1

Appendix E: Source Apportionment

Appendix to Chapter 9 of the

State Implementation Plan

AIR QUALITY MODELING................................................................................................2

WEIGHTED EMISSIONS POTENTIAL ANALYSIS.......................................................38

Source Attribution data ........................................................................................................44

Craters of the Moon NM..................................................................................................44

Hells Canyon Wilderness.................................................................................................48

Sawtooth Wilderness........................................................................................................52

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness ..........................................................................................56

Yellowstone National Park ..............................................................................................60

Cabinet Mountain Wilderness......................................................................................64

Eagle Cap Wilderness ......................................................................................................68

Jarbidge Wilderness .........................................................................................................72

Glacier National Park.......................................................................................................76

Bob Marshall Wilderness.................................................................................................80

Gates of the Mountain Wilderness...................................................................................84

North Absaroka Wilderness .............................................................................................88

Bridger Wilderness...........................................................................................................92
Appendix E Page 2

AIR QUALITY MODELING

Overview

Visibility impairment occurs when fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the atmosphere scatters

and absorbs light, thereby creating haze. PM2.5 can be emitted into the atmosphere directly as

primary particulates, or it can be produced in the atmosphere from photochemical reactions

of gas-phase precursors and subsequent condensation to form secondary particulates.

Examples of primary PM2.5 include crustal materials and elemental carbon; examples of

secondary PM include ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfates, and secondary organic

aerosols (SOA). Secondary PM2.5 is generally smaller than primary PM2.5, and because the

ability of PM2.5 to scatter light depends on particle size, with light scattering for fine particles

being greater than for coarse particles, secondary PM2.5 plays an especially important role in

visibility impairment. Moreover, the smaller secondary PM2.5 can remain suspended in the

atmosphere for longer periods and is transported long distances, thereby contributing to

regional-scale impacts of pollutant emissions on visibility.

The sources of PM2.5 are difficult to quantify because of the complex nature of their

formation, transport, and removal from the atmosphere. This makes it difficult to simply use

emissions data to determine which pollutants should be controlled to most effectively

improve visibility. Photochemical air quality models offer opportunity to better understand

the sources of PM2.5 by simulating the emissions of pollutants and the formation, transport,

and deposition of PM2.5. If an air quality model performs well for a historical episode, the

model may then be useful for identifying the sources of PM2.5 and helping to select the most

effective emissions reduction strategies for attaining visibility goals. Although several types

of air quality modeling systems are available, the gridded, three-dimensional, Eulerian

models provide the most complete spatial representation and the most comprehensive

representation of processes affecting PM2.5, especially for situations in which multiple

pollutant sources interact to form PM2.5. For less complex situations in which a few large

point sources of emissions are the dominant source of PM2.5, trajectory models (such as the

California Puff Model [CALPUFF]) may also be useful for simulating PM2.5.

Air Quality Models

The WRAP RMC utilized two regulatory air quality modeling systems to conduct all regional

haze modeling. A brief discussion of each of these models is provided below.

Community Multi-Scale Air Quality Model

EPA initially developed the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system

in the late 1990s. The model source code and supporting data can be downloaded from the

Community Modeling and Analysis System (CMAS) Center (http://www.cmascenter.org/),

which is funded by EPA to distribute and provide limited support for CMAQ users. CMAQ

was designed as a “one atmosphere” modeling system to encompass modeling of multiple

pollutants and issues, including ozone, PM, visibility, and air toxics. This is in contrast to

many earlier air quality models that focused on single-pollutant issues (e.g., ozone modeling

by the Urban Airshed Model). CMAQ is an Eulerian model—that is, it is a grid-based model
Appendix E Page 3

in which the frame of reference is a fixed, three-dimensional (3-D) grid with uniformly sized

horizontal grid cells and variable vertical layer thicknesses. The number and size of grid cells

and the number and thicknesses of layers are defined by the user, based in part on the size of

the modeling domain to be used for each modeling project. The key science processes

included in CMAQ are emissions, advection and dispersion, photochemical transformation,

aerosol thermodynamics and phase transfer, aqueous chemistry, and wet and dry deposition

of trace species. CMAQ offers a variety of choices in the numerical algorithms for treating

many of these processes, and it is designed so that new algorithms can be included in the

model. CMAQ offers a choice of three photochemical mechanisms for solving gas-phase

chemistry: the Regional Acid Deposition Mechanism version 2 (RADM2), a fixed coefficient

version of the SAPRC90 mechanism, and the Carbon Bond IV mechanism (CB-IV).

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions

The Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) model was initially

developed by ENVIRON in the late 1990s as a nested-grid, gas-phase, Eulerian

photochemical grid model. ENVIRON later revised CAMx to treat PM, visibility, and air

toxics. While there are many similarities between the CMAQ and CAMx systems, there are

also some significant differences in their treatment of advection, dispersion, aerosol

formation, and dry and wet deposition.

Model Versions

Both EPA and ENVIRON periodically update and revise their models as new science or

other improvements to the models are developed. For CMAQ, EPA typically provides a new

release about once per year. The initial 2002 MPE for WRAP used CMAQ version 4.4,

which was released in October 2004. In October 2005 EPA released CMAQ version 4.5,

which includes the following updates and improvements to the modeling system:

 A new vertical advection algorithm with improved mass conservation

 Changes in deposition velocities for some PM species

 A new sea-salt emissions model and inclusion of sea salt in the aerosol

thermodynamics

 An option to make vertical mixing parameters vary as a function of land use type

The RMC completed the initial CMAQ MPE using CMAQ v.4.4. When version 4.5 was

released in October, the modeling was revised and a comparison of the model performance

using the two versions was compared. Note that some of the new features in CMAQ v4.5

(e.g., sea salt in the AE4 aerosol dynamics module, and percent urban minimum vertical

diffusivity) require the reprocessing of the MM5 data using the new version of MCIP (MCIP

v3.0). However, because such reprocessing could potentially jeopardize the WRAP modeling

schedule, WRAP elected to operate CMAQ v4.5 using the MM5 data processed using a

previous MCIP version, MCIP v2.3, and the AE3 aerosol module that does not include active

sea salt chemistry.

ENVIRON releases updated versions of CAMx approximately every two years, or as new

features become available. The version used for the comparison of CMAQ and CAMx was

CAMx v4.3. There are many similarities between CMAQ and CAMx regarding the science
Appendix E Page 4

algorithms and chemical mechanisms used, including the CB-IV gas-phase and RADM

aqueous-phase chemistries, ISORROPIA aerosol thermodynamics, and PPM horizontal

advection scheme. In the past, the treatment of vertical advection was a major difference

between the two models; however, the incorporation of the new mass conservation scheme in

CMAQ v4.5 makes its vertical advection algorithm much more similar to that of CAMx.

Major differences between the two models that still exist are in the basic model code, in the

treatment of horizontal diffusion SOA formation mechanisms, and in grid nesting (CAMx

supports one-way and two-way nesting, whereas CMAQ supports just one-way grid nesting).

Both models include process analysis for the gas-phase portions of the model. The publicly

released version of CAMx supports ozone and PM source apportionment through its Ozone

and PM Source Apportionment Technology (OSAT/PSAT) probing tools, while for CMAQ

there are research versions of the model that include Tagged Species Source Apportionment

(TSSA) for some PM species (e.g., sulfate and nitrate). There are also research versions of

CMAQ and CAMx that support the Decoupled Direct Method (DDM) sensitivity tool for PM

and ozone.

The CAMx model is computationally more efficient than CMAQ. However, CAMx is

currently supported for use on only a single central processing unit (CPU) and can perform

multiprocessing using Open Multi-Processing (OMP) parallelization (i.e., shared memory

multiprocessors). CMAQ parallelization, on the other hand, is implemented using Message

Passing Interface (MPI) multiprocessing and therefore can be run using any number of CPUs.

Depending on the number of model simulations to be performed and the manner in which

they are set up, there can be a slight advantage either to CAMx or to CMAQ in regard to

computational efficiency.

Model Simulations

In support of the WRAP Regional Haze air quality modeling efforts, the RMC developed air

quality modeling inputs including annual meteorology and emissions inventories for a 2002

actual emissions base case, a planning case to represent the 2000-04 regional haze baseline

period using averages for key emissions categories, and a 2018 base case of projected

emissions determined using factors known at the end of 2005. All emission inventories were

developed using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system.

Each of these inventories has undergone a number of revisions throughout the development

process to arrive at the final versions used in CMAQ and CAMx air quality modeling. The

development of each of these emission scenarios is documented under the emissions

inventory sections of the TSS. In addition to various sensitivities scenarios, the WRAP

performed air quality model simulations for each of the emissions scenarios as follows:

 The 2002 base case emissions scenario, referred to as “2002 Base Case” or “Base02”.

The purpose of the Base02 inventory is to represent the actual conditions in calendar

year 2002 with respect to ambient air quality and the associated sources of criteria

and particulate matter air pollutants. The Base02 emissions inventories are used to

validate the air quality model and associated databases and to demonstrate acceptable

model performance with respect to replicating observed particulate matter air quality.
Appendix E Page 5

 The 2000-04 baseline period planning case emissions scenario is referred to as

“Plan02”. The purpose of the Plan02 inventory is to represent baseline emission

patterns based on average, or “typical”, conditions. This inventory provides a basis

for comparison with the future year 2018 projected emissions, as well as to gauge

reasonable progress with respect to future year visibility.

 The 2018 future-year base case emissions scenario, referred to as “2018 Base Case”

or “Base18”. These emissions are used to represent conditions in future year 2018

with respect to sources of criteria and particulate matter air pollutants, taking into

consideration growth and controls. Modeling results based on this emission inventory

are used to define the future year ambient air quality and visibility metrics.

Data Sources

The CMAQ model requires inputs of three-dimensional gridded wind, temperature, humidity,

cloud/precipitation, and boundary layer parameters. The current version of CMAQ can only

utilize output fields from the PSU/NCAR MM5 meteorological model. MM5 is a state-ofthe-science atmosphere model that has proven useful for air quality applications and has been

used extensively in past local, state, regional, and national modeling efforts. MM5 has

undergone extensive peer-review, with all of its components continually undergoing

development and scrutiny by the modeling community. In-depth descriptions of MM5 can be

found in Dudhia (1993) and Grell et al. (1994), and at http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5. All

meteorological data used for the WRAP air quality modeling efforts are derived from MM5

model simulations. The development of these data is documented in (Kemball-Cook, S. et

al., 2005)

Emission inventories for all WRAP air quality simulations were developed using the Matrix

Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system. The development of these data has

been discussed and documented elsewhere (Tonnesen, G. et al., 2006)

Initial conditions (ICs) are specified by the user for the first day of a model simulation. For

continental-scale modeling using the RPO Unified 36-km domain, the ICs can affect model

results for as many as 15 days, although the effect typically becomes very small after about 7

days. A model spin-up period is included in each simulation to eliminate any effects from the

ICs. For the WRAP modeling, the annual simulation is divided into four quarters, and

included a 15-day spin-up period for the quarters beginning in April, July, and October. For

the quarter beginning in January 2002, a spin-up period covering December 16-31, 2001,

using meteorology and emissions data developed for CENRAP were used..

Boundary conditions (BCs) specify the concentrations of gas and PM species at the four

lateral boundaries of the model domain. BCs determine the amounts of gas and PM species

that are transported into the model domain when winds flow is into the domain. Boundary

conditions have a much larger effect on model simulations than do ICs. For some areas in the

WRAP region and for clean conditions, the BCs can be a substantial contributor to visibility

impairment.

For this study BC data generated in an annual simulation of the global-scale GEOS-Chem

model that was completed by Jacob et al. (http://www-as.harvard.edu/chemistry/trop/geos/)
Appendix E Page 6

for calendar year 2002 were applied. Additional data processing of the GEOS-Chem data was

required before using them in CMAQ and CAMx. The data first had to be mapped to the

boundaries of the WRAP domain, and the gas and PM species had to be remapped to a set of

species used in the CMAQ and CAMx models. This work was completed by Byun and

coworkers (http://wwwas.harvard.edu/chemistry/trop/geos/meetings/2005/ppt/Expanding_Model_Capabilities/GEO

S-CMAQ_april_4_Byun.ppt

The CMAQ model options and configuration used for the WRAP 36-km model simulations

are described in Tonnesen, G. et al., 2006.

Model Run Specification Sheets

In order to provide documentation for each of the CMAQ and CAMx air quality model

simulations conducted by the WRAP RMC during Calendar year 2006, a series of Model

Run Specification Sheets were developed. These “Spec Sheets” provide a description of each

simulation, the various air quality model options and configurations used and detailed listing

and description of the meteorological data and emission inventories for each scenario. These

Spec Sheets also provide a means for the RMC to track the development of each of the input

data sets and defined the modeling schedule. The purpose of each simulation, and expected

results, including their implications, are also included. A link to each of the individual

Specification Sheets for the model simulations can be found on the RMC web site at:

http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/cmaq.shtml.

2002 Base Case Modeling

Base02 Sensitivity Simulations

The purpose of the 2002 Base Case modeling efforts was to evaluate air quality/visibility

modeling systems for a historical episode—in this case, for calendar year 2002—to

demonstrate the suitability of the modeling systems for subsequent planning, sensitivity, and

emissions control strategy modeling. Model performance evaluation is performed by

comparing output from model simulations with ambient air quality data for the same time

period. After creating emissions and meteorology inputs for the two air quality models,

CMAQ and CAMx, the next step was to perform the visibility modeling and the model

performance evaluations, which are described below. A detailed discussion of the results of

the CMAQ and CAMx model simulations can be found in Tonnesen, G. et al., 2006. Also

documented in Tonnesen, G. et al., 2006 are the results of the model performance evaluation,

a model inter-comparison and discussion of various sensitivity simulations. This information

was used as the basis for recommending the selection of CMAQ and/or CAMx to complete

the remaining modeling efforts in RMC’s support of WRAP.

Model Performance Evaluation
Appendix E Page 7

The objective of a model performance evaluation (MPE) is to compare model-simulated

concentrations with observed data to determine whether the model’s performance is

sufficiently accurate to justify using the model for simulating future conditions. There are a

number of challenges in completing an annual MPE for regional haze. The model must be

compared to ambient data from several different monitoring networks for both PM and

gaseous species, for an annual time period, and for a large number of sites. The model must

be evaluated for both the worst visibility conditions and for very clean conditions. Finally,

final guidance on how to perform an MPE for fine-particulate models is not yet available

from EPA. Therefore, the RMC experimented with many different approaches for showing

model performance results. The plot types that were found to be the most useful are the

following:

 Time-series plots comparing the measured and model-predicted species

concentrations

 Scatter plots showing model predictions on the y-axis and ambient data on the x-axis

 Spatial analysis plots with ambient data overlaid on model predictions

 Bar plots comparing the mean fractional bias (MFB) or mean fractional error (MFE)

performance metrics

 “Bugle plots” showing how model performance varies as a function of the PM

species concentration

 Stacked-bar plots of contributions to light extinction for the average of the best-20%

visibility days or the worst-20% visibility days at each site; the higher the light

extinction, the lower the visibility

Examples of each of these MPE metrics and analysis products can be found in Tonnesen, G.

et al., 2006. The results of the MPE are available from the WRAP RMC website

(http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/eval.shtml)

2002 Planning Scenario

The 2000-04 baseline period planning case scenario is referred to as “Plan02”. The purpose

of the Plan02 scenario is to simulation the air quality representative of baseline emission

patterns based on average, or “typical”, conditions. This scenario provides a basis for

comparison with the future year 2018 scenario based on projected emissions, as well as to

gauge reasonable progress with respect to future year visibility.

Plan02 Simulations Input Data

Input data used for the 2002 Planning model simulations consisted of the same meteorology

as for the 2002 Base Case and the Plan02 emission inventories described under the Emissions

Modeling section of the TSS.

The setup of the CMAQ model (including science options, run scripts, simulation periods,

and ancillary data) for the Plan02 cases was identical to that used in the Base02 modeling, as
Appendix E Page 8

described in the 2002 MPE report (Tonnesen et al., 2006). In summary, CMAQ v4.5

(released by EPA in October 2005) was used on the RPO Unified 36-km domain. The Carbon

Bond Mechanism version 4 (CB4) with RADM aqueous chemistry, the SORGAM organic

aerosol algorithm, and all other science algorithms detailed in Tonnesen et al., 2006 were

used. Initial condition (IC) data for January 1, 2002, were developed using a 15-day spin-up

period (December 16-31, 2001). Boundary condition (BC) data were generated in an annual

simulation of the global-scale GEOS-Chem model that was completed by Jacob et al.

(http://www-as.harvard.edu/chemistry/trop/geos/) for calendar year 2002.

Comparison With Base02 Simulations

For each of the three Plan02 emissions datasets, annual visibility modeling was performed

using the CMAQ model. This was a key aspect of the QA procedure, since errors in the emissions inventories that might not be apparent during the emissions QA steps might be more

readily detected in the results from the CMAQ modeling.

In our initial analysis of the Plan02 scenario, plots were prepared for QA purposes that

compared the Plan02a CMAQ results with the Base02a CMAQ results for daily and monthly

averages. After revising Plan02a to create Plan02b and Plan02c, additional QA plots were

prepared to compare the CMAQ results of each revised Plan02 case to the previous iteration.

These were prepared as Program for the Analysis and Visualization of Environmental data

(PAVE) spatial plots showing the change in individual PM2.5 species concentrations as daily,

monthly, and annual averages. The final set of analysis products, available on the RMC web

site, include PAVE difference plots comparing the CMAQ-predicted annual average species

concentrations from the Plan02c case with those from the Base02b case. Note that these plots

are not useful for visibility planning purposes, but are being provided to show the magnitudes

of changes when moving from the 2002 Base Case to the 2002 Planning Case—in other

words, from the actual emissions for the year 2002 to the “typical-year” emissions created for

the final Plan02 scenario. The primary analysis “product” from the Plan02 CMAQ modeling

is the use of its output in combination with the CMAQ output from the 2018 modeling to

develop the visibility progress calculations and glide path plots, described below.

2018 Model Simulations

The 2018 future-year base case scenario is referred to as “2018 Base Case” or “Base18”. The

purpose of the Base18 scenario is to simulation the air quality representative of conditions in

future year 2018 with respect to sources of criteria and particulate matter air pollutants,

taking into consideration growth and controls. Modeling results based on this emission

inventory are used to define the future year ambient air quality and visibility metrics.

Base18 Simulation Input Data
Appendix E Page 9

Input data used for the 2018 Base Case model simulations consisted of the same meteorology

as for the 2002 Base Case and the Base18 emission inventories described under the

Emissions Modeling section of the TSS.

The setup of the CMAQ model (including science options, run scripts, simulation periods,

and ancillary data) for the Base18 cases was identical to that used in the Base02 modeling, as

described in the 2002 MPE report (Tonnesen et al., 2006). In summary, CMAQ v4.5

(released by EPA in October 2005) was used on the RPO Unified 36-km domain. The Carbon

Bond Mechanism version 4 (CB4) with RADM aqueous chemistry, the SORGAM organic

aerosol algorithm, and all other science algorithms detailed in Tonnesen et al., 2006 were

used. Initial condition (IC) data for January 1, 2002, were developed using a 15-day spin-up

period (December 16-31, 2001). Boundary condition (BC) data were generated in an annual

simulation of the global-scale GEOS-Chem model that was completed by Jacob et al.

(http://www-as.harvard.edu/chemistry/trop/geos/) for calendar year 2002.

Base18 Simulation Results

The purpose of modeling 2018 visibility is to compare the 2018 visibility predictions to the

2002 typical-year visibility modeling results, as discussed below. Some improvements in

visibility by 2018 are expected because of reductions in emissions due to currently planned

regulations and technology improvements. A brief summary is provided here of the

comparison between the 2018 and 2002 results using annual average PAVE spatial plots. The

goal of this summary is to convey the scale and spatial extent of changes in key PM2.5 species

from 2002 to 2018. For planning purposes, on the other hand, states and tribes should focus

on the visibility projections and glide path calculations at individual Class I Areas.

Figures 1 through 4 show the annual average concentrations for sulfate, nitrate, PM2.5 and

model-reconstructed visibility (in deciviews), respectively. In each figure, the bottom two

plots show the modeled concentration or deciviews for the Plan02b and Base18b cases, while

the top plot shows the change in visibility calculated as Base18b minus Plan02b. The

Plan02b results are presented here instead of Plan02c results because these plots had

previously been prepared with version B. As the differences between Plan02b and Plan02c

are extremely small, new plots prepared using Plan02c would be essentially identical to the

results in Figure 1 through 4.

In each of the top plots in the four figures, cool colors indicate areas in which modelpredicted visibility improved from 2002 to 2018, while warm colors indicate areas where

modeled visibility became worse over that period. Figure 1 shows that reductions in sulfate

were largest in the southwest corner of the WRAP region and in Texas and Oklahoma. This

results from planned SOx emissions reductions in the CENRAP region. There were smaller

reductions in sulfate in the Los Angeles area, western Washington state, and southern

Nevada. There were small increases of sulfate, mostly in Wyoming, due to growth in SOx

emissions. Most regions of the WRAP domain had low concentrations of sulfate in 2002 and

little change in sulfate by 2018.

Figure 2 shows the results for nitrate. In the both 2002 and 2018, the modeled nitrate was

greatest in California, and there were reduction in nitrate in that state in 2018 because of
Appendix E Page 10

reductions in mobile-source NOx emissions. There were small reductions in the Phoenix area

as well, also from reductions in mobile-source NOx emissions.

Figure 3 shows the comparison of PM2.5 for 2002 and 2018. In most areas of the WRAP

region, changes in PM2.5 were less than 1 g/m3. Locations with increases in PM2.5

correspond to areas of increased sulfate (see Figure 3-1). Areas with the largest reductions in

PM2.5 were the areas in California that had large reductions in modeled nitrate in 2018 (see

Figure 3-2). Results for other species that contribute to PM2.5 are available on the RMC web

site at http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/cmaq.shtml#base18bvsplan02b.

Figure 4 compares model-reconstructed visibility for 2002 and 2018. Note that these results

are calculated using the modeled relative humidity (RH), so they differ from the results that

use site-specific monthly average RH. Nonetheless, the results in Figure 4 are indicative of

the direction and magnitude of visibility changes in from 2002 to 2018. Although the largest

improvements are in California and the Pacific Northwest, there were improvements

throughout the WRAP region. The change in deciviews is more dramatic than the change in

PM2.5 mass (Figure 3) because the visibility in deciviews is a relative metric, so small mass

changes in PM2.5 in good visibility areas can result in large relative improvements in

visibility.
Appendix E Page 11

Figure 1. Annual average aerosol sulfate (ASO4) concentration comparisons between

Base18b and Plan02b. Top plot: difference between the two (Base18b – Plan02b);

bottom left plot: Plan02b results; bottom right plot: Base18b results.
Appendix E Page 12

Figure 2. Annual average aerosol nitrate (ANO3) concentration comparisons between

Base18b and Plan02b. Top plot: difference between the two (Base18b – Plan02b);

bottom left plot: Plan02b results; bottom right plot: Base18b results.
Appendix E Page 13

Figure 3. Annual average PM2.5 concentration comparisons between Base18b

and Plan02b. Top plot: difference between the two (Base18b – Plan02b);

bottom left plot: Plan02b results; bottom right plot: Base18b results.
Appendix E Page 14

Figure 4. Annual average deciview comparisons between Base18b and Plan02b.

Top plot: difference between the two (Base18b – Plan02b); bottom left

plot: Plan02b results; bottom right plot: Base18b results.
Appendix E Page 15

Visibility Projections

The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) goals include achieving natural visibility conditions at 156

Federally mandated Class I areas by 2064. In more specific terms, that RHR goal is defined

as (1) visibility improvement toward natural conditions for the 20% of days that have the

worst visibility (termed “20% worst,” or W20%, visibility days) and (2) no worsening in

visibility for the 20% of days that have the best visibility (“20% best,” or B20%, visibility

days). One component of the states’ demonstration to EPA that they are making reasonable

progress toward this 2064 goal is the comparison of modeled visibility projections for the

first milestone year of 2018 with what is termed a uniform rate of progress (URP) goal. As

explained in detail below, the 2018 URP goal is obtained by constructing a “linear glide

path” (in deciviews) that has at one end the observed visibility conditions during the

mandated five-year (2000-2004) baseline period and at the other end natural visibility

conditions in 2064; the visibility value that occurs on the glide path at year 2018 is the URP

goal.

Preliminary WRAP 2018 visibility projections have been made using the Plan02c and

Base18b CMAQ 36-km modeling results, following EPA guidance that recommends

applying the modeling results in a relative sense to project future-year visibility conditions

(U.S. EPA, 2001, 2003a, 2006). Projections are made using relative response factors (RRFs),

which are defined as the ratio of the future-year modeling results to the current-year

modeling results. The calculated RRFs are applied to the baseline observed visibility

conditions to project future-year observed visibility. These projections can then be used to

assess the effectiveness of the simulated emission control strategies that were included in the

future-year modeling. The major features of EPA’s recommended visibility projections are as

follows (U.S. EPA, 2003a,b, 2006):

 Monitoring data should be used to define current air quality.

 Monitored concentrations of PM10 are divided into six major components; the first

five are assumed to be PM2.5 and the sixth is PM2.5-10.

 SO4 (sulfate)

 NO3 (particulate nitrate)

 OC (organic carbon)

 EC (elemental carbon)

 OF (other fine particulate or soil)

 CM (coarse matter).

 Models are used in a relative sense to develop RRFs between future and current

predicted concentrations of each component.

 Component-specific RRFs are multiplied by current monitored values to estimate

future component concentrations.

 Estimates of future component concentrations are consolidated to provide an estimate

of future air quality.
Appendix E Page 16

 Future estimated air quality is compared with the goal for regional haze to see

whether the simulated control strategy would result in the goal being met.

 It is acceptable to assume that all measured sulfate is in the form of ammonium

sulfate [(NH4)2SO4] and all particulate nitrate is in the form of ammonium nitrate

[NH4NO3].

To facilitate tracking the progress toward visibility goals, two important visibility parameters

are required for each Class I area:

 Baseline Conditions: “Baseline Conditions” represent visibility for the B20% and

W20% days for the initial five-year baseline period of the regional haze program.

Baseline Conditions are calculated using monitoring data collected during the 2000-

2004 five-year period and are the starting point in 2004 for the uniform rate of

progress (URP) glide path to Natural Conditions in 2064 (U.S. EPA, 2003a).

 Natural Conditions: “Natural Conditions,” the RHR goal for 2064 for the Federally

mandated Class I areas, represent estimates of natural visibility conditions for the

B20% and W20% days at a given Class I area.

Baseline Conditions

Baseline Conditions for Class I areas are calculated using fine and coarse PM concentrations

measured at Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)

monitors (Malm et al., 2000). Each Class I area in the WRAP domain has an associated

IMPROVE PM monitor. The IMPROVE monitors do not measure visibility directly, but

instead measure speciated fine particulate (PM2.5) and total PM2.5 and PM10 mass

concentrations from which visibility is calculated using the IMPROVE aerosol extinction

equation, discussed later.

Visibility conditions are estimated starting with the IMPROVE 24-h average PM mass

measurements related to six PM components of light extinction:

 Sulfate [(NH4)2SO4]

 Particulate nitrate [(NH4NO3]

 Organic matter [OMC]

 Light-absorbing carbon [LAC] or elemental carbon [EC]

 Soil

 Coarse matter [CM]

The IMPROVE monitors do not directly measure some of these species, so assumptions are

made as to how the IMPROVE measurements can be adjusted and combined to obtain these

six components. For example, sulfate and particulate nitrate are assumed to be completely

neutralized by ammonium and only the fine mode (PM2.5) is speciated to obtain sulfate and

nitrate measurements (that is, any coarse-mode sulfate and nitrate in the real atmosphere may
Appendix E Page 17

be present in the IMPROVE CM measurement). Concentrations for the above six

components of light extinction in the IMPROVE aerosol extinction equation are obtained

from the IMPROVE measured species using the formulas shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Definition of IMPROVE components from measured species.

IMPROVE

Component Calculation of Component from IMPROVE Measured Species

Sulfate 1.375 x (3 x S)

Nitrate 1.29 x NO3

-

OMC 1.4 x OC

LAC EC

Soil (2.2 x Al) + (2.49 x Si) + (1.63 x Ca) + (2.42 x Fe) + (1.94 x Ti)

CM MT – MF

where

 S is elemental sulfur as determined from proton-induced x-ray emissions (PIXE)

analysis of the IMPROVE Module A. To estimate the mass of the sulfate ion (SO4

=

),

S is multiplied by 3 to account for the presence of oxygen. If S is missing then the

sulfate (SO4) measured by ion chromatography analysis of Module B is used to

replace (3 x S). For the IMPROVE aerosol extinction calculation, sulfate is assumed

to be completely neutralized by ammonium (1.375 x SO4).

 NO3

-

is the particulate nitrate measured by ion chromatography analysis of Module

B. For the IMPROVE aerosol extinction calculation, it is assumed to be completely

neutralized by ammonium (1.29 x NO3).

 The IMPROVE organic carbon (OC) measurements are multiplied by 1.4 to obtain

organic matter (OMC), which adjusts the OC mass for other elements assumed to be

associated with OC.

 Elemental carbon (EC) is also referred to as light-absorbing carbon (LAC).

 Soil is determined as a sum of the masses of those elements (measured by PIXE)

predominantly associated with soil (Al, Si, Ca, Fe, K, and Ti), adjusted to account for

oxygen associated with the common oxide forms. Because K is also a product of the

combustion of vegetation, it is represented in the formula by 0.6 x Fe and is not

shown explicitly.

 MT and MF are total PM10 and PM2.5 mass, respectively.

Associated with each PM species is an extinction efficiency that converts concentrations (in

g/m3) to light extinction (in inverse megameters, Mm-1), as listed below. Sulfate and nitrate

are hygroscopic, so relative humidity (RH) adjustment factors, f(RH), are used to increase the
Appendix E Page 18

particles’ extinction efficiency with increasing RH; this accounts for the particles’ taking on

water and having greater light scattering. Note that some organic matter (OMC) compounds

may also have hygroscopic properties, but the IMPROVE aerosol extinction equation

assumes OMC is nonhygroscopic.

βSulfate = 3 x f(RH) x [sulfate]

βNitrate = 3 x f(RH) x [nitrate]

βOM = 4 x [OMC]

βEC = 10 x [EC]

βSoil = 1 x [soil]

βCM = 0.6 x [CM]

The total light extinction (βext) is assumed to be the sum of the light extinctions due to the six

PM species listed above plus Rayleigh (blue sky) background extinction (βRay), which is

assumed to be 10 Mm-1. This is reflected in the IMPROVE extinction equation:

βext = βRay + bSulfate + βNitrate + βEC +βOMC + βSoil + βCM

The total light extinction (βext) in Mm-1 is related to visual range (VR) in kilometers using the

following relationship:

VR = 3912 / βext

The RHR requires that visibility be expressed in terms of a haze index (HI) in units of

deciview (dv), which is calculated as follows:

HI = 10 ln(βext/10)

The equations above, with measurements from the associated IMPROVE monitor, are used to

estimate the daily average visibility at each Class I area for each IMPROVE monitored day.

For each year from the 2000-2004 baseline period, these daily average visibility values are

then ranked from highest to lowest. The “worst days” visibility for each of the five years in

the baseline period is defined as the average visibility across the 20% worst-visibility days

(highest deciview values); similarly, the “best days” visibility is defined as the average

visibility across the 20% best-visibility days (lowest deciview values) for each year. The

Baseline Conditions for the best and worst days are defined as the five-year average of the

B20% visibility days and of the W20% visibility days, respectively, across the five-year

baseline period.

The set of equations given above for relating measured PM species to visibility (light

extinction) are referred to as the “Old IMPROVE” equation. The IMPROVE Steering

Committee has developed a “New IMPROVE” equation that they believe better represents

the fit between measured PM species concentrations and visibility impairment. Although

conceptually similar to the Old IMPROVE equation, the New IMPROVE equation includes

updates to many of the parameters and the addition of extinctions due to NO2 absorption and

sea salt. 2018 visibility projections and comparisons with the URP glide path goals were
Appendix E Page 19

performed using both the New and Old IMPROVE equations. The reader is referred

elsewhere for details on the New IMPROVE extinction equation (e.g., EPA, 2006a,b).

Mapping Model Results to IMPROVE Measurements

As noted above, future-year visibility at Class I areas is projected by using modeling results

in a relative sense to scale current observed visibility for the B20% and W20% visibility

days. This scaling is done using RRFs, the ratios of future-year modeling results to currentyear results. Each of the six components of light extinction in the IMPROVE reconstructed

mass extinction equation is scaled separately. Because the modeled species do not exactly

match up with the IMPROVE measured PM species, assumptions must be made to map the

modeled PM species to the IMPROVE measured species for the purpose of projecting

visibility improvements. For example, in the model’s chemistry (which explicitly simulates

ammonium), sulfate may or may not be fully neutralized; the IMPROVE extinction equation,

on the other hand, assumes that observed sulfate is fully neutralized by ammonium. For the

CMAQ v4.5 model (September 2005 release) used in the WRAP RMC modeling, the

mapping of modeled species to IMPROVE measured PM species is listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Mapping of CMAQ v4.5 modeled species concentrations

to IMPROVE measured components.

IMPROVE

Component CMAQ V4.3 Species

Sulfate 1.375 x (ASO4J + ASO4I)

Nitrate 1.29 x (ANO3J + ANO3I)

OMC AORGAJ + AORGAI + AORGPAJ + AORGPAI + AORGBJ + AORGBI

LAC AECJ + AECI

Soil A25J + A25I

CM ACORS + ASEAS + ASOIL

Projecting Visibility Changes Using Modeling Results

RRFs calculated from modeling results can be used to project future-year visibility. For the

urrent modeling efforts, RRFs are the ratio of the 2018 modeling results to the 2002 modeling

results, and are specific to each Class I area and each PM species. RRFs are applied to the

Baseline Condition observed PM species levels to project future-year PM levels, which are

then used with the IMPROVE extinction equation listed above to assess visibility. The

following six steps are used to project future-year visibility for the B20% and W20%

visibility days (the discussion below is for W20% days but also applies to B20% days):

1. For each Class I area and each monitored day, daily visibility is ranked using

IMPROVE data and IMPROVE extinction equation for each year from the five-year

baseline period (2000-2004) to identify the W20% visibility days for each year.
Appendix E Page 20

2. Use an air quality model to simulate a base-year period (ideally 2000-2004, but in

reality just 2002) and a future year (e.g., 2018), then apply the resulting information

to develop Class-I-area-specific RRFs for each of the six components of light

extinction in the IMPROVE aerosol extinction equation.

3. Multiply the RRFs by the measured 24-h PM data for each day from the W20% days

for each year from the five-year baseline period to obtain projected future-year (2018)

24-h PM concentrations for the W20% days.

4. Compute the future-year daily extinction using the IMPROVE aerosol extinction

equation and the projected PM concentrations for each of the W20% days in the fiveyear baseline from Step 3.

5. For each of the W20% days within each year of the five-year baseline, convert the

future-year daily extinction to units of deciview and average the daily deciview

values within each of the five years separately to obtain five years of average

deciview visibility for the W20% days.

6. Average the five years of average deciview visibility to obtain the future-year

visibility Haze Index estimate that is compared with the 2018 progress goal.

In calculating the RRFs, EPA draft guidance (U.S. EPA, 2001, 2006a) recommends selecting

modeled PM species concentrations “near” the monitor by taking a spatial average of PM

concentrations across a grid-cell-resolution–dependent NX by NY array of cells centered on

the grid containing the monitor. For the WRAP 36-km CMAQ modeling, the model estimates

for just the grid cell containing the monitor are used (i.e., NX=NY=1).

For the preliminary 2018 visibility projections, results are presented only for “Method 1,”

which is the recommended approach in EPA’s draft modeling guidance documents (U.S.

EPA, 2001, 2006a). In the Method 1 Average RRF Approach, an average RRF for the W20%

days from 2002 (Modeled Worst Days) is obtained for the Plan02c and the Base18b CMAQ

simulations by averaging the PM concentration components across the Modeled Worst Days

and then calculating the (future year):(base year) ratio of the average PM concentrations. For

example, if SO4i,j is the measured sulfate concentrations at Class I area j for the i=1,...,N

20% worst visibility days in 2002, then the RRF for sulfate on the W20% days would be

obtained as:















   N

i

ij

N

i

ij

N

i

ij

N

i

ij

j

SO

SO

SO

N

SO

N

SORRF

1

1

1

1

)2002(4

)2018(4

)2002(4

1

)2018(4

1

)4(

For each Class I area and each of the W20% days, the average RRF for each PM component

would be applied to concentrations for the W20% days from the 2000-2004 baseline period

to estimate future-year PM concentrations for each of the W20% days. Extinction and HI

would then be calculated to obtain the projected future-year visibility conditions using the

procedures given previously.

Glide Path to Natural Conditions
Appendix E Page 21

The presumptive visibility target for 2018 is the URP goal that is obtained by constructing a

linear glide path from the current Baseline Conditions to Natural Conditions in 2064 (both

expressed in deciviews). For instance, Figure 5 displays an example visibility glide path for

the Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA) Class I area. EPA’s default Natural Conditions

value for the W20% days (U.S. EPA, 2003b), shown as the green line, is the 2064 visibility

goal at GRCA of 6.95 dv. The blue diamonds at the left of the plot are the annual average

current conditions, based on IMPROVE observations for the W20% days as obtained from

the Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) web site

(http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/). These annual average visibility values for the 20%

worst days allow an assessment of trends and the year-to-year variation in visibility. The

Baseline Conditions are the average of the W20% visibility from 2000-2004, which is the

starting point for the glide path in 2004 (12.04 dv for GRCA). A linear URP from the

Baseline Conditions in 2004 to Natural Conditions in 2064 (sloping pink line with triangles)

is assumed, and the value on the glide path at 2018 is the presumptive URP visibility target

that the modeled 2018 projections are compared against to judge progress. In this example,

the visibility progress goal in 2018 would be 10.85 dv. Meeting this would require a 1.19 dv

reduction in visibility by 2018 to meet that milestone year’s visibility progress target at the

Grand Canyon National Park.

Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path

Grand Canyon NP - 20% Worst Days

12.04 11.70

10.85

10.01

9.16

8.31

7.46 6.95

11.71

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

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

Year

Haziness Index (Deciviews)

Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction

Figure 5. Example of URP glide path using IMPROVE data from the Grand Canyon

National Park for the W20% days and comparison with Base18b visibility projections.
Appendix E Page 22

Preliminary Visibility Projection Results

For all of the WRAP Class I areas, the RMC performed preliminary 2018 visibility

projections and compared them to the 2018 URP goals using the Plan02c and Base18b

CMAQ modeling results and the Old and New IMPROVE equations. As an example, Figure

5 above compares the Base18b visibility projections with the URP goal based on the glide

path for GRCA and the Old IMPROVE equation. To achieve the 2018 URP goal, the

modeled 2018 visibility projection would have to show a 1.19 dv (=12.04-10.85) reduction.

However, the modeled 2018 visibility projection shows only a 0.33 dv (=12.04-11.71)

reduction by 2018, which indicates that the emission controls simulated in case Base18b

would not achieve the modeled URP goal; the 2018 visibility projection achieves only 28%

of the goal (28% = 100 x 0.33/1.19). Figure 6 displays the 2018 visibility projections for all

WRAP Class I areas, using both the Old and New IMPROVE equations, expressed as a

percentage of achieving the URP goal, with values of 100% or greater achieving the goal.

Using the procedures outlined above, none of the WRAP Class I areas are projected to

achieve their URP goals. There are various reasons for this, such as the presence of W20%

days that are dominated by emissions from sources that are not controllable, such as

wildfires, dust, and/or international transport. Additional analysis of these results and

alternative projection techniques are currently under study.
Appendix E Page 23

Method 1 predictions for Colorado Plateau and Desert Southwest sites

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BRCA1

CANY1

GRCA2

MEVE1

SAPE1

WEMI1

ZION1

BAND1BOAP1

CHIR1

GICL1

GRSA1

IKBA1

SACR1

SAGU1

SIAN1

WHIT1

WHPE1

Percent of target reduction achieved

base18b old algorithm

base18b new algorithm

Colorado Plateau Desert Southwest

Method 1 predictions for North, Great Basin and Rockies sites

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BADL1

CABI1

GAMO1

LOST1

MELA1

MONT1

SULA1

THRO1

ULBE1

WICA1

CRMO1

JARB1

SAWT1

BRID1

NOAB1

ROMO1

WHRI1

YELL2

Percent of target reduction achieved

base18b old algorithm

base18b new algorithm

North Great Basin Rockies

Method 1 predictions for Pacific Northwest and California sites

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

HECA1

KALM1

MOHO1

MORA1

NOCA1

OLYM1

PASA1

SNPA1

STAR1

THSI1

WHPA1

AGTI1

BLIS1

DOME1

HOOV1

JOSH1LAVO1

PINN1

REDW1

SAGA1

SAGO1

YOSE1

Percent of target reduction achieved

base18b old algorithm

base18b new algorithm

Pacific Northwest California

Figure 6. 2018 visibility projections at WRAP Class I areas expressed as a

percent of achieving the 2018 URP goal using the Old and New IMPROVE

equation and the WRAP Base18c CMAQ 36-km modeling results.
Appendix E Page 24

PM Source Apportionment

Impairment of visibility in Class I areas is caused by a combination of local air pollutants and

regional pollutants that are transported long distances. To develop effective visibility

improvement strategies, the WRAP member states and tribes need to know the relative

contributions of local and transported pollutants, and which emissions sources are significant

contributors to visibility impairment at a given Class I area.

A variety of modeling and data analysis methods can be used to perform source

apportionment of the PM observed at a given receptor site. Model sensitivity simulations

have been used in which a “base case” model simulation is performed and then a particular

source is “zeroed out” of the emissions. The importance of that source is assessed by

evaluating the change in pollutants at the receptor site, calculated as pollutant concentration

in the sensitivity case minus that in the base case. This approach is known as a “brute force”

sensitivity because a separate model run is required for each sensitivity.

An alternative approach is to implement a mass-tracking algorithm in the air quality model to

explicitly track for a given emissions source the chemical transformations, transport, and

removal of the PM that was formed from that source. Mass tracking methods have been

implemented in both the CMAQ and CAMx air quality models. Initial work completed by the

RMC during 2004 used the CMAQ Tagged Species Source Apportionment (TSSA) method.

Unfortunately, there were problems with mass conservation in the version of CMAQ used in

that study, and these affected the TSSA results. A similar algorithm has been implemented in

CAMx, the PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT). Comparisons of TSSA and

PSAT showed that the results were qualitatively similar, that is, the relative ranking of the

most significant source contributors were similar for the two methods. However, the total

mass contributions differed. With separate funding from EPA, UCR has implemented a

version of TSSA in the new CMAQ release (v4.5) that corrects the mass conservation error,

but given the uncertainty of the availability of this update, the CAMx/PSAT source

apportionment method was used for the WRAP modeling analysis.

The main objective of applying CAMx/PSAT is to evaluate the regional haze air quality for

typical 2002 (Plan02c) and future-year 2018 (Base18b) conditions. These results are used

 to assess the contributions of different geographic source regions (e.g., states) and

source categories to current (2002) and future (2018) visibility impairment at Class I

areas, to obtain improved understanding of (1) the causes of the impairment and (2)

which states are included in the area of influence (AOI) of a given Class I area; and

 to identify the source regions and emissions categories that, if controlled, would

produce the greatest visibility improvements at a Class I area.

CAMx/PSAT

The PM Source Apportionment Technology performs source apportionment based on userdefined source groups. A source group is the combination of a geographic source region and

an emissions source category. Examples of source regions include states, nonattainment

areas, and counties. Examples of source categories include mobile sources, biogenic sources,
Appendix E Page 25

and elevated point sources; PSAT can even focus on individual sources. The user defines a

geographic source region map to specify the source regions of interest. He or she then inputs

each source category as separate, gridded low-level emissions and/or elevated-point-source

emissions. The model then determines each source group by overlaying the source categories

on the source region map. For further information, please refer to the white paper on the

features and capabilities of PSAT

(http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/reports/PSAT_White_Paper_111405_final_draft1.pdf), with

additional details available in the CAMx user’s guide (ENVIRON, 2005;

http://www.camx.com).

PM source apportionment modeling was performed for aerosol sulfate (SO4) and aerosol

nitrate (NO3) and their related species (e.g., SO2, NO, NO2, HNO3, NH3, and NH4). The

PSAT simulations include 9 tracers, 18 source regions, and 6 source groups. The

computational cost for each of these species differs because additional tracers must be used to

track chemical conversions of precursors to the secondary PM species SO4, NO3, NH4, and

secondary organic aerosols (SOA). Table 3 summarizes the computer run time required for

each species. The practical implication of this table for WRAP is that it is much more

expensive to perform PSAT simulations for NO3 and especially for SOA than it is to perform

simulations for other species.

Table 3. Benchmarks for PSAT computational costs for each PM species.

Run time is for one day (01/02/2002) on the WRAP 36-km domain.

Species No. of Species

Tracers

RAM

Memory

Disk Storage

per Day

Run Time with

1 CPU

SO4 2 1.6 GB 1.1 GB 4.7 h/day

NO3 7 1.7 GB 2.6 GB 13.2 h/day

SO4 and NO3

combined

9 1.9 GB 3.3 GB 16.8 h/day

SOA 14 6.8 GB Not tested Not tested

Primary PM

species

6 1.5 GB 3.0 GB 10.8 h/day

Two annual 36-km CAMx/PSAT model simulations were performed: one with the Plan02c

typical-year baseline case and the other with the Base18b future-year case. It is expected that

the states and tribes will use these results to assess the sources that contribute to visibility

impairment at each Class I Area, and to guide the choice of emission control strategies. The

RMC web site includes a full set of source apportionment spatial plots and receptor bar plots

for both Plan02b and Base18b. These graphical displays of the PSAT results, as well as

additional analyses of these results are available on the TSS under

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Tools/ResultsSA.aspx
Appendix E Page 26

CAMx/PSAT 2002 and 2018 Setup

PSAT source apportionment simulations for 2002 and 2018 were performed using CAMx

v4.30. Table 4 lists overall specifications for the 2002 PSAT simulations. The domain setup

was identical to the standard WRAP CMAQ modeling domain. The CAMx/PSAT run-time

options are shown in Table 5. The CAMx/PSAT computational cost for one simulation day

with source tracking for sulfate (SO4) and nitrate (NO3) is approximately 14.5 CPU hours

with an AMD Opteron CPU. The source regions used in the PSAT simulations are shown in

Figure 7 and Table 4. The six emissions source groups are described in Table 6. The

development of these emissions data are described in more detail below.

The annual PSAT run was divided into four seasons for modeling. The initial conditions for

the first season (January 1 to March 31, 2002) came from a CENRAP annual simulation. For

the other three seasons, we allowed 15 model spin-up days prior to the beginning of each

season. Based on the chosen set of source regions and groups, with nine tracers, and with a

minimum requirement of 87,000 point sources and a horizontal domain of 148 by 112 grid

cells with 19 vertical layers, the run-time memory requirement is 1.9 GB. Total disk storage

per day is approximately 3.3 GB. Although the RMC’s computation nodes are equipped with

dual Opteron CPUs with 2 GB of RAM and 1 GB of swap space, the high run-time memory

requirements prevented running PSAT simulations using the OpenMP shared memory

multiprocessing capability implemented in CAMx.

Table 4. WRAP 2002 CAMx/PSAT specifications.

WRAP PSAT Specs Description

Model CAMx v4.30

OS/compiler Linux, pgf90 v.6.0-5

CPU type AMD Opteron with 2 GB of RAM

Source region 18 source regions; see Figure 4.1 and Table 4.4

Emissions source groups Plan02b, 6 source groups; see Table 4.5

Initial conditions From CENRAP (camx.v4.30.cenrap36.omp.2001365.inst.2)

Boundary conditions 3-h BC from GEOS-Chem v2

Table 5. WRAP CAMx/PSAT run-time options.

WRAP PSAT specs Description

Advection solver PPM

Chemistry parameters CAMx4.3.chemparam.4_CF

Chemistry solver CMC

Plume-in-grid Not used
Appendix E Page 27

WRAP PSAT specs Description

Probing tool PSAT

Dry/wet deposition TRUE (turned on)

Staggered winds TRUE (turned on)

Table 6. WRAP CAMx/PSAT source regions cross-reference table.

Source

Region ID

Source Region

Description1

Source

Region ID

Source Region

Description1

1 Arizona (AZ) 10 South Dakota (SD)

2 California (CA) 11 Utah (UT)

3 Colorado (CO) 12 Washington (WA)

4 Idaho (ID) 13 Wyoming (WY)

5 Montana (MT) 14 Pacific off-shore & Sea of Cortez

(OF)

6 Nevada (NV) 15 CENRAP states (CE)

7 New Mexico (NM) 16 Eastern U.S., Gulf of Mexico, &

Atlantic Ocean (EA)

8 North Dakota (ND) 17 Mexico (MX)

9 Oregon (OR) 18 Canada (CN)

1

The abbreviations in parentheses are used to identify source regions in PSAT receptor bar plots.

-2736 -2412 -2088 -1764 -1440 -1116 -792 -468 -144 180 504 828 1152 1476 1800 2124 2448

-2088

-1872

-1656

-1440

-1224

-1008

-792

-576

-360

-144

72

288

504

720

936

1152

1368

1584

1800

2

6

9

12

4

5

8

13

11

3

1 7

15

15

16

16

16

18 18

14

17

14

10

Figure 7. WRAP CAMx/PSAT source region map. Table 6 defines the source region IDs.
Appendix E Page 28

Table 7. WRAP CAMx/PSAT emissions source groups.

Emissions

Source

Groups

Low-level Sources Elevated Sources

1 Low-level point sources (including stationary offshore)

Elevated point sources (including

stationary off-shore)

2 Anthropogenic wildfires (WRAP only) Anthropogenic wild fires (WRAP only)

3 Total mobile (on-road, off-road, including planes,

trains, ships in/near port, off-shore shipping)

4 Natural emissions (natural fire, WRAP only,

biogenics)

Natural emissions (natural fire, WRAP

only, biogenics)

5 Non-WRAP wildfires (elevated fire sources in other

RPOs)

Non-WRAP wild fires (elevated fire

sources in other RPOs)

6 Everything else (area sources, all dust, fugitive

ammonia, non-elevated fire sources in other RPOs)

PSAT Results

The source apportionment algorithms implemented in CAMx generate output files in the

same format as the standard modeled species concentrations files. This typically consists of a

two-dimensional, gridded dataset of hourly-average surface concentrations for each source

group tracer that gives the contribution of the tracer to all the surface grid cells in the model

domain for each hour of the simulation. Three-dimensional instantaneous concentrations are

also output for the last two hours of the simulation, which are used to restart the model.

Although there are options to output hourly 3-D average tracer concentrations, the model is

usually configures to output only the model’s surface layer concentrations because of the vast

disk storage space needed for the 3-D file output for all the source group contributions.

The source apportionment model results are typically presented in two ways :

 Spatial plots showing the area of influence of a source group’s PM species

contributions throughout the model domain, either at a given hourly-average point in

time or averaged over some time interval (e.g., monthly average).

 Receptor bar plots showing the rank order of source groupings that contribute to PM

species at any given receptor site. These plots also can be at a particular point in time

or averaged over selected time intervals—for example, the average source

contributions for the 20% worst visibility days.

If the 3-D tracer output files are saved, it is also possible to prepare animations of PM species

plumes from each of the source groups. However, these plots are less useful than the others

for quantitative analysis, are expensive to produce, and require saving 3-D hourly output,

which is disk-space intensive. The primary products of the WRAP PSAT modeling were

receptor bar plots showing the emission source groups that contribute the most to the model

grid cells containing each IMPROVE monitoring site and other receptor sites identified by

WRAP.
Appendix E Page 29

Model Sensitivity Simulations

A variety of sensitivity simulations were conducted by the RMC as part of their modeling

efforts to support the WRAP in addressing the Regional Haze Rule requirements. These

sensitivity simulations are described below.

2002 Clean Case

There are many natural sources of ambient PM2.5, both direct emissions of primary PM2.5

(such as windblown dust) and emissions of gaseous species that undergo photochemical

transformation or condensation to form secondary PM2.5. Natural sources of PM2.5 are of

concern because they represent sources that cannot be controlled. Estimates of natural haze

levels have been developed by EPA for visibility planning purposes and are described in

Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule (U.S.

EPA, 2003a). These are the natural haze levels to be used in glide path calculations, such as

those we performed as part of the visibility projections for 2018. However, the natural haze

levels developed by EPA for glide path calculations were based on ambient data analysis, not

on visibility modeling. This question thus arises: Would modeled levels of natural haze be

consistent with the values estimated by EPA for visibility planning? If the natural haze levels

calculated by the model were substantially higher than the levels used for planning purposes,

this would make it more difficult for modeling studies to demonstrate progress in attaining

visibility goals, because the model would predict haze levels that exceeded EPA’s natural

haze levels even if all anthropogenic sources of PM2.5 were removed from the modeling. The

RMC explored this issue by conducting a CMAQ sensitivity “clean conditions” simulation

There are many uncertainties and unknowns regarding natural emissions. There have been

only limited studies of natural emissions conditions. It is known that there are very large

uncertainties in the categories of natural emissions included in the WRAP emissions

inventories, and that some categories of natural emissions are not included at all. Also, it is

difficult to know what truly natural emissions would have been like in the absence of human

modifications of the environment. For example, wildfire emissions are a large source of

natural emissions in our modeling, but how much larger might that source be in the absence

of fire suppression efforts? For all of these reasons, it was decided to describe this sensitivity

simulation as a “clean conditions” scenario rather than a “natural conditions” scenario. In this

simulation, all anthropogenic emissions were removed from the inventory and only those

emissions that were defined as biogenic in the 2002 base case (Base02) were included. Thus,

this model simulation does not represent true natural conditions. It indicates instead the

lowest haze levels that could be achieved in the model if all anthropogenic emissions were

zeroed out.

Emission Inventories

The emissions for the clean 2002 sensitivity case were derived from case Base02a. Because it

was a sensitivity analysis to test the impacts of natural emissions sources on visibility, it is

referred to it as scenario Base02nt, where “nt” refers to natural. The following emissions

categories in Base02nt were included:

 Biogenics: Generated in case Base02a by BEIS3.12 using SMOKE.
Appendix E Page 30

 WRAP Ammonia: The Base02a ammonia emissions for the WRAP region were

developed with a GIS by ENVIRON. The five emissions category modeled included

three anthropogenic sources (domestic animals, livestock, and fertilizer application)

and two natural sources (soils and wildlife). Only the two natural sources in scenario

Base02nt were used.

 CENRAP and MRPO Ammonia: To create ammonia inventory files for only natural

sources, we used a list of SCCs representing natural sources to extract the emissions

records of these sources from the monthly inventory files that were used in Base02a.

it was found that there were no natural ammonia sources in the MRPO monthly

inventory files.

 Natural Area Sources: The Base02a area-source inventory files included natural

sources, such as wildfires and wild animals. These records were extracted from the

stationary-area-source inventories. Note that the WRAP area-source files did not

include any natural sources.

 Natural Fires: Of the five fire categories modeled in Base02a (wildfires, wildland

fire use, non-Federal rangeland prescribed fires, prescribed fires [which were split

into natural and anthropogenic prescribed for this purpose of this sensitivity], and

agricultural fires), only the categories that represent natural fires (wildfires, wildland

fire use, and natural prescribed fires) were included.

 Windblown Dust: We used the windblown dust inventory that ENVIRON and the

RMC developed for use in case Base02a. Additional details on this dust inventory are

available at http://www.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/wb_dust2002/wb_dust_ii_36k.shtml.

The biogenic and windblown dust emissions from the Base02a SMOKE outputs that are

stored at the RMC were used directly. For the fire (including both point and area fires),

natural area, and ammonia emissions, these data were reprocessed specifically for scenario

Base02nt using the same ancillary data (temporal, chemical, and spatial allocation data) used

in case Base02a. QA plots and documentation for scenario Base02nt are posted on the RMC

web site at http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/qa_Base02nt36.shtml.

Modeling Results

Figure 8 shows the model-reconstructed light extinction in the clean emissions model

simulation. Because the natural fire emissions in the WRAP states were a major component

of the clean emissions, the largest visibility impairment is in the regions with natural fire

emissions. Contributions to light extinction from natural sources were small in regions

without large fire emissions, as evidenced in the eastern U.S., where the extinction was only

slightly larger (about 2 Mm-1) than perfectly clean Rayleigh conditions of 10 Mm-1.

Although there are large uncertainties in the natural emissions, and it is known that there are

missing types of natural emissions, the components of the natural inventory used in this

sensitivity simulation did contribute to relatively large visibility impairment in regions where

there were large wildfires. Extinction coefficients as large as 90 Mm-1 were simulated in the

southern Oregon and northern California regions; this was most likely a result of the large

Biscuit fire in Oregon, plus contributions from smaller fires and other natural emissions.
Appendix E Page 31

These visibility impairment levels exceed the natural visibility levels specified in the EPA

regional haze natural visibility guidance document. It will thus be more difficult for the

modeling to demonstrate attainment of progress goals in areas of the country subject to

wildfires because of their large contribution to visibility impairment that is not controllable.

In other regions of the country for which the inventories lacked large natural fire emissions,

the modeled clean visibility was only slightly greater than clean Rayleigh conditions. Note

the model results may be overly optimistic in these regions because we lack a complete,

accurate natural emissions inventory.

Figure 8. Annual average model-reconstructed “clean conditions” visibility

as extinction coefficient.

These results are all very tentative because of the large uncertainties in natural emissions.

Considerable effort would be needed to more fully investigate natural conditions in future

modeling studies. It will always be difficult to determine and quantify “clean conditions”

based on observations because of the pervasive influence of anthropogenic emissions.

Also as part of this sensitivity analysis, the contributors to organic carbon aerosols (OC) for

the clean conditions scenario wer4e evaluated. The CMAQ model represents explicitly three

classes of organic carbon aerosols:

 AORGPA: Primary anthropogenic OC resulting from direct organic mass emissions,

such as primary organic aerosol (POA).

 AORGA: Secondary anthropogenic OC resulting from aromatic VOCs, such as

xylene, toluene, and cresols.
Appendix E Page 32

 AORGB: Secondary biogenic OC resulting from biogenic VOCs, such as terpenes.

Because it was not cost effective to carry out CAMx/PSAT simulations with OC, the explicit

OC results for the clean conditions case were analyzed, and then compared those results to

the Base02b case in an attempt to infer the relative contributions of biogenic and

anthropogenic VOCs to OC. These results are difficult to interpret for at least two reasons:

 Because of the simplified approach used by CMAQ and the Carbon Bond Mechanism

version 4 (CB4) to represent these species, it is not possible to accurately classify all

emissions into the CMAQ model as either biogenic or anthropogenic based simply on

the species name. Thus, some biogenic OC might be included with AORGA, and

some anthropogenic OC might be included in AORB.

 Some fire emissions are classified as anthropogenic, but these emissions might

include species such as terpenes that are typically considered biogenic. Using the

analysis approach in which all terpenes are assumed biogenic then incorrectly causes

some anthropogenic emissions to be labeled biogenic when we use the simplified

approach of analyzing OC in terms of AORGPA, AORGA and AORGB.

In spite of these difficulties, however, the results should classify the majority of the emissions

correctly as either biogenic or anthropogenic.

For each of the above three components of OC, plots of the annual average mass in the

Base02b case were prepared, and then the controllable mass was estimated as the difference

between the Base02b case the Base02nt clean emissions scenario. Figure 9 shows the annual

average mass of OC contributed from AORGPA in case Base02b (top) and the portion of that

mass attributed to controllable emissions (bottom). Comparing these two plots indicates that

in the western U.S. there is considerable AORGPA mass that is not controllable. It is likely

that much of this mass is from fires, since uncontrollable AORGPA mass is present at the site

of large fires in southern Oregon and north of Tucson, AZ.

Figure 10 shows the annual average mass of secondary OC contributed from AORGA in the

Base02b case (top) and the portion of that mass attributed to controllable emissions (bottom).

These plots indicate that virtually all of the AORGA mass is controllable, since the bottom

plot is almost identical to the top plot.

Figure 11 shows the annual average mass of OC contributed from AORGPA in the Base02b

case (top) and the portion of that mass attributed to controllable emissions (bottom). These

plots indicate that although most of the AORGB mass is not controllable, a significant

amount of mass is controllable. It is likely that the controllable AORGB mass results from

VOC oxidation chemistry and the larger amount of biogenic mass that is oxidized and

subsequently condenses to form OC in the Base02b case. These results indicate that

controlling O3 precursor emissions is effective at reducing a small but significant fraction of

the biogenic OC.
Appendix E Page 33

Figure 9. Annual average modeled primary anthropogenic OC (AORGPA) in Base02b

(top) and the portion that is “controllable” primary anthropogenic OC (bottom).
Appendix E Page 34

Figure 10. Annual average modeled secondary anthropogenic OC (AORGA) in Base02b

(top) and the portion that is “controllable” secondary anthropogenic OC (bottom).
Appendix E Page 35

Figure 11. Annual average modeled primary biogenic OC (AORGB) in Base02b (top)

and the portion that is “controllable” primary biogenic OC (bottom).
Appendix E Page 36

It might be difficult for the WRAP states and tribes to use these results quantitatively in

developing emissions control strategies for visibility SIPs and TIPs. However, the results do

provide some insight into the relative contributions of biogenic and anthropogenic OC as

well as the amount of each that is controllable in the model simulations.

Finally, it is noted that there are uncertainties in the modeled emissions of anthropogenic

VOCs, and larger uncertainties in the modeled emissions of biogenic VOCs. It is not possible

to evaluate the model performance individually for biogenic and anthropogenic OC because

the OC measurements do not distinguish between those two forms. Instead, only comparisons

of total modeled OC to total measured OC can be made. Therefore, even when the model

achieves good performance for total OC, it is possible that the model may be overpredicting

one component of total OC and underpredicting the other. The inability to evaluate model

performance for each component of OC increases the uncertainty of the results described

here and illustrated in Figures 9 through 11, so caution should be used when drawing

conclusions about the sources of OC based on these results.

References

Byun, D.W. and J. K. S. Ching, Eds., 1999: Science algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rep.

EPA-600/R-99/030, 727 pp. [Available from Office of Research and Development, EPA,

Washington, DC 20460.

Dudhia, J. 1993. "A Non-hydrostatic Version of the Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model: Validation

Tests and Simulation of an Atlantic Cyclone and Cold Front", Mon. Wea. Rev., Vol. 121. pp.

1493-1513.

Grell, G. A., J. Dudhia, and D. R. Stauffer. 1994. "A Description of the Fifth Generation Penn

State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5). NCAR Tech. Note, NCAR TN-398-STR, 138 pp.

Kemball-Cook, S. et al., 2005: Draft Final Report, Annual 2002 MM5 Meteorological Modeling to

Support Regional Haze Modeling of the Western United States, prepared for the WRAP by

ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA and the University of California at Riverside,

Riverside, CA.

http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/reports/mm5/DrftFnl_2002MM5_FinalWRAP_Eval.pdf

Malm, W., M. Pitchford, M. Scruggs, J. Sisler, R. Ames, S. Copeland, K. Gebhart and D. Day. 2000.

Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and Its Constituents in the United

States – Report III. Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado.

May. (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/Publications/Rpeorts/2000/2000.htm).

Malm, W., M. Pitchford, M. Scruggs, J. Sisler, R. Ames, S. Copeland, K. Gebhart and D. Day. 2000.

Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and its Constituents in the United

States. Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Fort

Collins, CO. May.

Tonnesen, G. et al., 2006: Final Report for the WRAP 2002 Visibility Model Performance Evaluation,

Prepared for the Western Governors Association by the WRAP RMC, Riverside, CA.

http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/reports/final/2002_MPE_report_main_body_FINAL.pdf
Appendix E Page 37

U.S. EPA. 2001. “Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for PM2.5 and

Regional Haze”, Draft Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

NC.

U.S. EPA. 2003a. “Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze

Rule.” EPA-454/B-03-005. September 2003.

U.S. EPA. 2003b. “Guidance for Tracking Progress under the Regional Haze Rule.” U.S. EPA, EPA454/B-03-004. September 2003.

U.S. EPA. 2003c. “Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred Long

Range Transport Model and Other Resources”; Final Rule. Fed. Reg./Vol. 68, No. 72/Tuesday

April 15, 2003/Rules and Regulations. 40 CFR51.

U.S. EPA. 2005. “Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Technology (BART)

Determinations”. Fed. Reg./Vol. 70, No. 128/Wed. July 6, 2005, Rules and Regulations, pp.

39104-39172. 40 CFR Part 51, FRL-7925-9, RIN AJ31.

U.S. EPA. 2006a. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment

of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, Pm2.5, and Regional Haze – Draft 3.2. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina. September. (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/draft_final-pm-O3-RH.pdf).

U.S. EPA. 2006b. Additional Regional Haze Questions. U.S. Environmental Protections

Agency. August 3.

(http://www.wrapair.org/forums/iwg/documents/Q_and_A_for_Regional_Haze_8-

03-06.pdf#search=%22%22New%20IMPROVE%20equation%22%22
Appendix E Page 38

WEIGHTED EMISSIONS POTENTIAL ANALYSIS

Introduction

The Weighted Emissions Potential analysis (WEP) was developed as a screening tool for

states to decide which source regions have the potential to contribute to haze formation at

specific Class I areas, based on both the 2002 and 2018 emissions inventories. This method

does not produce highly accurate results because, unlike the air quality model and associated

PSAT analysis, it does not account for chemistry and removal processes. Instead, it relies on

an integration of gridded emissions data, back trajectory residence time data, a one-overdistance factor to approximate deposition, and a normalization of the final results. Residence

time over an area is indicative of general flow patterns, but does not necessarily imply the

area contributed significantly to haze at a given receptor. Therefore, users are cautioned to

view the WEP as one piece of a larger, more comprehensive weight of evidence analysis.

Emissions Data Inputs

The emissions data used were the annual, 36km grid SMOKE-processed, model-ready

emissions inventories provided by the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC). The

analysis was performed for nine (9) pollutants (maps were generated for all but the last

three):

 Sulfur oxides

 Nitrogen oxides

 Organic carbon

 Elemental carbon

 Fine particulate matter

 Coarse particulate matter

 Ammonia

 Volatile organic carbon

 Carbon monoxide.

The following source categories for each pollutant were identified and preserved through the

analysis:

 Biogenic

 Natural fire

 Point

 Area

 WRAP oil and gas

 Off-shore

 On-road mobile

 Off-road mobile

 Road dust

 Fugitive dust

 Windblown dust
Appendix E Page 39

 Anthropogenic fires

Residence Time Inputs

The back trajectory residence times were provided by the WRAP Causes of Haze Assessment

(COHA). The COHA project used NOAA’s HYSPLIT model to generate eight (8) back

trajectories daily for each WRAP Class I area for the entire five-year baseline period (2000-

04). The major model parameters selected for this analysis are presented in Table 1. From

these individual trajectories, residence time fields were generated for one-degree latitude by

one-degree longitude grid cells. Residence time analysis computes the amount of time (e.g.,

number of hours) or percent of time an air parcel is in a horizontal grid cell. Plotted on a

map, residence time is shown as percent of total hours in each grid cell across the domain,

thus allowing an interpretation of general air flow patterns for a given Class I area. The

residence time fields for the 20% worst and best IMPROVE-monitored extinction days were

selected for the WEP analysis to highlight the potential emissions sources during those

specific periods.

Table 1

Back Trajectory Model Parameters Selected for WEP Analysis

Model Parameter Value

Trajectory duration 192 hours (8 days) backward in time

Top of model domain 14,000 meters

Vertical motion option used model data

Receptor height 500 meters

Meteorological Field EDAS and FNL (location dependent)

Integration of Emissions and Residence Time Data

The WEP analysis consisted of weighting the annual gridded emissions (by pollutant and

source category) by the worst and best extinction days residence times for the five-year

baseline period. To account for deposition along the trajectories, the result was further

weighted by a one-over-distance factor, measured as the distance in km between the centroid

of each emissions grid cell and the centroid of the grid cell containing the Class I area

monitoring site under investigation. (The “home” grid cell of the monitoring site was

weighted by one fourth of the 36km grid cell distance, or one-over-9km, to avoid a large

response in that grid cell.) The resulting weighted emissions field was normalized by the

highest grid cell to ease interpretation.

An example series of maps illustrating the WEP analysis is presented in Figure 1. This

example shows the annual emissions for NOx across the domain, the specific residence time

pattern for the 20% worst monitored days at a Class I area, and the resulting weighted

emissions map. Both the 2002 and 2018 cases are presented. Interpretation of the results

should focus on which grid cells (or larger regions) have significant potential to affect the

Class I area, and on changes between 2002 and 2018.
Appendix E Page 40

An example of associated bar charts showing the estimated contribution by source category

and region is presented in Figure 2. It is important to note that these charts show normalized

values with no direct connection to original emissions values. Interpretation of the results

should focus on the relative contributions by each source category and region, and the

changes between 2002 and 2018.

Caveats

The WEP is not a rigorous, stand-alone analysis, but a simple, straightforward use of existing

data. As such, there are several caveats to keep in mind when using WEP results as part of a

comprehensive weight of evidence analysis:

 This analysis does not take into account any emissions chemistry.

 While actual emissions may vary considerably throughout the year, this analysis

pairs up annual emissions data with 20% worst/best extinction days residence

times – this is likely most problematic for carbon and dust emissions, which can

be highly episodic.

 Coarse particle and some fine particle dust emissions tend not to be transported

long distances due to their large mass.

 The WEP results are unitless numbers, normalized to the largest-valued grid cell.

Effective use of these results requires an understanding of actual emissions values

and their relative contribution to haze at a given Class I area.
Appendix E Page 41

2002 NOx Emissions (TPY) Residence Time Field, Worst 20% Monitored

Days (2000-2005)

2002 NOx Emissions Weighted by Residence

Time and One-Over-Distance

2018 NOx Emissions (TPY) Residence Time Field, Worst 20% Monitored

Days (2000-2005)

2018 NOx Emissions Weighted by Residence

Time and One-Over-Distance

Figure 1. Example series of maps for WEP analysis at Bridger Wilderness, WY. From left to right: single-year annual emissions density map;

five-year residence time map; emissions weighted by residence time, by one-over-distance, and normalized to the highest grid cell. Top row

presents 2002 results, bottom row presents 2018 results.
Appendix E Page 42

Sources and Areas of Potential Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Influence

2000-2004 Baseline for Bridger Wilderness, WY

20% Worst Visibility Days

4.8

12.6

0.8

22.1

3.4 4.3

0.5 0.2

4.6

0.1

19.9

3.7

15.1

3.2

1.3 0.3 0.7

2.3

0

10

20

30

40

Arizona

California

Colorado

Idaho

Montana

Nevada

New Mexico

North Dakota

Oregon

South Dakota

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

Pacific Offshore

CENRAP

Eastern US

Mexico

Canada

Percent of Total Distance Weighted Emis x ResTime

Biogenic Natural Fire Point Area WRAP Area O&G Off-Shore

On-Road Mobile Off-Road Mobile Road Dust Fugitive Dust WB Dust Anthro Fire
Appendix E Page 43

Sources and Areas of Potential Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Influence

2018 Projections for Bridger Wilderness, WY

20% Worst Visibility Days

3.2

7.7

0.6

20.6

3.1 3.7

0.6 0.2

3.3

0.1

13.9

2.2

33.1

2.7

1.0 0.2 0.7

3.2

0

10

20

30

40

Arizona

California

Colorado

Idaho

Montana

Nevada

New Mexico

North Dakota

Oregon

South Dakota

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

Pacific Offshore

CENRAP

Eastern US

Mexico

Canada

Percent of Total Distance Weighted Emis x ResTime

Biogenic Natural Fire Point Area WRAP Area O&G Off-Shore

On-Road Mobile Off-Road Mobile Road Dust Fugitive Dust WB Dust Anthro Fire

Figure 2. Example source category bar charts based on WEP analysis at Bridger Wilderness, WY. Top chart presents 2002 results, bottom chart

presents 2018 results.
Appendix E Page 44

Source Attribution data

The WRAP and member states relied upon gridded three dimensional photochemical Eulerian models to track emissions from sources to Class I

areas. The model Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) - PSAT (PM Source Apportionment Technology) was used for

mass-tracking algorithms to explicitly track for a given emissions source, the chemical transformations, transport and removal of the particulate

that was formed from that source. Additional information on this model is available in the preceding modeling discussion.

Idaho used the WRAP CAMx PSAT information to determine Idaho’s contribution to Class I areas in and outside of Idaho. As part of the

analysis, each state’s percent contribution was calculated for both the base year of 2002 and 2018. In addition the percentage change in

contribution from 2002 to 2018 was also calculated to identify reasonable progress. The following tables used the plan 02 C base year emission

inventory and the 2018 base case 18b which was an earlier version of the 2018 emission inventory.

Craters of the Moon NM

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.19%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CA 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.006 1.11%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.008 0.031 0.04 7.41%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CEN 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.37%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.19%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.19%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 ID 0.012 0.003 0.014 0.009 0.05 0.088 16.30%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 MEX 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.19%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 MT 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.93%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 ND 0 0 0 0 0.006 0.006 1.11%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.19%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 NV 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.009 1.67%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 OR 0.011 0.001 0.004 0.003 0.011 0.03 5.56%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 PO 0 0 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.013 2.41%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 UT 0 0 0.004 0.001 0.013 0.018 3.33%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 WA 0.001 0 0.005 0.002 0.014 0.022 4.07%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 WY 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.011 0.014 2.59%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 OD 0.282 0.282 52.22%

Total 0.025 0.004 0.033 0.039 0.157 0.282 0.540 100.00%
Appendix E Page 45

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.18%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CA 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.91%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.008 0.031 0.04 7.30%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CEN 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.36%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 ID 0.012 0.001 0.004 0.01 0.074 0.101 18.43%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 MEX 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.18%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 MT 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.91%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 ND 0 0 0 0 0.006 0.006 1.09%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.18%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 NV 0 0 0 0.001 0.009 0.01 1.82%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 OR 0.011 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.013 0.028 5.11%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 PO 0 0 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.013 2.37%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 UT 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.015 0.017 3.10%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 WA 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.012 0.017 3.10%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 WY 0 0 0 0.003 0.016 0.019 3.47%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 OD 0.282 0.282 51.46%

Total 0.025 0.002 0.009 0.041 0.189 0.282 0.548 100.00%

Percent by

Source Type 4.56% 0.36% 1.64% 7.48% 34.49% 51.46% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 2.19% 0.18% 0.73% 1.82% 13.50% 0.00% 18.43%
Appendix E Page 46

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 AZ 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.10%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CA 0.001 0 0.011 0.002 0.001 0.015 1.45%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CAN 0.002 0 0.016 0.008 0.008 0.034 3.28%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CEN 0 0 0.003 0 0.001 0.004 0.39%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CO 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.19%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 ID 0.043 0.007 0.229 0.091 0.044 0.414 39.92%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 MT 0.003 0.001 0.016 0.001 0.007 0.028 2.70%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 ND 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.004 0.39%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.10%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 NV 0.002 0 0.012 0 0.009 0.023 2.22%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 OR 0.003 0.003 0.028 0.002 0.007 0.043 4.15%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 PO 0 0 0.002 0.006 0 0.008 0.77%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 SD 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.10%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 UT 0.005 0 0.12 0.006 0.046 0.177 17.07%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 WA 0.003 0.001 0.039 0.003 0.005 0.051 4.92%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 WY 0.001 0 0.011 0.005 0.015 0.032 3.09%

CRMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 OD 0.199 0.199 19.19%

Total 0.064 0.012 0.491 0.124 0.147 0.199 1.037 100.00%
Appendix E Page 47

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.12%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CA 0.001 0 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.009 1.12%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CAN 0.002 0 0.016 0.008 0.008 0.034 4.22%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CEN 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.25%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.12%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 ID 0.042 0.003 0.085 0.12 0.048 0.298 36.97%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 MT 0.002 0 0.008 0.003 0.008 0.021 2.61%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 0.37%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.12%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 NV 0.002 0 0.007 0 0.012 0.021 2.61%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 OR 0.003 0.002 0.012 0.002 0.009 0.028 3.47%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 PO 0 0 0.002 0.006 0 0.008 0.99%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 UT 0.005 0 0.054 0.01 0.048 0.117 14.52%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 WA 0.003 0 0.013 0.003 0.005 0.024 2.98%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 WY 0 0 0.005 0.013 0.017 0.035 4.34%

CRMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 OD 0.203 0.203 25.19%

Total 0.06 0.005 0.209 0.167 0.162 0.203 0.806 100.00%

Percent by

Source Type 7.44% 0.62% 25.93% 20.72% 20.10% 25.19% 100.00%

Idaho %

Total

Contribution 5.21% 0.37% 10.55% 14.89% 5.96% 0.00% 36.97%
Appendix E Page 48

Hells Canyon Wilderness

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat. Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.18%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CA 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 0.009 0.015 2.74%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.01 0.04 0.051 9.31%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CEN 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.55%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.18%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.55%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 ID 0.002 0.001 0.01 0.012 0.023 0.048 8.76%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 MEX 0 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.55%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 MT 0 0 0.001 0 0.003 0.004 0.73%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0.007 0.007 1.28%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 NV 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.013 0.018 3.28%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 OR 0.006 0.003 0.01 0.005 0.019 0.043 7.85%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.015 0.001 0.017 3.10%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 UT 0 0 0.001 0 0.003 0.004 0.73%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 WA 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.003 0.019 0.032 5.84%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 WY 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.006 0.008 1.46%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 OD 0.29 0.29 52.92%

Total 0.012 0.005 0.035 0.053 0.153 0.290 0.548 100.00%
Appendix E Page 49

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.19% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CA 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 0.01 0.015 2.81% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.01 0.039 0.05 9.38% -1.96%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CEN 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.38% -33.33%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

-

100.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.38% -33.33%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 ID 0.002 0 0.002 0.013 0.028 0.045 8.44% -6.25%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 MEX 0 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.56% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 MT 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.004 0.75% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0.007 0.007 1.31% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 NV 0.001 0 0 0.004 0.017 0.022 4.13% 22.22%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 OR 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.021 0.036 6.75% -16.28%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.015 0.002 0.018 3.38% 5.88%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 UT 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.004 0.75% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 WA 0.001 0 0.001 0.004 0.018 0.024 4.50% -25.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 WY 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.007 0.009 1.69% 12.50%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 OD 0.291 0.291 54.60% 0.34%

Total 0.012 0.002 0.008 0.056 0.164 0.291 0.533 100.00% -2.74%

% by

Source Type 2.25% 0.38% 1.50% 10.51% 30.77% 54.60% 100.00%

Idaho %

Total

Contribution 0.38% 0.00% 0.38% 2.44% 5.25% 0.00% 8.44%
Appendix E Page 50

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CA 0.005 0.001 0.08 0.013 0.009 0.108 9.78%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CAN 0.003 0 0.018 0.008 0.009 0.038 3.44%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CEN 0 0 0.002 0 0.001 0.003 0.27%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 ID 0.024 0.002 0.207 0.126 0.031 0.39 35.33%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 MT 0.001 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.004 0.016 1.45%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 0.27%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 NV 0.003 0 0.026 0.001 0.023 0.053 4.80%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 OR 0.016 0.005 0.081 0.005 0.029 0.136 12.32%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 PO 0 0 0.005 0.011 0.001 0.017 1.54%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 UT 0.001 0 0.025 0.001 0.009 0.036 3.26%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 WA 0.006 0.007 0.061 0.004 0.006 0.084 7.61%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 WY 0 0 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.009 0.82%

HECA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 OD 0.211 0.211 19.11%

Total 0.059 0.016 0.518 0.171 0.129 0.211 1.104 100.00%
Appendix E Page 51

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CA 0.005 0 0.03 0.012 0.009 0.056 6.39% -48.15%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CAN 0.003 0 0.018 0.008 0.008 0.037 4.22% -2.63%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CEN 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.11% -66.67%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 ID 0.023 0.001 0.08 0.173 0.035 0.312 35.62% -20.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 MT 0.001 0 0.005 0.002 0.005 0.013 1.48% -18.75%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 0.34% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 NV 0.003 0 0.015 0.002 0.028 0.048 5.48% -9.43%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 OR 0.016 0.003 0.042 0.006 0.035 0.102 11.64% -25.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 PO 0 0 0.003 0.011 0.001 0.015 1.71% -11.76%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 UT 0.001 0 0.011 0.002 0.009 0.023 2.63% -36.11%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 WA 0.006 0.002 0.022 0.004 0.007 0.041 4.68% -51.19%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 WY 0 0 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.011 1.26% 22.22%

HECA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 OD 0.214 0.214 24.43% 1.42%

Total 0.058 0.006 0.23 0.224 0.144 0.214 0.876 100.00% -20.65%

Percent by

Source Type 6.62% 0.68% 26.26% 25.57% 16.44% 24.43% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 2.63% 0.11% 9.13% 19.75% 4.00% 0.00% 35.62%
Appendix E Page 52

Sawtooth Wilderness

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.24%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CA 0.003 0 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.01 2.40%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.009 0.017 0.027 6.47%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CEN 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.005 1.20%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.24%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.008 0.008 1.92%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 ID 0.014 0.003 0.008 0.006 0.008 0.039 9.35%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 MEX 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.005 1.20%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 MT 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.72%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.004 0.96%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.24%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 NV 0.003 0 0 0.002 0.005 0.01 2.40%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 OR 0.015 0.002 0.006 0.004 0.014 0.041 9.83%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.015 0.001 0.017 4.08%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 UT 0 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 0.72%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 WA 0.002 0.001 0.009 0.004 0.021 0.037 8.87%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 WY 0.002 0 0 0 0.004 0.006 1.44%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 OD 0.199 0.199 47.72%

Total 0.039 0.006 0.028 0.044 0.101 0.199 0.417 100.00%
Appendix E Page 53

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02 -

18

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.26% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CA 0.003 0 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.01 2.57% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.009 0.016 0.026 6.68% -3.70%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CEN 0 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.004 1.03% -20.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.26% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.77% -62.50%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 ID 0.014 0.001 0.002 0.007 0.009 0.033 8.48% -15.38%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 MEX 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.005 1.29% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 MT 0 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.77% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.004 1.03% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.26% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 NV 0.003 0 0 0.002 0.005 0.01 2.57% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 OR 0.015 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.016 0.037 9.51% -9.76%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.015 0.001 0.017 4.37% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 UT 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.51% -33.33%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 WA 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.019 0.027 6.94% -27.03%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 WY 0.002 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.008 2.06% 33.33%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 OD 0.197 0.197 50.64% -1.01%

Total 0.039 0.004 0.007 0.045 0.097 0.197 0.389 100.00% -6.71%

Percent by

Source Type 10.03% 1.03% 1.80% 11.57% 24.94% 50.64% 100.00%

Idaho Percent

Total 3.60% 0.26% 0.51% 1.80% 2.31% 0.00% 8.48%
Appendix E Page 54

Contribution

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CA 0 0 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.006 3.49%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CAN 0.001 0 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.008 4.65%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 ID 0.008 0.002 0.024 0.015 0.003 0.052 30.23%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 MT 0.001 0 0.002 0 0.001 0.004 2.33%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 NV 0.001 0 0.003 0 0.002 0.006 3.49%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 OR 0.002 0.003 0.011 0.001 0.002 0.019 11.05%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 PO 0 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.58%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 UT 0 0 0.003 0 0.001 0.004 2.33%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 WA 0.003 0.002 0.014 0.001 0.001 0.021 12.21%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 WY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SAWT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 OD 0.051 0.051 29.65%

Total 0.016 0.007 0.064 0.021 0.013 0.051 0.172 100.00%
Appendix E Page 55

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CA 0 0 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.004 2.68% -33.33%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CAN 0.001 0 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.009 6.04% 12.50%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 ID 0.007 0.001 0.01 0.022 0.003 0.043 28.86% -17.31%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 MT 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 2.01% -25.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.67% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 NV 0.001 0 0.002 0 0.003 0.006 4.03% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 OR 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.013 8.72% -31.58%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 PO 0 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.67% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 UT 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 1.34% -50.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 WA 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.012 8.05% -42.86%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 WY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SAWT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 OD 0.055 0.055 36.91% 7.84%

Total 0.015 0.004 0.03 0.028 0.017 0.055 0.149 100.00% -13.37%

Percent by

Source Type 10.07% 2.68% 20.13% 18.79% 11.41% 36.91% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 4.70% 0.67% 6.71% 14.77% 2.01% 0.00% 28.86%
Appendix E Page 56

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.16%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CA 0.002 0 0.001 0.002 0.006 0.011 1.76%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CAN 0 0 0.002 0.021 0.058 0.081 12.94%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CEN 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.80%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.16%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.48%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 ID 0.063 0.001 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.076 12.14%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 MEX 0 0 0 0.001 0.006 0.007 1.12%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 MT 0.001 0 0.007 0.006 0.011 0.025 3.99%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 ND 0 0 0 0 0.007 0.007 1.12%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 NV 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.80%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 OR 0.01 0.001 0.007 0.004 0.017 0.039 6.23%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 PO 0 0 0.002 0.019 0.002 0.023 3.67%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 UT 0 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 0.48%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 WA 0.003 0.002 0.017 0.006 0.032 0.06 9.58%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 WY 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.007 0.009 1.44%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 OD 0.27 0.27 43.13%

Total 0.081 0.004 0.042 0.065 0.164 0.270 0.626 100.00%
Appendix E Page 57

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.17% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CA 0.002 0 0.001 0.002 0.006 0.011 1.82% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CAN 0 0 0.002 0.02 0.059 0.081 13.39% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CEN 0 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.66% -20.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.17% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.33% -33.33%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 ID 0.063 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.073 12.07% -3.95%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 MEX 0 0 0 0.001 0.006 0.007 1.16% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 MT 0.001 0 0.002 0.006 0.016 0.025 4.13% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 ND 0 0 0 0 0.007 0.007 1.16% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 NV 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.83% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 OR 0.01 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.021 0.037 6.12% -5.13%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 PO 0 0 0.001 0.019 0.002 0.022 3.64% -4.35%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 UT 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.50% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 WA 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.007 0.031 0.044 7.27% -26.67%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 WY 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.01 0.012 1.98% 33.33%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 OD 0.27 0.27 44.63% 0.00%

Total 0.081 0.003 0.01 0.065 0.176 0.27 0.605 100.00% -3.35%

Percent by

Source

Type 13.39% 0.50% 1.65% 10.74% 29.09% 44.63% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 10.41% 0.17% 0.17% 0.50% 0.83% 0.00% 12.07%
Appendix E Page 58

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CA 0 0 0.004 0.001 0 0.005 1.35%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CAN 0.002 0 0.015 0.008 0.009 0.034 9.19%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CEN 0 0 0.002 0 0.001 0.003 0.81%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 ID 0.018 0.003 0.023 0.007 0.003 0.054 14.59%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 MT 0.006 0 0.051 0.004 0.013 0.074 20.00%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 0.81%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 NV 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.54%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 OR 0.003 0.002 0.012 0.001 0.004 0.022 5.95%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 PO 0 0 0.001 0.003 0 0.004 1.08%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 SD 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.27%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 UT 0 0 0.004 0 0.002 0.006 1.62%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 WA 0.007 0.007 0.041 0.002 0.003 0.06 16.22%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 WY 0 0 0.003 0.001 0.006 0.01 2.70%

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 OD 0.092 0.092 24.86%

Total 0.036 0.012 0.159 0.027 0.044 0.092 0.370 100.00%
Appendix E Page 59

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CA 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.002 0.70% -60.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CAN 0.002 0 0.015 0.008 0.008 0.033 11.62% -2.94%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CEN 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.70% -33.33%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 ID 0.017 0.001 0.008 0.009 0.004 0.039 13.73% -27.78%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 MT 0.005 0 0.022 0.006 0.015 0.048 16.90% -35.14%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 1.06% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 NV 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.70% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 OR 0.002 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.013 4.58% -40.91%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 PO 0 0 0.001 0.003 0 0.004 1.41% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 UT 0 0 0.002 0 0.001 0.003 1.06% -50.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 WA 0.007 0.004 0.014 0.002 0.003 0.03 10.56% -50.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 WY 0 0 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.01 3.52% 0.00%

SULA1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 OD 0.095 0.095 33.45% 3.26%

Total 0.033 0.006 0.073 0.034 0.043 0.095 0.284 100.00% -23.24%

Percent by

Source Type 11.62% 2.11% 25.70% 11.97% 15.14% 33.45% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 5.99% 0.35% 2.82% 3.17% 1.41% 0.00% 13.73%
Appendix E Page 60

Yellowstone National Park

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 AZ 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.005 0.007 1.42%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CA 0.004 0 0.002 0.002 0.008 0.016 3.24%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.006 0.02 0.027 5.47%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CEN 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.012 2.43%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.61%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 EUS 0 0 0 0.001 0.009 0.01 2.02%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 ID 0.014 0.001 0.006 0.003 0.016 0.04 8.10%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 MEX 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.016 0.02 4.05%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 MT 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.007 1.42%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.20%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.61%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 NV 0.003 0 0.001 0.002 0.007 0.013 2.63%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 OR 0.01 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.007 0.023 4.66%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.016 0.003 0.02 4.05%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 UT 0.001 0 0.003 0.001 0.007 0.012 2.43%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 WA 0.002 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.011 0.021 4.25%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 WY 0.008 0 0.002 0.003 0.016 0.029 5.87%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 OD 0.23 0.23 46.56%

Total 0.044 0.003 0.028 0.043 0.146 0.230 0.494 100.00%
Appendix E Page 61

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 AZ 0.001 0 0 0 0.006 0.007 1.43% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CA 0.004 0 0.001 0.002 0.008 0.015 3.07% -6.25%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.006 0.021 0.028 5.73% 3.70%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CEN 0 0 0 0.002 0.007 0.009 1.84% -25.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.61% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 EUS 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.005 1.02% -50.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 ID 0.014 0 0.001 0.003 0.025 0.043 8.79% 7.50%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 MEX 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.017 0.021 4.29% 5.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 MT 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.007 1.43% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.20% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.41% -33.33%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 NV 0.003 0 0 0.002 0.006 0.011 2.25% -15.38%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 OR 0.01 0 0 0.002 0.008 0.02 4.09% -13.04%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.016 0.004 0.021 4.29% 5.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 UT 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.01 0.012 2.45% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 WA 0.002 0 0.001 0.002 0.009 0.014 2.86% -33.33%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 WY 0.008 0 0.001 0.003 0.027 0.039 7.98% 34.48%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 OD 0.231 0.231 47.24% 0.43%

Total 0.044 0 0.007 0.044 0.163 0.231 0.489 100.00% -1.01%

Percent by

Source Type 9.00% 0.00% 1.43% 9.00% 33.33% 47.24% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 2.86% 0.00% 0.20% 0.61% 5.11% 0.00% 8.79%
Appendix E Page 62

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CA 0.001 0 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.011 4.31%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CAN 0 0 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.004 1.57%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 ID 0.015 0.001 0.036 0.013 0.007 0.072 28.24%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 MT 0.001 0 0.004 0 0.001 0.006 2.35%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 NV 0.001 0 0.002 0 0.002 0.005 1.96%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 OR 0.002 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.003 0.018 7.06%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.003 0 0.004 1.57%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 UT 0.001 0 0.013 0.001 0.004 0.019 7.45%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 WA 0.002 0.001 0.018 0.001 0.002 0.024 9.41%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 WY 0.001 0 0.005 0.002 0.004 0.012 4.71%

YELL2 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 OD 0.08 0.08 31.37%

Total 0.024 0.003 0.100 0.023 0.025 0.080 0.255 100.00%
Appendix E Page 63

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02 -

18

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CA 0.001 0 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.006 2.75% -45.45%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CAN 0 0 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.004 1.83% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 ID 0.015 0 0.014 0.017 0.007 0.053 24.31% -26.39%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 MT 0.001 0 0.002 0 0.001 0.004 1.83% -33.33%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 NV 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.003 0.005 2.29% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 OR 0.002 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.012 5.50% -33.33%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.004 0 0.005 2.29% 25.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 UT 0.001 0 0.006 0.001 0.005 0.013 5.96% -31.58%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 WA 0.002 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.003 0.013 5.96% -45.83%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 WY 0.001 0 0.002 0.007 0.006 0.016 7.34% 33.33%

YELL2 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 OD 0.087 0.087 39.91% 8.75%

Total 0.024 0.002 0.042 0.033 0.03 0.087 0.218 100.00% -14.51%

Percent by

Source Type 11.01% 0.92% 19.27% 15.14% 13.76% 39.91% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 6.88% 0.00% 6.42% 7.80% 3.21% 0.00% 24.31%
Appendix E Page 64

Cabinet Mountain Wilderness

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CA 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.61%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CAN 0 0 0.003 0.041 0.095 0.139 17.01%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CEN 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.24%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.24%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 ID 0.044 0.003 0.008 0.007 0.002 0.064 7.83%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.12%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 MT 0.001 0.003 0.009 0.004 0.007 0.024 2.94%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 ND 0 0 0 0 0.011 0.011 1.35%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 NV 0 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.37%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 OR 0.003 0.001 0.007 0.005 0.026 0.042 5.14%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 PO 0 0 0.003 0.02 0.002 0.025 3.06%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 UT 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.12%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 WA 0.004 0.004 0.033 0.013 0.059 0.113 13.83%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 WY 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.61%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 OD 0.38 0.38 46.51%

Total 0.053 0.011 0.064 0.093 0.216 0.380 0.817 100.00%
Appendix E Page 65

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CA 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.51% -20.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CAN 0 0 0.003 0.043 0.101 0.147 18.65% 5.76%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CEN 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.13% -50.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.13% -50.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 ID 0.044 0.001 0.003 0.008 0.003 0.059 7.49% -7.81%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.13% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 MT 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.012 0.024 3.05% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 ND 0 0 0 0 0.012 0.012 1.52% 9.09%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 NV 0 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.38% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 OR 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.033 0.042 5.33% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 PO 0 0 0.001 0.019 0.002 0.022 2.79% -12.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 UT 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.13% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 WA 0.004 0.002 0.005 0.015 0.058 0.084 10.66% -25.66%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 WY 0 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.76% 20.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 OD 0.381 0.381 48.35% 0.26%

Total 0.053 0.006 0.017 0.097 0.234 0.381 0.788 100.00% -3.55%

Percent by

Source Type 6.73% 0.76% 2.16% 12.31% 29.70% 48.35% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 5.58% 0.13% 0.38% 1.02% 0.38% 0.00% 7.49%
Appendix E Page 66

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CA 0.001 0 0.01 0.002 0.001 0.014 1.82%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CAN 0.003 0 0.04 0.016 0.014 0.073 9.48%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CEN 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.13%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 ID 0.007 0.003 0.067 0.027 0.006 0.11 14.29%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 MT 0.007 0.005 0.084 0.006 0.012 0.114 14.81%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.26%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 NV 0 0 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.52%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 OD 0.11 0.11 14.29%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 OR 0.004 0.002 0.038 0.003 0.012 0.059 7.66%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 PO 0 0 0.004 0.008 0.001 0.013 1.69%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 UT 0 0 0.005 0 0.002 0.007 0.91%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 WA 0.021 0.011 0.196 0.012 0.017 0.257 33.38%

CABI1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 WY 0 0 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.78%

Total 0.043 0.021 0.450 0.075 0.071 0.110 0.770 100.00%
Appendix E Page 67

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02 -

18

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CA 0.001 0 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.008 1.38% -42.86%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CAN 0.003 0 0.041 0.016 0.015 0.075 12.93% 2.74%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 ID 0.007 0.001 0.026 0.038 0.009 0.081 13.97% -26.36%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 MT 0.006 0.003 0.047 0.009 0.014 0.079 13.62% -30.70%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 ND 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.17% -50.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 NV 0 0 0.001 0 0.003 0.004 0.69% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 OD 0.119 0.119 20.52% 8.18%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 OR 0.004 0.002 0.019 0.004 0.015 0.044 7.59% -25.42%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 PO 0 0 0.004 0.009 0.001 0.014 2.41% 7.69%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 UT 0 0 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.69% -42.86%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 WA 0.022 0.005 0.082 0.015 0.021 0.145 25.00% -43.58%

CABI1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 WY 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.006 1.03% 0.00%

Total 0.043 0.011 0.227 0.095 0.085 0.119 0.58 100.00% -24.68%

Percent by

Source Type 7.41% 1.90% 39.14% 16.38% 14.66% 20.52% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 1.21% 0.17% 4.48% 6.55% 1.55% 0.00% 13.97%
Appendix E Page 68

Eagle Cap Wilderness

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.14%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CA 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.86%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CAN 0 0 0.002 0.024 0.079 0.105 15.09%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CEN 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.29%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.29%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 ID 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.006 0.01 0.024 3.45%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 MEX 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.29%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 MT 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.72%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 ND 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 1.44%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 NV 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.009 0.012 1.72%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 OR 0.004 0.004 0.017 0.009 0.036 0.07 10.06%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 PO 0 0 0.002 0.02 0.001 0.023 3.30%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 UT 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.14%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 WA 0.003 0.002 0.024 0.01 0.061 0.1 14.37%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 WY 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.004 0.57%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 OD 0.329 0.329 47.27%

Total 0.009 0.007 0.054 0.073 0.224 0.329 0.696

100.00%
Appendix E Page 69

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.15% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CA 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.89% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CAN 0 0 0.002 0.023 0.078 0.103 15.33% -1.90%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CEN 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.15% -50.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.15% -50.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 ID 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.012 0.022 3.27% -8.33%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 MEX 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.30% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 MT 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.74% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 ND 0 0 0 0 0.011 0.011 1.64% 10.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 NV 0 0 0 0.002 0.011 0.013 1.93% 8.33%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 OR 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.009 0.043 0.064 9.52% -8.57%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 PO 0 0 0.001 0.019 0.001 0.021 3.13% -8.70%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 UT 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.15% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 WA 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.011 0.069 0.087 12.95% -13.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 WY 0 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.89% 50.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 OD

0.328

0.328 48.81% -0.30%

Total 0.009 0.005 0.013 0.074 0.243 0.328 0.672 100.00% -3.45%

Percent by

Source Type 1.34% 0.74% 1.93% 11.01% 36.16% 48.81% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 0.15% 0.15% 0.15% 1.04% 1.79% 0.00% 3.27%
Appendix E Page 70

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CA 0.003 0.001 0.033 0.005 0.003 0.045 3.93%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CAN 0.006 0 0.029 0.015 0.016 0.066 5.77%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CEN 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.09%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 ID 0.014 0.004 0.12 0.071 0.018 0.227 19.84%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 MT 0.002 0.001 0.013 0.001 0.004 0.021 1.84%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 0.26%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 NV 0.003 0 0.02 0.001 0.018 0.042 3.67%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 OR 0.033 0.013 0.197 0.011 0.045 0.299 26.14%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 PO 0 0 0.003 0.008 0.001 0.012 1.05%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 UT 0 0 0.009 0 0.003 0.012 1.05%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 WA 0.018 0.017 0.163 0.008 0.016 0.222 19.41%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 WY 0 0 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.52%

STAR1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 OD 0.188 0.188 16.43%

Total 0.079 0.036 0.591 0.121 0.129 0.188 1.144 100.00%
Appendix E Page 71

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02 -

18

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CA 0.003 0 0.014 0.005 0.004 0.026 2.97% -42.22%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CAN 0.005 0 0.028 0.015 0.016 0.064 7.31% -3.03%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 ID 0.013 0.002 0.046 0.097 0.02 0.178 20.32% -21.59%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 MT 0.002 0 0.007 0.002 0.004 0.015 1.71% -28.57%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 0.34% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 NV 0.003 0 0.012 0.001 0.022 0.038 4.34% -9.52%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 OR 0.032 0.01 0.102 0.012 0.056 0.212 24.20% -29.10%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 PO 0 0 0.002 0.008 0.001 0.011 1.26% -8.33%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 UT 0 0 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.008 0.91% -33.33%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 WA 0.017 0.007 0.068 0.009 0.019 0.12 13.70% -45.95%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 WY 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.006 0.68% 0.00%

STAR1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 OD 0.195 0.195 22.26% 3.72%

Total 0.075 0.019 0.285 0.152 0.15 0.195 0.876 100.00% -23.43%

Percent by

Source Type 8.56% 2.17% 32.53% 17.35% 17.12% 22.26% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 1.48% 0.23% 5.25% 11.07% 2.28% 0.00% 20.32%
Appendix E Page 72

Jarbidge Wilderness

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat. Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.57%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 CA 0.007 0 0.003 0.003 0.011 0.024 4.59%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.01 0.012 0.023 4.40%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 CEN 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.01 1.91%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 CO 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.38%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 EUS 0 0 0 0.001 0.014 0.015 2.87%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 ID 0.027 0 0.006 0.005 0.012 0.05 9.56%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 MEX 0 0 0 0.002 0.011 0.013 2.49%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 MT 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.19%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 NM 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.38%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 NV 0.005 0 0.002 0.003 0.014 0.024 4.59%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 OR 0.011 0.001 0.008 0.005 0.015 0.04 7.65%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 PO 0 0 0.002 0.028 0.004 0.034 6.50%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 UT 0 0 0.002 0 0.006 0.008 1.53%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 WA 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.004 0.028 0.045 8.60%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 WY 0.002 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.008 1.53%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 21 OD 0.221 0.221 42.26%

Total 0.053 0.002 0.036 0.063 0.148 0.221 0.523 100.00%
Appendix E Page 73

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.60% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 CA 0.007 0 0.002 0.003 0.013 0.025 4.96% 4.17%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.01 0.012 0.023 4.56% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 CEN 0 0 0 0.001 0.006 0.007 1.39% -30.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.20% -50.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 EUS 0 0 0 0.001 0.006 0.007 1.39% -53.33%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 ID 0.027 0 0.001 0.005 0.018 0.051 10.12% 2.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 MEX 0 0 0 0.003 0.011 0.014 2.78% 7.69%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 MT 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.20% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 NM 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.40% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 NV 0.005 0 0.001 0.004 0.018 0.028 5.56% 16.67%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 OR 0.011 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.019 0.036 7.14% -10.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 PO 0 0 0.001 0.028 0.005 0.034 6.75% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 UT 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.01 1.98% 25.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 WA 0.001 0 0.001 0.005 0.023 0.03 5.95% -33.33%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 WY 0.002 0 0 0.001 0.008 0.011 2.18% 37.50%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 21 OD 0.221 0.221 43.85% 0.00%

Total 0.053 0.001 0.009 0.066 0.154 0.221 0.504 100.00% -3.63%

Percent by

Source Type 10.52% 0.20% 1.79% 13.10% 30.56% 43.85% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 5.36% 0.00% 0.20% 0.99% 3.57% 0.00% 10.12%
Appendix E Page 74

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 CA 0.002 0 0.016 0.003 0.002 0.023 7.59%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 CAN 0 0 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.005 1.65%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 ID 0.012 0.001 0.049 0.025 0.01 0.097 32.01%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 MT 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.33%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 NV 0.005 0 0.018 0.001 0.012 0.036 11.88%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 OR 0.002 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.002 0.015 4.95%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 PO 0 0 0.001 0.002 0 0.003 0.99%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 UT 0.002 0 0.024 0.001 0.012 0.039 12.87%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 WA 0.002 0.002 0.014 0.001 0.001 0.02 6.60%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 WY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

JARB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 21 OD 0.064 0.064 21.12%

Total 0.025 0.004 0.135 0.035 0.040 0.064 0.303 100.00%
Appendix E Page 75

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02 -

18

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 CA 0.001 0 0.006 0.003 0.002 0.012 5.06% -47.83%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 CAN 0 0 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.005 2.11% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 ID 0.011 0 0.018 0.033 0.011 0.073 30.80% -24.74%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 NV 0.005 0 0.011 0.001 0.015 0.032 13.50% -11.11%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 OR 0.002 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.011 4.64% -26.67%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 PO 0 0 0 0.002 0 0.002 0.84% -33.33%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 UT 0.002 0 0.01 0.001 0.012 0.025 10.55% -35.90%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 WA 0.002 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.011 4.64% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 WY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

JARB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 21 OD 0.066 0.066 27.85% 3.13%

Total 0.023 0.002 0.057 0.043 0.046 0.066 0.237 100.00% -21.78%

Percent by

Source Type 9.70% 0.84% 24.05% 18.14% 19.41% 27.85% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 4.64% 0.00% 7.59% 13.92% 4.64% 0.00% 30.80%
Appendix E Page 76

Glacier National Park

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 AZ 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.09%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CA 0.001 0 0.017 0.003 0.002 0.023 2.06%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CAN 0.01 0 0.108 0.064 0.061 0.243 21.72%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CEN 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.09%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 ID 0.006 0.003 0.06 0.024 0.008 0.101 9.03%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 MT 0.016 0.011 0.178 0.017 0.034 0.256 22.88%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.18%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 NV 0.001 0 0.003 0 0.003 0.007 0.63%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 OR 0.004 0.006 0.039 0.003 0.011 0.063 5.63%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 PO 0 0 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.009 0.80%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 UT 0 0 0.005 0 0.002 0.007 0.63%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 WA 0.012 0.006 0.114 0.007 0.009 0.148 13.23%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 WY 0 0 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.009 0.80%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 OD 0.249 0.249 22.25%

Total 0.249 1.119 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.119 100.00%
Appendix E Page 77

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02 -

18

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CA 0.001 0 0.007 0.003 0.002 0.013 1.38% -43.48%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CAN 0.011 0 0.109 0.065 0.062 0.247 26.14% 1.65%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 ID 0.006 0.001 0.024 0.034 0.01 0.075 7.94% -25.74%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 MT 0.016 0.007 0.105 0.023 0.039 0.19 20.11% -25.78%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 0.32% 50.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 NV 0.001 0 0.002 0 0.004 0.007 0.74% 0.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 OR 0.004 0.006 0.019 0.003 0.014 0.046 4.87% -26.98%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 PO 0 0 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.009 0.95% 0.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 UT 0 0 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.42% -42.86%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 WA 0.012 0.005 0.048 0.008 0.011 0.084 8.89% -43.24%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 WY 0 0 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.009 0.95% 0.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 OD 0.258 0.258 27.30% 3.61%

Total 0.051 0.019 0.321 0.145 0.151 0.258 0.945 100.00% -15.55%

Percent by

Source Type 5.40% 2.01% 33.97% 15.34% 15.98% 27.30% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 0.63% 0.11% 2.54% 3.60% 1.06% 0.00% 7.94%
Appendix E Page 78

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.12%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CA 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.72%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CAN 0 0 0.004 0.044 0.14 0.188 22.60%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CEN 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.24%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.12%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.36%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 ID 0.001 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.019 2.28%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.24%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 MT 0.004 0.008 0.021 0.017 0.027 0.077 9.25%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 ND 0 0 0 0 0.009 0.009 1.08%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 NV 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.006 0.72%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 OR 0.005 0.003 0.006 0.004 0.021 0.039 4.69%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 PO 0 0 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.013 1.56%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 UT 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.24%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 WA 0.002 0.002 0.015 0.006 0.025 0.05 6.01%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 WY 0 0 0 0.001 0.007 0.008 0.96%

GLAC1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 OD 0.406 0.406 48.80%

Total 0.406 0.832 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.832 100.00%
Appendix E Page 79

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02 -

18

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.12% 0.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CA 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.60% -16.67%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CAN 0 0 0.004 0.045 0.145 0.194 23.35% 3.19%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CEN 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.24% 0.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.12% -66.67%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 ID 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.007 0.016 1.93% -15.79%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.24% 0.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 MT 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.02 0.048 0.084 10.11% 9.09%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 ND 0 0 0 0 0.009 0.009 1.08% 0.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 NV 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.60% -16.67%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 OR 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.027 0.04 4.81% 2.56%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 PO 0 0 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.013 1.56% 0.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 UT 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.24% 0.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 WA 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.027 0.04 4.81% -20.00%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 WY 0 0 0 0.001 0.008 0.009 1.08% 12.50%

GLAC1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 OD 0.408 0.408 49.10% 0.49%

Total 0.013 0.011 0.016 0.096 0.287 0.408 0.831 100.00% -0.12%

Percent by

Source Type 1.56% 1.32% 1.93% 11.55% 34.54% 49.10% 100.00%

Idaho %

Total

Contribution 0.12% 0.12% 0.12% 0.72% 0.84% 0.00% 1.93%
Appendix E Page 80

Bob Marshall Wilderness

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 AZ 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.18%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CA 0 0 0.003 0 0 0.003 0.54%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CAN 0.004 0 0.029 0.016 0.016 0.065 11.63%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CEN 0 0 0.002 0 0.001 0.003 0.54%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 CO 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.36%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 ID 0.007 0.002 0.024 0.008 0.003 0.044 7.87%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 MT 0.017 0.007 0.122 0.01 0.029 0.185 33.09%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 ND 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.004 0.72%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 NV 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.36%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 OR 0.002 0.002 0.011 0.001 0.004 0.02 3.58%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 PO 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.002 0.36%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 SD 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.18%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 UT 0 0 0.005 0 0.002 0.007 1.25%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 WA 0.006 0.005 0.04 0.002 0.003 0.056 10.02%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 WY 0 0 0.006 0.002 0.009 0.017 3.04%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 OD 0.147 0.147 26.30%

Total 0.147 0.559 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.559 100.00%
Appendix E Page 81

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02 -

18

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CA 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.22% -66.67%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CAN 0.004 0 0.029 0.017 0.017 0.067 14.66% 3.08%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CEN 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.44% -33.33%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.22% -50.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 ID 0.007 0.001 0.009 0.011 0.004 0.032 7.00% -27.27%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 MT 0.016 0.003 0.057 0.015 0.035 0.126 27.57% -31.89%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 ND 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.005 1.09% 25.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 NV 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.22% -50.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 OR 0.002 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.005 0.015 3.28% -25.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 PO 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.002 0.44% 0.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 UT 0 0 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.88% -42.86%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 WA 0.006 0.003 0.017 0.003 0.004 0.033 7.22% -41.07%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 WY 0 0 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.015 3.28% -11.76%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PN3 24 OD 0.153 0.153 33.48% 4.08%

Total 0.036 0.008 0.127 0.054 0.079 0.153 0.457 100.00% -18.25%

Percent by

Source Type 7.88% 1.75% 27.79% 11.82% 17.29% 33.48% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 1.53% 0.22% 1.97% 2.41% 0.88% 0.00% 7.00%
Appendix E Page 82

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.15%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CA 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.007 1.07%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CAN 0 0 0.002 0.021 0.075 0.098 15.03%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CEN 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.009 1.38%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.46%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.46%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 ID 0.022 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.031 4.75%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 MEX 0 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.92%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 MT 0.002 0.005 0.011 0.007 0.02 0.045 6.90%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 ND 0 0 0 0 0.008 0.008 1.23%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.15%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 NV 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.77%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 OR 0.007 0.001 0.004 0.003 0.011 0.026 3.99%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 PO 0 0 0.001 0.012 0.001 0.014 2.15%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 UT 0 0 0.001 0 0.003 0.004 0.61%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 WA 0.003 0.002 0.012 0.005 0.023 0.045 6.90%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 WY 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.016 0.019 2.91%

MONT1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 OD 0.327 0.327 50.15%

Total 0.327 0.652 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.652 100.00%
Appendix E Page 83

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.31% 100.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CA 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.008 1.24% 14.29%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CAN 0 0 0.002 0.022 0.08 0.104 16.17% 6.12%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CEN 0 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.93% -33.33%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 CO 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.47% 0.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.16% -66.67%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 ID 0.022 0 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.03 4.67% -3.23%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 MEX 0 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.93% 0.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 MT 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.007 0.032 0.046 7.15% 2.22%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 ND 0 0 0 0 0.009 0.009 1.40% 12.50%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 NM 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.16% 0.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 NV 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.62% -20.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 OR 0.007 0.001 0 0.002 0.013 0.023 3.58% -11.54%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 PO 0 0 0.001 0.012 0.002 0.015 2.33% 7.14%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 UT 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.004 0.62% 0.00%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 WA 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.021 0.031 4.82% -31.11%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 WY 0 0 0 0.003 0.02 0.023 3.58% 21.05%

MONT1 2018 base18b36k PS4 24 OD 0.327 0.327 50.86% 0.00%

Total 0.036 0.004 0.009 0.057 0.21 0.327 0.643 100.00% -1.38%

Percent by

Source Type 5.60% 0.62% 1.40% 8.86% 32.66% 50.86% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 3.42% 0.00% 0.16% 0.31% 0.78% 0.00% 4.67%
Appendix E Page 84

Gates of the Mountain Wilderness

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 AZ 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.22%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CA 0 0 0.002 0 0 0.002 0.43%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CAN 0.003 0 0.026 0.02 0.019 0.068 14.69%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CEN 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.22%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 CO 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.22%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 ID 0.007 0.001 0.016 0.005 0.002 0.031 6.70%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 MT 0.019 0.001 0.09 0.008 0.029 0.147 31.75%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.43%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 NV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 OR 0.001 0.001 0.007 0 0.003 0.012 2.59%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 PO 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.002 0.43%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 UT 0 0 0.003 0 0.002 0.005 1.08%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 WA 0.005 0.005 0.032 0.002 0.003 0.047 10.15%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 WY 0 0 0.004 0.002 0.007 0.013 2.81%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 OD 0.131 0.131 28.29%

Total 0.131 0.463 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.463 100.00%
Appendix E Page 85

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02 -

18

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CA 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.26% -50.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CAN 0.003 0 0.026 0.02 0.019 0.068 17.53% 0.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 ID 0.007 0 0.006 0.007 0.003 0.023 5.93% -25.81%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 MT 0.017 0.001 0.042 0.013 0.038 0.111 28.61% -24.49%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 ND 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.26% -50.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 NV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 OR 0.001 0 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.009 2.32% -25.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 PO 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.002 0.52% 0.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 UT 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.52% -60.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 WA 0.005 0.002 0.013 0.002 0.003 0.025 6.44% -46.81%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 WY 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.011 2.84% -15.38%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PN3 23 OD 0.135 0.135 34.79% 3.05%

Total 0.033 0.003 0.097 0.047 0.073 0.135 0.388 100.00% -16.20%

Percent by

Source Type 8.51% 0.77% 25.00% 12.11% 18.81% 34.79% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 1.80% 0.00% 1.55% 1.80% 0.77% 0.00% 5.93%
Appendix E Page 86

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.28%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CA 0.002 0 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.008 1.12%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CAN 0 0 0.003 0.034 0.115 0.152 21.32%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CEN 0 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.84%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 CO 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.28%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.006 0.006 0.84%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 ID 0.021 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.031 4.35%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 MEX 0 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.84%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 MT 0.001 0.001 0.016 0.009 0.026 0.053 7.43%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 ND 0 0 0 0 0.009 0.009 1.26%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.14%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 NV 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.70%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 OR 0.007 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.01 0.024 3.37%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 PO 0 0 0.001 0.012 0.002 0.015 2.10%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 UT 0 0 0.001 0 0.003 0.004 0.56%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 WA 0.004 0.002 0.011 0.004 0.02 0.041 5.75%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 WY 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.011 0.015 2.10%

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 OD 0.333 0.333 46.70%

Total 0.333 0.713 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.713 100.00%
Appendix E Page 87

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.28% 0.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CA 0.002 0 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.009 1.28% 12.50%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CAN 0 0 0.003 0.035 0.12 0.158 22.44% 3.95%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CEN 0 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.57% -33.33%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.14% -50.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.43% -50.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 ID 0.021 0 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.029 4.12% -6.45%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 MEX 0 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.85% 0.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 MT 0.001 0 0.005 0.009 0.044 0.059 8.38% 11.32%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 ND 0 0 0 0 0.009 0.009 1.28% 0.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 NM 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.14% 0.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 NV 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.57% -20.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 OR 0.007 0 0 0.002 0.011 0.02 2.84% -16.67%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 PO 0 0 0.001 0.012 0.002 0.015 2.13% 0.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 UT 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.43% -25.00%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 WA 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.02 0.031 4.40% -24.39%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 WY 0.001 0 0 0.002 0.014 0.017 2.41% 13.33%

GAMO1 2018 base18b36k PS4 23 OD 0.333 0.333 47.30% 0.00%

Total 0.037 0.001 0.012 0.071 0.25 0.333 0.704 100.00% -1.26%

Percent by

Source Type 5.26% 0.14% 1.70% 10.09% 35.51% 47.30% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 2.98% 0.00% 0.14% 0.28% 0.71% 0.00% 4.12%
Appendix E Page 88

North Absaroka Wilderness

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 AZ 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.30%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CA 0 0 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.006 1.82%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CAN 0.001 0 0.013 0.011 0.013 0.038 11.55%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CEN 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.30%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CO 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.61%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 ID 0.01 0.001 0.029 0.01 0.005 0.055 16.72%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 MT 0.005 0 0.022 0.002 0.02 0.049 14.89%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.61%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 NV 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.61%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 OR 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.002 0.011 3.34%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.002 0 0.003 0.91%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 SD 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.30%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 UT 0 0 0.01 0.001 0.004 0.015 4.56%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 WA 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.001 0.015 4.56%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 WY 0.001 0 0.01 0.004 0.012 0.027 8.21%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 OD 0.101 0.101 30.70%

Total 0.101 0.329 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.329 100.00%
Appendix E Page 89

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02 -

18

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 AZ 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.68% 100.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CA 0 0 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.004 1.35% -33.33%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CAN 0.001 0 0.014 0.011 0.013 0.039 13.18% 2.63%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.34% -50.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 ID 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.013 0.005 0.039 13.18% -29.09%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 MT 0.005 0 0.012 0.009 0.024 0.05 16.89% 2.04%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 ND 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.68% 0.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 NV 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.34% -50.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 OR 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.008 2.70% -27.27%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.002 0 0.003 1.01% 0.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 UT 0 0 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.008 2.70% -46.67%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 WA 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.009 3.04% -40.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 WY 0.001 0 0.006 0.009 0.01 0.026 8.78% -3.70%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 OD 0.104 0.104 35.14% 2.97%

Total 0.019 0.003 0.057 0.049 0.064 0.104 0.296 100.00% -10.03%

Percent by

Source Type 6.42% 1.01% 19.26% 16.55% 21.62% 35.14% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 3.38% 0.34% 3.38% 4.39% 1.69% 0.00% 13.18%
Appendix E Page 90

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.58%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CA 0.003 0 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.009 1.73%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.012 0.052 0.065 12.52%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CEN 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.01 1.93%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.58%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.19%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 ID 0.012 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.011 0.03 5.78%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 MEX 0 0 0 0.001 0.008 0.009 1.73%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 MT 0.001 0 0.003 0.002 0.028 0.034 6.55%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.004 0.77%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.39%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 NV 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.006 1.16%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 OR 0.006 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.017 3.28%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.01 0.002 0.013 2.50%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 UT 0 0 0.001 0 0.006 0.007 1.35%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 WA 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.009 0.017 3.28%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 WY 0.001 0 0.002 0.004 0.022 0.029 5.59%

NOAB1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 OD 0.26 0.26 50.10%

Total 0.260 0.519 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.519 100.00%
Appendix E Page 91

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.004 0.76% 33.33%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CA 0.003 0 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.01 1.90% 11.11%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.012 0.053 0.066 12.55% 1.54%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CEN 0 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.006 1.14% -40.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.57% 0.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.19% 0.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 ID 0.012 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.015 0.031 5.89% 3.33%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 MEX 0 0 0 0.002 0.009 0.011 2.09% 22.22%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 MT 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.033 0.037 7.03% 8.82%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.004 0.76% 0.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.38% 0.00%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 NV 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.95% -16.67%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 OR 0.006 0.001 0 0.002 0.007 0.016 3.04% -5.88%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 PO 0 0 0 0.01 0.002 0.012 2.28% -7.69%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 UT 0 0 0 0.001 0.008 0.009 1.71% 28.57%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 WA 0.001 0 0 0.002 0.008 0.011 2.09% -35.29%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 WY 0.001 0 0.001 0.005 0.03 0.037 7.03% 27.59%

NOAB1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 OD 0.261 0.261 49.62% 0.38%

Total 0.025 0.002 0.005 0.041 0.192 0.261 0.526 100.00% 1.35%

Percent by

Source Type 4.75% 0.38% 0.95% 7.79% 36.50% 49.62% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 2.28% 0.19% 0.19% 0.38% 2.85% 0.00% 5.89%
Appendix E Page 92

Bridger Wilderness

Nitrate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 AZ 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.63%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CA 0.001 0 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.011 6.88%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CAN 0.001 0 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.009 5.63%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CEN 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.63%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.63%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 ID 0.005 0 0.007 0.003 0.002 0.017 10.63%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 MT 0.001 0 0.002 0 0.003 0.006 3.75%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 ND 0 0 0.002 0 0.003 0.005 3.13%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 NV 0 0 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 2.50%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 OR 0.001 0 0.003 0 0.001 0.005 3.13%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.002 1.25%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 SD 0.001 0 0.001 0 0 0.002 1.25%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 UT 0.001 0 0.016 0.001 0.007 0.025 15.63%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 WA 0.001 0 0.004 0 0 0.005 3.13%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 WY 0.001 0 0.009 0.007 0.014 0.031 19.38%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 OD 0.035 0.035 21.88%

Total 0.035 0.160 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.160 100.00%
Appendix E Page 93

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02 -

18

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 AZ 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.71% 0.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CA 0.001 0 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.006 4.29% -45.45%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CAN 0.001 0 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.009 6.43% 0.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% -100.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 EUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 ID 0.004 0 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.011 7.86% -35.29%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 MEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 MT 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.007 5.00% 16.67%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 ND 0 0 0.001 0 0.003 0.004 2.86% -20.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 NV 0 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 2.14% -25.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 OR 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.003 2.14% -40.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 PO 0 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.71% -50.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 SD 0.001 0 0.001 0 0 0.002 1.43% 0.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 UT 0.001 0 0.006 0.002 0.006 0.015 10.71% -40.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 WA 0.001 0 0.002 0 0.001 0.004 2.86% -20.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 WY 0.001 0 0.005 0.021 0.011 0.038 27.14% 22.58%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PN3 22 OD 0.036 0.036 25.71% 2.86%

Total 0.012 0 0.027 0.032 0.033 0.036 0.14 100.00% -12.50%

Percent by

Source Type 8.57% 0.00% 19.29% 22.86% 23.57% 25.71% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 2.86% 0.00% 1.43% 2.14% 1.43% 0.00% 7.86%
Appendix E Page 94

Sulfate

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires &

Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 AZ 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.008 0.01 1.71%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CA 0.007 0 0.003 0.003 0.01 0.023 3.93%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.006 0.023 0.03 5.13%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CEN 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.009 0.011 1.88%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.004 0.68%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 EUS 0 0 0 0.001 0.009 0.01 1.71%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 ID 0.01 0 0.004 0.002 0.029 0.045 7.69%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 MEX 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.023 0.029 4.96%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 MT 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.013 2.22%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0.013 0.013 2.22%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 NM 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.005 0.85%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 NV 0.004 0 0.001 0.004 0.017 0.026 4.44%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 OR 0.011 0 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.021 3.59%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.019 0.007 0.027 4.62%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 UT 0.003 0 0.006 0.002 0.024 0.035 5.98%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 WA 0 0 0.003 0.001 0.007 0.011 1.88%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 WY 0.01 0 0.004 0.011 0.065 0.09 15.38%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 OD 0.182 0.182 31.11%

BRID1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 OD 0.182 0.585 100.00%
Appendix E Page 95

site Year modelrun param N SReg

Nat.

Fires

& Bio.

Anthro.

Fires Mobile Area Point

Outside

Domain Total

Percent

Contribution

Change

from 02

- 18

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 AZ 0.002 0 0 0 0.011 0.013 2.13% 30.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CA 0.007 0 0.002 0.003 0.011 0.023 3.78% 0.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CAN 0 0 0.001 0.006 0.023 0.03 4.93% 0.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CEN 0 0 0 0.002 0.007 0.009 1.48% -18.18%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.49% -25.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 EUS 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.82% -50.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 ID 0.01 0 0.001 0.002 0.043 0.056 9.20% 24.44%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 MEX 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.025 0.031 5.09% 6.90%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 MT 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.012 0.014 2.30% 7.69%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 ND 0 0 0 0 0.013 0.013 2.13% 0.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 NM 0 0 0 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.99% 20.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 NV 0.004 0 0 0.004 0.009 0.017 2.79% -34.62%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 OR 0.011 0 0 0.001 0.006 0.018 2.96% -14.29%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 PO 0 0 0.001 0.019 0.007 0.027 4.43% 0.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% #DIV/0!

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 UT 0.003 0 0.001 0.002 0.029 0.035 5.75% 0.00%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 WA 0 0 0 0.001 0.006 0.007 1.15% -36.36%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 WY 0.01 0 0.001 0.013 0.094 0.118 19.38% 31.11%

BRID1 2018 base18b36k PS4 22 OD 0.184 0.184 30.21% 1.10%

Total 0.048 0 0.008 0.061 0.308 0.184 0.609 100.00% 4.10%

Percent by

Source Type 7.88% 0.00% 1.31% 10.02% 50.57% 30.21% 100.00%

Idaho

Percent

Total

Contribution 1.64% 0.00% 0.16% 0.33% 7.06% 0.00% 9.20%