. VMT estimates for

2023 were calculated by linearly interpolating VMT between 2015 and 2025 datasets. The final

projection factors for rural interstates, rural arterials and rural “other” roadways were developed

by sca ling 2015/2008 and 2023/2008. The projected VMT and future year emission factor sets

were used to estimate future year emissions using the same approach as the base year modeling.

7 .1.4 Nonroad Mobile Sources

The 2015 and 2023 nonroad mobile source projec tions were developed using a variety of

sources of projections data. These are described below.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 10 7 .1.4.1 Nonroad Equipment

The NONROAD model incorporates the effects of all “on the books” regulations. The

model also contains growth factors for all equipme nt types, which have been derived by U.S.

EPA from a proprietary database of equipment sales for several years.

The NONROAD model was run for 2015 and 2023 analogous to what was done for 2008.

Climate, local population, and temporal profiles used in the base year inputs were similarly used

in the development of future year emissions. Fuel properties remained unchanged from base

year estimates, except for the nonroad diesel sulfur level which was set to 15 ppm for 2015 and

2023 as required by the federal Tier 4 nonroad diesel rule.

7 .1.4.2 Aircraft

Aircraft emissions were projected to future years from the 2008 emissions, by airport and

aircraft type, using LTO forecasts available from the FAA

. Aircraft and APU emission factors

were assumed to be unchang ed over time. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

has promulgated NO

x 

### and CO emission standards for commercial aircraft ( exempting general

aviation and military engines from the rule ) (ICAO, 1998) ; th e majority of engines are already

meet ing this standard. U.S. EPA officially promulgated the ICAO standards for air carriers in a

final rule in November 2005.

The historic and projected LTO data by airport are available online from the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Fore cast (TA F) database for all aircraft

categories for which emissions were estimated (FAA, 2008) . Projected LTO data for years 2015,

2023, and historic data for 2008 were used to develop future year growth factors for all aircraft

types by airport. Growth factors were calculated as the ratio of the sum of LTOs by airport and

aircraft type in each future year to the sum of LTOs by airport and aircraft type in 2008. For

airports that were included in the 2008 analysis, but are not in the FAA TAF database, gr owth

factors were calculated as the ratio of the sum of LTOs by aircraft type in each future year over

the entire Treasure Valley study region to the sum of LTOs by aircraft type in 2008 over the

entire Treasure Valley study region. These future year grow th factors were then applied to 2008

emission estimates by airport and aircraft type to develop future year emission inventories. Base

year LTOs and future year growth factors are shown in Table 7

- 3

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 11 Auxiliary power unit activity growth was assumed equiva lent to commercial aircraft

activity growth estimates. Airport GSE engines are subject to U.S. EPA nonroad engine

standards . F leet turnover to newer, engines meeting more stringent standards over time will

decrease fleetwide airport GSE emission rates ov er time. Therefore, airport GSE projection

factors must incorporate estimates of both activity growth and fleetwide emission rate decreases

due to fleet turnover. Airport GSE fleetwide emission rate decreases were calculated based on

the N ONROAD model es timates of emission changes by fuel type in airport GSE emissions due

to fleet turnover. To incorporate future year activity growth in airport GSE, commercial aircraft

growth rates were applied.

Table 7

- 3 . Base Y ear A ircraft LTO A ctivity D ata and F uture Y ear P rojection

F actors

Airport Commercial

Aircraft Air Taxi Aircraft General Aviation

Aircraft Military Aircraft

2008 LTOs

Boise Air Terminal/Gowen

Field 20,636 12,804 36,557 6,158

Caldwell Industrial 0 2,000 67,486 0 Nampa Municipal 0 0 54,813 50

M ountain Home Municipal 0 254 9,657 500

Other a irports not in TAF

database a 14 0 46,578 0

2015/2008 LTOs

Boise Air Terminal/Gowen

Field 105% 67% 95% 104%

Caldwell Industrial

- 100% 118% 100% Nampa Municipal

- - 123% 100% Mountain Home Municipal

- 100% 114% 100%

Other a irports not in TAF

database a 105%

- 113% 104%

2023/2008 LTOs

Boise Air Terminal/Gowen

Field 130% 88% 116% 104%

Caldwell Industrial

- 100% 141% 100% Nampa Municipal

- - 157% 100% Mountain Home Municipal

- 100% 131% 100%

Other a irpor ts not in TAF

database a 130%

- 138% 104%

a Emissions projected for these airports based on estimated projections of total activity at the four airports for which data w as
available from FAA’s TAF database



### 7 .1.4.3 Locomotives

Future year locomotive emissi on estimates were based on projections of activity growth

and emission reductions. The activity growth was forecasted on the basis fuel consumption. The

emission reduction forecasts account primarily for the fleet turnover and the lower emission2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 12 standard s, which were based on data available in EPA documents (U.S. EPA, 1997a; U.S. EPA,

1997b ; U.S. EPA, 2008).

A fuel consumption trend was estimated using a least squares regression analysis of

annual fuel consumption obtained from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) for six

years between 1999 and 2008 (AAR, 2009). Within the study domain the only Class 1 railroad

operating was Union Pacific (UP). To accurately forecast activity, UP nationwide fuel

consumption was analyzed (see Table 7

- 4 ). The UP da ta were also used to forecast the Idaho

Northern Pacific Railroad and switching locomotive emissions; it is expected that the short

- line

and switching activity will have similar growth to the estimates for the mainline railroad (i.e.,

UP) that operates in the study domain. Based on the least squares linear regression analysis, a

growth rate of 4,264,472 gallons of fuel per year was estimated.

Table 7

- 4. Union Pacific Historic Fuel Consumption

Year Fuel (gallons)

1999 1,252,111,733

2002 1,325,049,398

200 5 1,362,933,944

2006 1,382,778,469

2007 1,338,300,581

2008 1,240,874,008



### The growth rate was applied to the 2008 fuel consumption to generate 2015 and 2023

estimates of 1,270,725,311 gallons and 1,304,841,085 gallons, respectively. The 2015 and 2023

fu el consumption estimates represent a 2.40% and 5.16% increase from 2008, respectively.

The emission reduction estimates were based on the U.S. EPA line

- haul and switching

locomotive forecasted emission reductions relative to the locomotive fleets (U.S. EPA , 1997a;

U.S. EPA, 1997b; U.S. EPA, 2008). Based on the U.S. EPA reports estimates of future year

average emissions by the fleet type, representative emissions reductions from 2008 to 2015 and

2008 to 2023 were extracted.

7 .1.5 Biogenic Sources

Although i t is expected that there will be year

- to

- year variability in biogenic emissions, it

is not possible to predict this variability. Therefore, the 2008 biogenic emission estimates were

also used for the 2015 and 2023 emission inventories.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 13 7.2 2015

, 2023 , and 20 5 0 Inventory Summaries

Using all of the projection factors described in Section 7 .1, the 2015 and 2023 projected

emissions inventories were developed. In addition VMT projections to 2050 were used to project

on

- road and paved road dust emissions only to 20 50 to support conformity evaluations of the

COMPASS long

- range transportation plans. County

- level summaries of these inventories by

source type are provided in this section. For ease of comparison, the 2008 county

- level

summaries are also presented. The annual summaries are presented in Tables 7

- 5 (2008), 7

- 6

(2015), 7

- 7 (2023)

, and 7

- 8 (2050) . The ozone season summaries are provided in Tables 7

- 9

(2008), 7

- 10 (2015)

, 7

- 11 (2023)

, and 7

- 12 (2050)

, while the PM season summaries are shown in

Tables 7

- 13 ( 2008), 7

- 14 (2015), 7

- 15 (2023 ) , and 7

- 16 (2050). Note, all values updated in these

tables are shown in italic . T he totals and subtotals are updated as well

, shown in bold and italic.

The inventory summaries presented in Tables 7

- 5 through 7

- 16 reflect fou r categories of

revisions that DEQ made to the emissions inventories in 2012 during preparation of the

Northern Ada County PM 10 

### Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update :

1. On

- road emissions of all pollutants were revised using the MOVES model;

2. Area source emis sions were updated to include revisions to the paved road dust

emissions included in th e area source category;

3. Area source SO 2 

### emissions included in the o zone season summary tables contained

calculation error

s in the o zone season d istillate c ombustion w orksheets prepared by

ERG/Environ. These errors have been corrected.

4. DEQ projected 2015 on

- road and paved road dust emission s to 2050 using

COMPASS VMT projections and 2015 emission estimates.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 14 Table 7

- 5 . 2008 County

- Level Annual Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source

Type NO

x

(tpy) SO 2

(tpy) VOC

(tpy) CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)

Ada Point 355.6 65.70 268.1 198.5 169.1 142.6 46.0

Area a 920.7 26.90 12

, 962.8 7

, 715.1 19

, 555.0 3

, 552.0 3

, 995.3

On

- Road a 9

, 775.4 67.40 4

, 182.3 47

, 168.3 412.7 330.4 152.9

Nonroad 2

, 894.6 90.40 2

, 031.2 24

, 870.5 257.8 244.8 2.8

Biogenic 202.3 0.00 12

, 802.5 2

, 246.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 14

, 148.6 250.40 32

, 246.9 82

, 198.9 20

, 394.6 4

, 269.8 4

, 197.0

Canyon Point 1

, 356.5 2

, 007.30 303.4 1

, 044.7 495.9 277.8 420.6

Area a 545.8 19.10 7

, 507.9 7

, 221.7 41

, 974.4 9

, 372.2 7

, 726.9

On

- Road a 5

, 847.8 35.00 3

, 202.1 36

, 404.4 258.2 212.1 81.8

Nonroad 1

, 878.3 47.90 754.1 8

, 251.3 174.7 164.0 1.8

Biogenic 283.9 0.00 8

, 902.4 1

, 650.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 9

, 912.3 2

, 109.30 20

, 669.9 54

, 572.3 42

, 903.2 10

, 026.1 8

, 231.1

Elmore Point 360.3 2.50 26.6 105.3 135.9 58.7 0.0

Area 80.5 5.80 1

, 730.0 1

, 595.8 22

, 491.9 2

, 806.1 4

, 812.3

On

- Road a 576.6 3.10 529.8 5

, 460.8 14.7 9.3 30.7

Nonroad 914.8 16.10 368.6 1

, 873 .0 56.8 53.6 0.7

Biogenic 465.2 0.00 30

, 982.3 6

, 425.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 2

, 397.4 27.50 33

, 637.3 15

, 459.9 22

, 699.3 2

, 927.7 4

, 843.7

Total Point 2

, 072.4 2

, 075.40 598.1 1

, 348.5 800.9 479.0 466.6

Area a 1

, 547.1 51.80 22

, 200.7 16

, 532.7 84

, 021.3 15

, 730.3 16

, 534.5

On

- Road a 16

, 199.8 105.50 7

, 914.2 89

, 033.5 685.6 551.8 265.4

Nonroad 5

, 687.6 154.50 3

, 153.8 34

, 994.8 489.3 462.4 5.4

Biogenic 951.4 0.00 52

, 687.2 10

, 321.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 26

, 458.3 2

, 387.20 86

, 554.0 152

, 231.2 85

, 997.1 17

, 223.5 17

, 271.9

a On

- road emission estimates were revised in 2012 for the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan

Ten

- Year Update

. Ada and Canyon counties on

- road emissions values and paved road dust emissions ( PM 10 and

PM 2.5 in Area category) are from Appendi x E of th e Ten

- Year Update

, entitled “ Development of the Base

- and

Future

- Year Mobile Source Emission Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho ." Elmore County emissions were

not revised. Table values revised in 2012 are shown in italic.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 15 Table 7

- 6 . 2015 County

- Level Annual Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source

Type NO

x

(tpy) SO 2

(tpy) VOC

(tpy) CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)

Ada Point 355.6 65.70 268.1 198.5 169.1 142.6 46.0

Area a 900.0 23.60 14

, 551.2 6

, 885.8 21

, 107.4 3

, 651.0 4

, 143.2

On

- Road a 5

, 856.6 33.40 2

, 939.7 39

, 263.4 283.0 193.0 126.4

Nonroad 1

, 979.8 28.20 1

, 480.7 21

, 192.5 196.9 185.8 3.2

Biogenic 202.3 0.00 12

, 802.5 2

, 246.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 9

, 294.3 150.90 32

, 042.2 69

, 786.7 21

, 756.4 4

, 172.4 4

, 318.8

Ca nyon Point 1

, 365.9 2

, 007.30 303.9 1

, 054.8 500.3 282.1 420.6

Area a 509.7 16.70 7

, 690.9 6

, 310.3 8

, 494.0 2

, 025.6 7

, 907.8

On

- Road a 3

, 870.5 17.70 2

, 177.2 27

, 974.3 178.4 127.6 74.4

Nonroad 1

, 351.8 6.60 546.1 7

, 047.7 126.9 116.8 2.0

Biogenic 283.9 0.0 0 8

, 902.4 1

, 650.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 7

, 381.8 2

, 048.30 19

, 620.5 44

, 037.3 9

, 299.6 2

, 552.1 8

, 404.8

Elmore Point 360.3 2.50 26.6 105.3 135.9 58.7 0.0

Area 74.0 5.30 1

, 781.0 1

, 412.5 22

, 923.7 2

, 876.3 4

, 636.3

On

- Road 425.7 4.60 458.9 6

, 040.8 15.8 8.3 46. 9

Nonroad 701.7 7.30 260.1 1

, 723.9 39.7 37.0 0.8

Biogenic 465.2 0.00 30

, 982.3 6

, 425.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 2

, 026.9 19.70 33

, 508.9 15

, 707.5 23

, 115.1 2

, 980.3 4

, 684.0

Total Point 2

, 081.8 2

, 075.50 598.6 1

, 358.6 805.3 483.3 466.6

Area a 1

, 483.7 45.60 2 4

, 023.1 14

, 608.6 52

, 525.1 8

, 552.8 16

, 687.3

On

- Road a 10

, 152.8 55.70 5

, 575.8 7

, 3278.5 477.2 328.9 247.7

Nonroad 4

, 033.2 42.10 2

, 286.8 2

, 9964.1 363.6 339.6 6.0

Biogenic 951.4 0.00 52

, 687.2 10

, 321.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 18

, 702.9 2

, 218.90 85

, 171.5 129

, 531.5 54

, 171.2 9

, 704.6 1

, 7407.6

a On

- road emission estimates were revised in 2012 for the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan

Ten

- Year Update . Ada and Canyon counties on

- road emissions values and paved road dust emissions (PM 10 and

PM 2.5 in Area category) are from Appendix E of th e Ten

- Year Update

, entitled “ Development of the Base

- and

Future

- Year Mobile Source Emission Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho. ” Elmore County emissions were

not revised. Table values revised in 2012 are sho wn in italic

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 16 Table 7

- 7 . 2023 County

- Level Annual Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source

Type NO

x SO 2 (tpy) VOC

(tpy) CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)

Ada Point 391.2 72.30 294.9 218.4 186.0 156.8 50.6

Area a 951.9 23 .80 18

, 062.8 7

, 146.3 25

, 267.1 4

, 072.7 4

, 207.4

On

- Road a 4

, 306.4 42.00 2

, 396.8 38

, 771.8 285.2 157.1 146.6

Nonroad 1

, 355.0 33.80 1

, 407.9 22

, 622.6 135.8 125.9 3.6

Biogenic 202.3 0.00 12

, 802.5 2

, 246.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 7

, 206.8 171.90 34

, 964.9 71

, 005 .6 25

, 874.1 4

, 512.5 4

, 408.2

Canyon Point 1

, 497.7 2

, 208.00 334.0 1

, 155.2 548.1 308.1 462.7

Area a 519.3 16.90 8

, 820.6 6

, 469.1 11

, 753.2 2

, 260.0 7

, 930.7

On

- Road a 3

, 273.6 25.10 1

, 935.0 27

, 684.6 191.5 112.3 95.0

Nonroad 860.7 6.90 504.2 7

, 402.5 83.6 73 .5 2.3

Biogenic 283.9 0.00 8

, 902.4 1

, 650.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 6

, 435.2 2

, 256.90 2

, 0496.2 4

, 4361.6 12

, 576.4 2

, 753.9 8

, 490.7

Elmore Point 396.3 2.70 29.3 115.8 149.5 64.5 0.0

Area 75.2 5.40 1

, 900.3 1

, 459.2 23

, 710.4 30

, 66.6 4

, 639.0

On

- Road 340.6 6. 50 422.6 7

, 416.2 19.8 9.4 66.0

Nonroad 457.5 7.60 191.7 1

, 714.4 25.0 22.5 0.8

Biogenic 465.2 0.00 30

, 982.3 6

, 425.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 1

, 734.8 22.20 33

, 526.2 17

, 130.6 23

, 904.7 3

, 163.0 4

, 705.8

Total Point 2

, 285.3 2

, 283.00 6

, 58.2 1

, 489.4 883.6 529.5 513.2

Area a 1

, 546.4 46.10 28

, 783.7 15

, 074.6 60

, 730.6 9

, 399.3 16

, 777.1

On

- Road a 7

, 920.6 73.60 4

, 754.4 73

, 872.6 496.5 278.8 307.6

Nonroad 2

, 673.1 48.30 2

, 103.8 31

, 739.4 244.5 222.0 6.8

Biogenic 951.4 0.00 52

, 687.2 10

, 321.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 15

, 376.8 2

, 451.00 88

, 987.3 132

, 497.7 62

, 355.2 10

, 429.6 17

, 604.7

a On

- road emission estimates were revised in 2012 for the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan

Ten

- Year Update . Ada and Canyon counties on

- road emissions values and paved road dust emissions (PM 10 and

PM 2.5 in Area category) are from Appendix E of th e Ten

- Year Update , entitled” Development of the Base

- and

Future

- Year Mobile Source Emission Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho. ” Elmore County emissions were

not revised. Table values revised in 2012 are shown in italic

.



### Table 7

- 8. 20 5 0 County

- Level Annual On

- Road Emissions for Ada Count y

County Source Type NO

x (tpy) SO 2

(tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10

(tpy) PM 2.5

(tpy) NH 3

(tpy)

Ada On

- Road (MOVES) a 12

, 494 71.3 6

, 271 83

, 763 60 3.7 411.8 269.7

Ada Paved Road Dust a N/A N/A N/A N/A 19,550 N/A N/A

Ada Unpaved Road Dust a N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,795 N/A N/A

a For conformity demonstration in the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Update

. Projected by scaling 2015 e missions using 2050/2015 ratio VMT projected by COMPASS.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 17 Table 7

- 9 . 2008 County

- Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source

Type NO

x

(tpd) SO 2 VOC (tpd) CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 (tpd) (tpd) (tpd) (tpd) (tpd)

Ada Point 1.0 0.20 0 .7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.1

Area a 1.4 0.04 33.7 4.8 43.6 6.6 12.7

On

- Road b 28.5 0.20 10.9 110.9 1.1 0.9 0.5

Nonroad 10.1 0.30 7.2 85.6 0.9 0.9 0.0

Biogenic 0.7 0.00 55.6 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 41.7 0.74 108.1 211.3 46.1 8.7 13.3

Canyon Point 3.5 5.20 0.8 2.1 1.3 0.7 1.1

Area a 0.9 0.02 18.4 3.8 13.0 2.8 23.8

On

- Road b 16.7 0.1 8.4 87.9 0.65 0.52 0.24

Nonroad 6.8 0.20 2.8 29.2 0.7 0.6 0.0

Biogenic 1.0 0.00 38.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 28.9 5.52 68.9 129.9 15.6 4.6 25.1

Elmore Point 1.0 0.00 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0

Area a 0.1 0.01 4.5 1.4 73.5 8.3 15.2

On

- Road 1.5 0.00 1.5 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Nonroad 3.0 0.10 1.7 8.1 0.2 0.2 0.0

Biogenic 1.7 0.00 132.4 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 7.3 0.11 140.2 47.5 74.1 8.7 15.3

Total Point 5.5 5.40 1.6 3 .0 2.2 1.3 1.2

Area a 2.4 0.06 56.6 10.1 130.0 17.6 51.8

On

- Road b 46.7 0.3 20.8 209.8 1.7 1.4 0.8

Nonroad 19.8 0.60 11.7 122.8 1.8 1.7 0.0

Biogenic 3.4 0.00 226.5 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 77.8 6.36 317.2 388.7 135.8 22.0 53.8

a Small errors in ozone season distillate combustion sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions were corrected.

b On

- road emission estimates were revised in 2012 for the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan

Ten

- Year Update . Ada and Canyon counties on

- road emissions values and paved road dust emissions (PM 10 and

PM 2.5 in Area category) are from Appendix E of th e Ten

- Year Update

, entitled “ Development of the Base

- and

Future

- Year Mobile Source Emission Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho .” Elmore County on

- road and

pa ved road emissions were not revised. Table values revised in 2012 are shown in italic

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 18 Table 7

- 10 . 2015 County

- Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source

Type NO

x

(tpd) SO 2

(tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 (tpd) (tpd) (tpd)

Ada Point 1.0 0.20 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.1

Area a 1.3 0.03 38.4 4.7 45.6 7.1 13.1

On

- Road b 16.9 0.10 7.7 83.8 0.7 0.5 0.37

Nonroad 6.8 0.10 5.2 72.6 0.7 0.7 0

Biogenic 0.7 0.00 55.6 9.4 0.0 0.0 0

Total 26.7 0.43 107.6 171.1 47.5 8.6 13.57

Canyon Point 3.5 5.20 0.8 2.1 1.3 0.7 1.1

Area a 0.9 0.01 19.3 3.5 14.5 2.9 24.3

On

- Road b 11.0 0.05 5.7 61.1 0.5 0.3 0.22

Nonroad 4.9 0.00 2.0 24.6 0.5 0.4 0

Biogenic 1.0 0.00 38.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 0

Total 21.3 5.26 66.3 98.2 16.8 4.3 25.6 2

Elmore Point 1.0 0.00 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0

Area a 0.1 0.01 4.7 1.3 74.1 8.4 14.8

On

- Road 1.1 0.00 1.3 11.8 0.1 0 0.1

Nonroad 2.3 0.00 1.1 7.4 0.1 0.1 0

Biogenic 1.7 0.00 132.4 26.7 0 0 0

Total 6.20 0.01 139.60 47.50 74.70 8.70 14.90

Total Po int 5.5 5.40 1.6 3 2.2 1.3 1.2

Area a 2.3 0.1 62.4 9.5 134.2 18.4 52.2

On

- Road b 29.0 0.15 14.7 156.7 1.3 0.8 0.7

Nonroad 14 0.10 8.3 104.6 1.3 1.2 0

Biogenic 3.4 0.00 226.5 43 0 0 0

Total 54 5.70 314 317 139 22 54

a Small errors in ozone sea son distillate combustion sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions were corrected.

b On

- road emission estimates were revised in 2012 for the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan

Ten

- Year Update . Ada and Canyon counties on

- road emissions values and paved road dust emissions (PM 10 and

PM 2.5 in Area category) are from Appendix E of th e Ten

- Year Update

, entitled “ Development of the Base

- and

Future

- Year Mobile Source Emission Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho. ” Elmore County on

- road and paved road e missions were not revised. Table values revised in 2012 are shown in itali c

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 19 Table 7

- 1 1 . 2023 County

- Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source

Type NO

x

(tpd) SO 2

(tpd) VOC (tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 (tpd) (tpd) (tpd )

Ada Point 1.1 0.20 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.1

Area a 1.4 0.03 48.0 5.1 51.2 7.8 13.3

On

- Road b 12.4 0.12 6.6 78.5 0.8 0.4 0.4

Nonroad 4.5 0.10 4.8 77.0 0.5 0.4 0.0

Biogenic 0.7 0.00 55.6 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 20.1 0.45 115.8 170.6 52.9 9.0 13.8

Canyon Point 3.9 5.70 0.9 2.3 1.5 0.8 1.2

Area a 0.9 0.01 22.3 3.6 18.5 3.2 24.4

On

- Road b 9.2 0.07 5.2 57.2 0.5 0.3 0.3

Nonroad 3.1 0.00 1.7 25.4 0.3 0.3 0.0

Biogenic 1.0 0.00 38.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 18.1 5.78 68.6 95.4 20.8 4.5 25.9

Elmo re Point 1.1 0.00 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0

Area a 0.1 0.01 5.0 1.4 74.5 8.6 14.8

On

- Road 0.9 0.00 1.2 14.5 0.1 0.0 0.2

Nonroad 1.5 0.00 0.8 7.2 0.1 0.1 0.0

Biogenic 1.7 0.00 132.4 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 5.3 0.01 139.5 50.2 75.1 8.9 15.0

Total Poi nt 6.0 5.90 1.8 3.3 2.4 1.4 1.3

Area a 2.4 0.1 75.3 10.1 144.2 19.6 52.4

On

- Road b 22.5 0.19 13.0 150.2 1.3 0.6 0.9

Nonroad 9.1 0.10 7.3 109.6 0.9 0.8 0.0

Biogenic 3.4 0.00 226.5 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 43.4 6.24 323.9 316.2 148.9 22.4 54.6

a Small errors in ozone season distillate combustion sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions were corrected.

b On

- road emission estimates were revised in 2012 for the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan

Ten

- Year Update . Ada and Canyon counties on

- road e missions values and paved road dust emissions (PM 10 and

PM 2.5 in Area category) are from Appendix E of th e Ten

- Year Update

, entitled “ Development of the Base

- and

Future

- Year Mobile Source Emission Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho. ” Elmore County on

- road and paved road emissions were not revised. Table values revised in 2012 are shown in italic

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 20 Table 7

- 12. 20 5 0 Ozone Season On

- Road Emissions for Ada County

County Source Type NO

x (tpd) SO 2

(tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10

(tpd) PM 2.5

(tpd) NH 3

(tpd)

Ada On

- Road (MOVES) a 36.1 0.21 16.4 178.9 1.6 1.02 0.79

Ada Paved Road Dust a N/A N/A N/A N/A 26.5 N/A N/A

Ada Unpaved Road Dust a N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.6 N/A N/A

a For conformity demonstration in the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Y ear Update

. Projected by scaling 2015 emissions using 2050/2015 ratio VMT projected by COMPASS.



### Table 7

- 1 3 . 2008 County

- Level PM Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source

Type NO

x

(tpd) SO 2

(tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 (tpd) (tpd) (tpd)

Ada Point 1.0 0.20 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1

Area a 4.4 0.10 39.1 49.7 67.6 15.1 8.5

On

- Road a 24.0 0.16 12.3 156.4 1.2 1.0 0.4

Nonroad 5.6 0.20 4.4 62.5 0.4 0.4 0.0

Biogenic 0.3 0.00 5.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 35.3 0.66 62.3 270. 6 69.7 16.9 9.0

Canyon Point 4.4 6.50 0.9 4.8 1.5 0.8 1.3

Area a 2.4 0.10 24.4 46.2 32.0 10.6 17.7

On

- Road a 14.8 0.09 9.3 117.1 0.8 0.7 0.2

Nonroad 2.9 0.10 1.4 18.9 0.2 0.2 0.0

Biogenic 0.4 0.00 4.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 24.9 6.79 40.2 188. 1 34.5 12.2 19.2

Elmore Point 1.0 0.00 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0

Area 0.4 0.00 5.1 9.0 47.2 7.1 10.5

On

- Road 1.6 0.00 1.1 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

Nonroad 1.9 0.00 0.5 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

Biogenic 0.7 0.00 17.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 5.6 0.00 24.1 34.2 47.7 7 .4 10.6

Total Point 6.4 6.70 1.6 5.5 2.3 1.4 1.5

Area a 7.1 0.30 68.6 104.9 146.8 32.7 36.7

On

- Road a 40.4 0.25 22.7 290.7 2.0 1.7 0.7

Nonroad 10.4 0.30 6.3 84.5 0.7 0.7 0.0

Biogenic 1.4 0.00 27.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 65.7 7.55 126.5 492.9 1 51.7 36.5 38.9

a On

- road emission estimates were revised in 2012 for the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan

Ten

- Year Update . Ada and Canyon counties on

- road emissions values and paved road dust emissions (PM 10 and

PM 2.5 in Area category) ar e from Appendix E of th e Ten

- Year Update

, entitled “ Development of the Base

- and

Future

- Year Mobile Source Emission Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho .” Elmore County emissions

were not revised. Table values revised in 2012 are shown in italic

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 21 Ta ble 7

- 1 4

. 2015 County

- Level PM Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source

Type NO

x

(tpd) SO 2

(tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 (tpd) (tpd) (tpd)

Ada Point 1.0 0.20 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1

Area a 4.3 0.10 42.8 43.5 75.0 14.9 8.9

On

- Road a 14.7 0.08 8.7 144.3 0.8 0.6 0.3

Nonroad 3.8 0.10 3.3 54.5 0.3 0.3 0.0

Biogenic 0.3 0.00 5.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 24.1 0.48 61.3 244.3 76.6 16.2 9.3

Canyon Point 4.4 6.50 0.9 4.8 1.5 0.8 1.3

Area a 2.3 0.10 24.2 40.0 36.2 9.7 18.2

On

- Road a 9.9 0.05 6.5 100.6 0.6 0.4 0.2

Nonroad 2.0 0.00 1.1 16.6 0.2 0.2 0.0

Biogenic 0.4 0.00 4.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 19.0 6.65 36.9 163.1 38.5 11.2 19.7

Elmore Point 1.0 0.00 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0

Area 0.3 0.00 5.2 7.9 48.5 7.2 10.0

O n

- Road 1.2 0.00 0.9 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.1

Nonroad 1.5 0.00 0.4 2.9 0.1 0.1 0.0

Biogenic 0.7 0.00 17.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 4.7 0.00 23.9 34.5 49.0 7.5 10.1

Total Point 6.4 6.70 1.6 5.5 2.3 1.4 1.5

Area a 6.8 0.20 72.2 91.4 159.7 31.8 37.1

On

- Roa d a 25.8 0.13 16.0 263.7 1.4 1.0 0.6

Nonroad 7.3 0.10 4.8 74.0 0.6 0.5 0.0

Biogenic 1.4 0.00 27.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 47.7 7.13 121.9 441.9 164.0 34.7 39.2

a On

- road emission estimates were revised in 2012 for the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limite d Maintenance Plan

Ten

- Year Update . Ada and Canyon counties on

- road emissions values and paved road dust emissions (PM 10 and

PM 2.5 in Area category) are from Appendix E of th e Ten

- Year Update

, entitled “ Development of the Base

- and

Future

- Year Mobile Source Emission Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho ." Elmore County emissions

were not revised. Table values revised in 2012 are shown in itali c

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 7

- 22 Table 7

- 1 5 . 2023 County

- Level PM Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source

Type NO

x

(tpd) SO 2

(tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 (tpd) (tpd) (tpd)

Ada Point 1.1 0.20 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1

Area a 4.5 0.10 52.6 44.8 94.7 16.6 9.1

On

- Road a 10.9 0.10 6.6 149.7 0.8 0.5 0.4

Nonroad 2.8 0.10 3.3 59.2 0.2 0.2 0.0

Biogenic 0.3 0. 00 5.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 19.6 0.50 69.1 255.7 96.3 17.7 9.6

Canyon Point 4.9 7.20 0.9 5.3 1.6 0.9 1.5

Area a 2.3 0.10 27.4 41.0 52.0 10.9 18.3

On

- Road a 8.5 0.06 5.5 105.3 0.6 0.4 0.2

Nonroad 1.3 0.00 1.1 18.0 0.1 0.1 0.0

Biogenic 0.4 0.0 0 4.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 17.4 7.36 39.1 170.7 54.3 12.3 20.0

Elmore Point 1.1 0.00 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0

Area 0.3 0.00 5.5 8.1 51.4 7.9 10.0

On

- Road 0.9 0.00 0.9 23.0 0.1 0.0 0.2

Nonroad 1.0 0.00 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Biogenic 0 .7 0.00 17.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 4.0 0.00 24.1 39.2 51.9 8.1 10.2

Total Point 7.0 7.40 1.8 6.0 2.5 1.5 1.6

Area a 7.2 0.30 85.5 93.9 198.1 35.4 37.4

On

- Road a 20.3 0.16 12.9 278.0 1.5 0.9 0.8

Nonroad 5.1 0.10 4.7 80.3 0.4 0.4 0.0

Biogenic 1 .4 0.00 27.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 41.0 7.96 132.2 465.5 202.5 38.2 39.8

a On

- road emission estimates were revised in 2012 for the No rthern Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan

Ten

- Year Update . Ada and Canyon counties on

- road emissions values and paved road dus t emissions (PM 10 and

PM 2.5 in Area category) are from Appendix E of th e Ten

- Year Update

, entitled “ Development of the Base

- and

Future

- Year Mobile Source Emission Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho. ” Elmore County emissions

were not revised. Tabl e values revised in 2012 are shown in italic

.



### Table 7

- 16. 20 5 0 County

- Level PM Season On

- Road Emissions for Ada County

County Source Type NO

x (tpd) SO 2

(tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) PM 10

(tpd) PM 2.5

(tpd) NH 3

(tpd)

Ada On

- Road (MOVES) a 31.3 0.18 18.5 307. 8 1.8 1.3 0.66

Ada Paved Road Dust a N/A N/A N/A N/A 91.9 N/A N/A

Ada Unpaved Road Dust a N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.1 N/A N/A

a For conformity demonstration in the N orther n Ada County PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan Ten

- Year Upate. Projected by scaling 2015 emissio ns using 2050/2015 ratio VMT projected by COMPASS.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 8

- 1 8.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY DATA FORMATTING

As indicated in the discussion of contract scope in Section 1.2, all contract tasks have

been completed. The emissions results presented in this final report have been generated using

either calculation spreadsheets or computer models.

In order to facilitate their use in air quality models, the relevant emissions data w ere

exported to ASCII comma

- delimited (.csv) files for re

- formatting as input files to the Sparse

Matr ix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) model . Relevant parameters include d pollutant

emissions (i.e., annual, ozone season daily, and PM season daily), pollutant codes, SCCs, and

county FIPS codes. For stationary point sources, information related to stack parameters and

operating schedules were also needed. Where applicable, local temporal and speciation profiles

w ere also provided in spreadsheet format . Computer scripts developed with Perl were then used

to re

- format emissions data for SMOKE. These scr ipt procedures were implemented by

ENVIRON, who routinely performs these procedures and has developed a robust set of scripts,

including limited internal data consistency checks, to accomplish this task.

Besides the final emissions inventory report, all in ventory data (i.e., supporting data,

spreadsheets

, SMOKE

- ready files, and all other ancillary information needed to duplicate the

emissions inventory ) have also been submitted to DEQ. The level of detail provided by t he

ERG/ENVIRON team ensure s a transpar ent and defensible inventory that DEQ will be able to

understand and replicate.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 8

- 22008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 1 9.0 REFERENCES

AAR, 2009. Analysis of Class 1 Railroad, 2008 . Association of American Railroads.

Alfaro, S.C. and Gomes, L., 2001. “Modeling mineral aerosol production by w ind erosion:

emission intensities and aerosol size distributions in source areas.” J. Geophys. Res. 106 (16):

18075

- 18084.

Alfaro, S.C., Rajot, J.L., and Nickling, W.G., 2004. “Estimation of PM20 emissions by wind

erosion: main sources of uncertainties.” Geomorphology 59: 63

- 74.

Amick, 2010. Personal communication between Doug Amick (Greenleaf Deparment of Public Services) and John Grant (ENVIRON). April.

Anderson, 2010. Personal communication between John Anderson (Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Distric t) and Marty Wolf (ERG). January 26.

Aurora, 2010. State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality’s Residential Wood Combustion Inventory Survey: Treasure Valley Airshed. August 2008 to July 2009 . Final Report. Aurora Research Group, Sacramento, CA. January.

Baker, 2010. Personal communication between Carla Baker (City of Caldwell) and John Grant (ENVIRON). April.

Barnard, 2003. Personal communication between Bill Barnard (MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Gainesville, FL) and Gerry Mansell (E NVIRON). April.

Barr , 2010. Personal communication between Don Barr (City of Nampa Public Works Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23

.

Battye, W., V.P. Aneja, and P.A. Roelle, 2003. “Evaluation and improvement of ammonia

emission inventories.” Atmospheric Environment 37: 3873

- 3883.

Bequeath, 2010. Personal communication between Casey Bequeath (Nampa Highway District) and John Grant (ENVIRON). April.

Boise, 2010. Boise City Code. Internet address: http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/ City _Clerk/CityCode/

Bowman, 2010 a . Personal communication between Von Bowman ( Notus

- Parma Highway

District No. 2 ) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.

Bowman , 2010 b . Personal communication between Von Bowman ( Notus

- Parma Highway

District No. 2 ) and Marty Wol f (ERG). August 2 4

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 2 BTS, 2009. National Transportation Atlas Database . Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Internet Address: http://www.bts.gov/ publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/

Caldwell , 2010. Personal communication between City of Caldwell Streets Department and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 24

.

CARB, 1997. “Section 7.11

– Supplemental Documentation for Windblown Dust

– Agricultural

Lands.” Area Source Methods . California Air Resources Board, Emission Inventory Analysis Section, Sacramento, CA. April.

CARB, 2003a. “Section 7.4

– Agricultural Land Preparation.” Area Source Methods

. California Air Resources Board, Emission Inventory Analysis Section, Sacramento, CA.

Janua ry.

CARB, 2003 b . “Section 7.5

– Agricultural Harvest Operations.” Area Source Methods

. California Air Resources Board, Emission Inventory Analysis Section, Sacramento, CA. January.

CARB, 2004. “Section 7.6

– Livestock Husbandry.” Area Source Meth ods . California Air Resources Board, Emission Inventory Analysis Section, Sacramento, CA. May.

Chase, 2010. Personal communication between Doug Chase (Idaho Transportation Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.

Chatenet, B., Marticorena, B., Gome s, L., and Bergametti, G., 1996. “Assessing the microped size distributions of desert soils erodible by wind.” Sedimentology 43: 901

- 911.

Chinkin, L.R., P.A. Ryan, and D.L. Coe, 2003. Recommended Improvements to the CMU Ammonia Emission Inventory Model for Use by LADCO . Prepared for Lake Michigan Air

Directors Consortium.

Chitjian, M., J. Koizumi, C.W. Botsford, G. Mansell, and E. Winegar, 2000. 1997 Gridded Ammonia Emissions Inventory Update for the South Coast Air Basin . Final Report. Prepared fo r the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Chitjian, M. and G. Mansell, 2003a. An Improved Ammonia Inventory for the WRAP Domain

– Literature Review . Prepared for the WRAP Emissions Forum. October.

Chitjian, M. and G. Mansell, 2003b. An Imp roved Ammonia Inventory for the WRAP Domain

– Technical Description of the Modeling System

. Prepared for the WRAP Emissions Forum.

November.

COMPASS, 2005. Particulate Matter Air Quality Conformity Demonstration of the FY 2006

- 2010 Northern Ada County TIP . Report No. 11

- 2005. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho. September.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 3 COMPASS, 2010. Ada and Canyon county population forecasts for 2015, 2020, and 2025. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS).

DenBleyker, A., A. P ollack, J. Grant, and M. Jimenez, 2010. Peer Review of CONCEPT

- MV

Work . Technical memorandum prepared for Christopher Ramsdell, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. May 21.

DEQ , 2006. 2005 Mobile Sources Emissions Inventory Report . Internal Tec hnical

Memorandum prepared for Christopher Ramsdell by Jen Cole. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. October.

DEQ, 2012. Base

- and Future

- Year Mobile Source Emissions Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho. Idaho Department of Environmental Q uality. July.

Economy.com, 2010. 4

- digit NAICS

- level Industrial Output Projections in Constant 2000 Dollars. Moody’s Economy.com, West Chester, PA. May.

ECR, 2005. Improving Model Inventory Data: Temporal Profiles, Final Technical Report

. February.

EEA, 2002. Joint EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook, Third

Edition. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.

EIA, 2010. Annual Energy Outlook 2010 . DOE/EIA

- 0383(2010). Energy Information Administration. April.

EIIP, 199 7a. Volume V

I , Chapter 2

– Planning and Documentation . Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). January.

EIIP, 1997 b

. Volume III, Chapter 14

– Traffic Marking . Final. Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). May.

EIIP, 1999. Volume I

II, Area Source Method Abstract

– Bakeries . Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) . June 21

EIIP, 2000. Volume III, Area Source Method Abstract

– Vehicle Fires . Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) . May 15.

EIIP, 2001a. Volume III, Chapter 17

– Asphalt Paving . Revised Final. Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). January.

EIIP, 2001b. Volume III, Chapter 11

- Gasoline Marketing (Stage I and Stage II) . Revised Final. Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). Jan uary.

EIIP, 2001c. Volume III, Chapter 18

– Structure Fires . Revised Final. Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). January.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 4 EIIP, 2003. Volume IX (Fugitive Dust from Beef Cattle Feedlots) . Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). J anuary.

EIIP, 2004. Estimating Ammonia Emissions from Anthropogenic Nonagricultural Sources

. Draft final report. Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) . April.

ENVIRON and ERG, 2002. Development of Base and Future Year Emissions Inventories f or the Northern Ada County PM10 SIP Maintenance Plan . Prepared for the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality by ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA and Eastern Research Group, Inc., Sacramento, CA. September 25.

ENVIRON et al., 2004. Dete rmining Fugitive Dust Emissions from Wind Erosion . Prepared for the Western Governors’ Association by ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA; Eastern Research Group, Inc., Sacramento, CA; and Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV.

EPA (US Environmen tal Protection Agency) . 2011 a . "MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator)." Available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm

.

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2011b. AP

- 42 C ompilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors . Accessed October 2011 at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html

.

ERG and ENVIRON, 2009. 2008, 2015, and 2023 Emissions Inventories for the Treasure Valley Airshed

– Inventory Preparation Plan and Quality Assurance Plan . Prepared for the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality by Eastern Research Group, Inc., Sacramento, CA and ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA. July 15.

ERG, 2010. Documentation for Aircraft Component of the National Emissions Inventory Methodology . Eastern Research Group. April.

Etymezian, V., H. Kuhns, J. Gillies, M. Green, J. Chow, S. Kohl, and J. Watson, 2002. Treasure Valley Road Dust Study . Final Re port. Prepared for Idaho Department of Environmental Quality by Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV.

FAA, 2008. Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Internet

address: http://aspm.faa.gov/main/taf.asp

FAA, 2010. Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) . Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Internet address: http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/main/atads.asp

FRA, 2009. Locomotive Activity Dataset. Federal Railroad Administration.

Fugit, 2010. Electronic automatic traffic recorder data provided by Scott Fugit (Idaho Transportation Department). January

Gill, 2010. Personal communication between Dave Gill (Atlanta Highway District) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 5 Gilliland, A.K., R.L. Dennis, S.J. Roselle, and T.E. Pierce, 2003. “Seasonal NH 3 

### emissions for the eastern United States based on ammonium wet concentrations and inverse modeling”. Atmospheric Environment 43: 5197

- 5206.

Girard, 2010. Personal communication between Rich Girard (Ada County Highway Dis trict) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.

Gluch, 2010. Personal communication between Jim Gluch (Glenns Ferry Highway District) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.

Grant, 2010. MOBILE6 input files provided by John Grant, ENVIRON. January 18.

Green , 2010. Personal communication between Brad Green (City of Middleton Public Works Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23

.

Hardy, 2010. Personal communication between Rick Hardy (Idaho DEQ) and Alison Pollack (ENVIRON). May 25.

Harvel , 2010. Personal c ommunication between Rick Harvel (City of Mountain Home Public Works Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 20

.

Houck, J.E. and B.N. Eagle, 2006. Control Analysis and Documentation for Residential Wood

Combustion in the MANE

- VU Region . Technical Memo randum 4 (Final Report) prepared for the

Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, Inc. by OMNI Environmental Services,
Inc., Beaverton, OR. December 19.

Hunter, 2009. Personal communication between Dan Hunter (Canyon County) and Gopi Manne
(ERG ). November.

Hutchinson, 2010. Personal communication between Ted Hutchinson (Ada County Solid Waste Management Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). January.

ICAO, 1998. Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection Fourth Meeting Report

. Internation al Civil Aviation Organization, Doc 9720, CAEP/4, Montreal, 6

- 8 April.

IDPR, 2009 a

. Idaho Primary Boat Registration Designation Statistics 2004

- 2008 . Provided by the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation.

IDPR, 2009b. Idaho OHV Registrations by Res idence . Provided by the Idaho Department of

Parks and Recreation.

IDWR, 2006. Canyon County, Idaho Irrigation Districts (map) . Idaho Department of Water Resources. October 30. Internet address: http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterManagement/

WaterRelated Districts/PDFs/MAP%20FOR%20CANYON%20COUNTY.pdf2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 6 IDWR, 2007. Irrigation Organizations with Service Areas in Ada County (map) . Idaho Department of Water Resources. April 11. Internet address: http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/ WaterManagement/WaterRelatedDistri cts/PDFs/IrrMapAdaCounty.pdf

IPM Center, 2010. Idaho crop profiles. National Information System for the Regional IPM Centers, Raleigh, North Carolina. Internet address: http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/
CP_form.cfm

Karnowski, 2009. Summary rep orts from the Idaho Fire Incident Reporting System (IFIRS) provided by Cheryl Karnowski (Idaho Stat e Fire Marshal). November 19.

Kennedy , 2010. Personal communication between Frank Kennedy ( Nampa Highway District

No. 1 ) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23

.

Lane, 2010. Personal communication between Craig Lane (Wilder Deparment of Public Works) and John Grant (ENVIRON). April. Langston R., S. Russell, R.S. Merle, D. Hart, V. Etyemezian, H. Kuhns, J. Gillies, D. Fritz,

K. Bumiller, and D. James

, 2008. The Pr eferred Alternative Method for Measuring Paved Road Dust Emissions for Emissions Inventories : Mobile Technologies vs. The Traditional AP

- 42 Methodology

. In: 16th Annual International Emissions Inventory Conference. Mansell, G.E.,

2003a. Revised Windblown Fugitive Dust Emission Estimation Methodology . T echnical memorandum prepared for Michael Uhl, Department of Air Quality Management, Clark County,

NV. October 6.

Mansell, G.E., 2003b. Summary of WRAP Fugitive Dust Methodology Assumptions Model

Sensitivi ty . Technical memorandum prepared for Michael Uhl, Department of Air Quality Management, Clark County, NV. November 14.

Mansell, G.E., 2005. Final Report Volume I: An Improved Ammonia Inventory for the WRAP

Domain . Prepared for the Western Regional Air Partnership by ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA.

Mansell, G.E., R. Morris and M. Omary

, 2004. Recommendations and Model Performance Evaluation for the Phase II Windblown Fugitive Dust Emission Project . Technical memorandum prepared for the WRAP Dust Emission Joint Forum. July.

Mansell, G. and T. Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009. Review of DEQ Biogenic Emission Inventory for the Treasure Valley . Revised technical memorandum prepared for Christopher Ramsdell and Rick Hardy, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. December 31.

Marticorena, B., Bergametti, G., Gillette, D., and Belnap, J. 1997. “Factors controlling threshold friction velocity in semiarid and arid areas of the United States.” J. Geophysics

Research 102 (D19): 23277

- 23287.

McCain, 2010. Personal communication between Mike McCain (City of Mountain Home, Public Works Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 7 Midwest, 2006. Midwest RPO Candidate Control Measures

– Asphalt Paving . Interim White Paper. Midwest Regional P lanning Organization. March 10. Internet address: http://www.greenpatch.com/pdf/Midwest_OTC_VOC_laws.pdf

Mills, 2010. Personal communication between Jon Mills (Ada County Highway District) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.

Moran, 2010. Personal commun ication between Earl Moran (City of Nampa Parks and Recreation Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.

Morrison, 2010 a . Personal communication between Jim Morrison (Idaho Transportation Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 20

.

Morrison, 2010 b

. Personal communication between Jim Morrison (Idaho Transportation Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). January 27.

MRI, 2005. Analysis of the Fine Fraction of Particulate Matter in Fugitive Dust. Draft Project
Report . Prepared for the Western Regional Ai r Partnership by Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. August 17.

NASS, 2007. Cropland Data Layer . U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Internet address: http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/SARS1a.ht m.

NASS, 2009a. NASS website, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Internet address: http://www.nass.usda.gov/

NASS, 2009b. Idaho Crop Progress and Condition Reports, Issue ID

- CW1408 (Week Ending April 6, 2008) through Issue ID

- CW4308 (Week Ending October 26, 2008). National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Internet address: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Idaho/Publications/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/ index.asp

NAS S, 2010. Quick Stats for Ada, Canyon, and Elmore Counties, Idaho. National Agricultural

Statistics Service. Internet address: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Idaho/index.asp

Newlun, 2010. Personal communication between Gail Newlun (Idaho Transportation Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). January 27.

Nobel , 2010. Personal communication between Randy Nobel ( Ada County Highway District )

and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23

.

Norris, 2010 a . Personal communication between David Norris (Golden Gat e Highway District

No. 3 ) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 8 Norris , 2010 b . Personal communication between David Norris ( Golden Gate Highway District

No. 3 ) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23

.

Olmanson, 2010. Personal communication between Ken Olmanson ( Idaho Northern Pacific Railroad) and Tim Sturtz (ENVIRON). January.

Pace, T.G., 2003. A Conceptual Model to Adjust Fugitive Dust Emissions to Account for Near Source Particle Removal in Grid Model Applications . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

A ugust 22.

Pace, T.G., 2005. Methodology to Estimate the Transportable Fraction (TF) of Fugitive Dust Emissions for Regional and Urban Scale Air Quality Analyses . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 2.

Pettit, 2009. County

- level extracts from t he Southwest Burn Management Area Report provided by Jonathan Pettit, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. November 19.

Potter, C., C. Krauter, and S. Klooster, 2001. Statewide Inventory Estimates of Ammonia Emissions from Native Soils and Chemica l Fertilizers in California

. Prepared for the California

Air Resources Board. June

Radek, 2009. Personal communication between Kyle Radek (City of Meridian, Buildings Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). November.

Richard, 2010a. Personal communication between Timothy Richard (Canyon Highway District

No. 4 ) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.

Richard , 2010 b . Personal communication between Timothy Richard ( Canyon Highway District

No. 4 ) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 20

.

Richard, 2010 c . Personal commun ication between Timothy Richard (Canyon Highway District

No. 4 ) and Gopi Manne (ERG). January 27.

Russell, A.G. and G.R. Cass, 1986. “Verification of a Mathematical Model for Aerosol Nitrate

and Nitric Acid Formation and Its Use for Control Measure Eval uation.” Atmospheric

Environment 20: 2011

- 2025.

Sierra, 2006. Development of Fleet Characteristics Data for the Idaho On

- Road Motor Vehicle

Fleet . Sierra Research, Inc. January.

Stanford, K., R. Silasi, T.A. McAllister, and K.S. Schwartzkopf

- Genswein, 2009. “Behavior of feedlot cattle affects voluntary oral and physical interactions with manila ropes.” Journal of

Animal Science 87: 296

- 303

.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 9 Sterling, 2010. City/county codes (Caldwell, Eagle, Garden City, Greenleaf, Kuna, Meridian,
Middleton, Mountai n Home, Nampa, Parma, Star, Wilder, Ada County, and Canyon County), Sterling Codifiers, Coeur d’Alene, ID. Internet address: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/

Strachan, 2009. Personal communication between Sara Strachan (Idaho Department of

Environmenta l Quality) and Gerard Mansell (ENVIRON). September.

Strader, R., N. Anderson, and C. Davidson, 2004. CMU Ammonia Model . Version 3.6. Internet

address: http://www.cmu.edu/ammonia/July 7

.

Teddicken, 2010. Personal communication between Ed Teddicken (C ity of Boise Parks and Recreation Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.

Tindall, 2010 a . Personal communication between Wayne Tindall (Mountain Home Highway District) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.

Tindall , 2010 b . Personal communication between Wayne Tindall ( Mountain Home Highway

District ) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 24

.

U.S. Census, 2005a. 2002 Economic Census (Sector 72: Accommodation and Food Services: Subject Series

– Misc. Subjects: Principal Menu Type or Specialty for the United St ates and
States: 2002) . U.S. Census Bureau. December 7.

U.S. Census, 2005 b

. Interim Projections of the Total Population for the United States and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2030 (Table A1) . U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. April

21.

U.S . Census, 2009a. 2007 County Business Patterns . U.S. Census Bureau. July. Internet address: http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html

U.S. Census, 2009b. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Idaho, Listed Alphabetic ally: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 . SUB

- EST2008

- 04

- 16. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. July 1.

U.S. Census, 2009 c

. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 20 08 . U.S. Census Bureau. Internet

address: http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/asrh/CC

- EST2008

- alldata.html

U.S. Census, 2010. Building permit database . Internet address: http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/ bldgprmt.shtml

USDA, 1994. State Soil Geog raphic (STATSGO) Data Base, Data use information

, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1492. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, National Soil Service Center. Internet address: http://www.essc.psu.edu/
soil_info/. Dece mber.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 10 USDA, 1997. Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates for U.S. Field Crops , Agricultural Handbook Number 628. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USDA, 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture, Idaho State and County Data (Volume 1 Geographic
Area Series, Part 12 ) , AC

- 07

- A

- 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture. February 4. Internet address: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/ Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Idaho/index.asp

USDA, 2010. Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) . U.S. Depa rtment of Agriculture,

Natural Resources Conservation Service. Internet address: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/ geography/ssurgo/

U.S. EPA, 1992. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation

– Vol. IV: Mobile Sources

. EPA420

- R

- 92

- 009. December.

U.S . EPA, 1997a. Locomotive Emission Standards, Regulatory Support Document (RSD) , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, April.

U.S. EPA, 1997b. Emission Factors (EF) for Locomotives . EPA420

- F

- 97

- 051. U.S.

Environmental Protectio n Agency. December.

U.S. EPA, 2002a. Review of Emission Factors and Methodologies to Estimate Ammonia Emissions from Animal Waste Handling . EPA

- 600/R

- 02

- 017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. April.

U.S. EPA, 2002b. Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse Temporal Allocation Files . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 29. Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ emch/temporal/index.html

U.S. EPA, 2006. Document ation for the Final 2002 Nonpoint Sector (FEB 06 version) National Emission Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July.

U.S. E PA, 2007. Development Work for Improved Heavy

- Duty Vehicle Modeling Capability
Data Mining

– FHWA Datasets. EPA/600/R

- 07/096 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July.

U.S. EPA, 2008. Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA): Control of Emissions of Air Po llution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder. EPA420

- R

- 08

- 001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March.

U.S. EPA, 2009a. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the U nited

States

– Detailed Tables and Figures for 2008 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Resource Conser vation and Recovery. November.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 11 U.S. EPA, 2009b. NONROAD2008 model. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and A ir Quality. Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

nonrdmdl.htm#model

U.S. EPA, 2009 c

. Emission Factors for Locomotives . EPA

- 420

- F

- 09

- 025. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. April.

U.S. EPA, 2010a

. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors

– Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP

- 42), Fifth Edition (and subsequent updates) . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina.

U.S. EPA, 2010b. U.S. EPA ’s NEI2008 . Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/ 2008inventory.html).

U.S. EPA, 2010c. Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 2010 (MOVES2010) model. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm

USGS, 2010. National Hydrography Dataset . U.S. Geological Service. Internet address: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html

Waldinger, 2009. Personal communication between Mary Ann Walldinger (COMPASS) and Alison Pollack (ENVIRON). August.

Waldinger 2010. Personal communication between Mary Ann Walldinger (COMPASS) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.

Walter, 2010. Personal communication between Craig Walter (City of Boise, Public Works Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.

Walters, 2010. State

- level gasoline statistics provided by Dar Walters, Idaho Tax Commission.

Webb, 2009. Personal communication between Steve Webb (City of Boise, Buildings Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). November.

Win terfield, 2009. Personal communication between Steve Webb (Elmore County, Growth and Development Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). November.

Winterfeld, 2010. Personal communication between Bob Winterfeld (Elmore County, Growth and Development Departme nt) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.

Woodward, 2010. Personal communication between Mike Woodward (City of Boise Parks and Recreation Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories

Final, August 31

, 2010 

### 9

- 12 WRCC. 2009. Idaho Climate Summaries: Period of Record General Climate Sum maries

. Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute. December.

Wright, 2010. Personal communication between Raquel Wright (Federal Railroad Administration) and Tim Sturtz (ENVIRON). January.

Y ork, 2010. Personal communication betwee n Wendy York (Sorrento Lactalis) and Marty Wolf (ERG). May 5.

Zhang, 2009. Personal communication regarding MM5 modeling from Wei Zhang (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). August 8.