# 2008, 2015, AND 2023 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR THE TREASURE VALLEY AIRSHED
Final Report

Submitted to:
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 1410 North Hilton Boise, ID 83706

Submitted by:

August 31, 2010 ENVIRON International Corporation 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 Novato, CA 94998 Eastern Research Group, Inc. 10860 Gold Center Drive, Suite 275 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

## 2008, 2015, AND 2023 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR THE TREASURE VALLEY AIRSHED

Final Report

Prepared for:
Idaho Department of En vironmental Quality 1410 North Hilton Boise, ID 93706

Prepared by:
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) 10860 Gold Center Drive, Suite 275 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

and

ENVIRON Internati onal Corporation

773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 Novato, CA 94998

August 31, 20102008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### i 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Inventory Scope ......................................................................................................1-3 1.3 Report Contents ......................................................................................................1-5 2.0 2008 POINT SOURCE EMI SSIONS INVENTORY ......................................................... 2-1 2.1 Point Source Data Collection..................................................................................2-1 2.2 Emission Calculation Me thodologies – Annual ..................................................... 2-5 2.3 Emission Calculation Methodologies – Ozone and PM Season............................. 2-8 2.4 Emission Results by Facility...................................................................................2-9 2.5 QA/QC Procedures .................................................................................................2-9 3.0 2008 AREA SOURCE EMI SSIONS INVENTORY .......................................................... 3-1 3.1 Emissions Calculation Me thodologies – Annual.................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Fuel Combustion.........................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Residential Wood Combustion ...................................................................3-6 3.1.3 Paved Road Dust......................................................................................... 3-8 3.1.4 Unpaved Road Dust .................................................................................. 3-13 3.1.5 Commercial Cooking................................................................................3-16 3.1.6 Construction.............................................................................................. 3-17 3.1.7 Architectural Surface Coatings.................................................................3-18 3.1.8 Traffic Markings ....................................................................................... 3-18 3.1.9 Industrial Surface Coating ........................................................................3-18 3.1.10 Degreasing ................................................................................................3-20 3.1.11 Other Per Employee Emission Fa ctor Source Categories.........................3-21 3.1.12 Bakeries and Consumer Solvents..............................................................3-23 3.1.13 Dry Cleaning............................................................................................. 3-24 3.1.14 Asphalt Application ..................................................................................3-24 3.1.15 Pesticide Application ................................................................................3-26 3.1.16 Gasoline Distribution................................................................................3-28 3.1.17 Wastewater Treatment ..............................................................................3-28 3.1.18 Landfills ....................................................................................................3-29 3.1.19 Open Burning (Yard Waste and Household Waste).................................3-31 3.1.20 Agricultural Tilling and Harvesting..........................................................3-33 3.1.21 Agricultural Burning – Fields ...................................................................3-33 3.1.22 Agricultural Burning – Irrigation Ditches................................................. 3-34 3.1.23 Beef Cattle Feedlots..................................................................................3-35 3.1.24 Other Fires ................................................................................................3-36 3.1.25 Windblown Dust ....................................................................................... 3-37 3.1.26 Ammonia Emissions .................................................................................3-52 3.2 Emissions Calculation Methodolog ies – Ozone and PM Season ......................... 3-70 3.2.1 Fuel Combustion.......................................................................................3-70 3.2.2 Residential Wood Combustion .................................................................3-72 3.2.3 Paved Road Dust....................................................................................... 3-722008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### ii 3.2.4 Unpaved Road Dust .................................................................................. 3-72 3.2.5 Commercial Cooking................................................................................3-74 3.2.6 Construction.............................................................................................. 3-74 3.2.7 Architectural Surface Coatings.................................................................3-74 3.2.8 Traffic Markings ....................................................................................... 3-74 3.2.9 Industrial Surface Coating ........................................................................3-75 3.2.10 Degreasing ................................................................................................3-75 3.2.11 Other Per Employee Emission Factor Source Categories.........................3-76 3.2.12 Bakeries and Consumer Solvents..............................................................3-76 3.2.13 Dry Cleaning............................................................................................. 3-76 3.2.14 Asphalt Application .................................................................................. 3-77 3.2.15 Pesticide Application ................................................................................3-77 3.2.16 Gasoline Distribution................................................................................ 3-77 3.2.17 Wastewater Treatment ..............................................................................3-77 3.2.18 Landfills ....................................................................................................3-77 3.2.19 Open Burning (Yard Waste and Household Waste).................................3-78 3.2.20 Agricultural Tilling and Harvesting..........................................................3-78 3.2.21 Agricultural Burning – Fields ...................................................................3-78 3.2.22 Agricultural Burning – Irrigation Ditches................................................. 3-78 3.2.23 Beef Cattle Feedlots..................................................................................3-79 3.2.24 Other Fires ................................................................................................3-79 3.2.25 Windblown Dust .......................................................................................3-79 3.2.26 Ammonia Emissions .................................................................................3-79 3.3 Emission Results...................................................................................................3-79 3.4 QA/QC Procedures ...............................................................................................3-83 4.0 2008 ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES.............. 4-1 4.1 Emission Calculation Me thodologies – Annual ................................................... 4-21 4.2 Emission Calculation Methodologies – Ozone and PM Season........................... 4-22 4.3 Emission Results by Source Category ..................................................................4-23 4.4 QA/QC Procedures ...............................................................................................4-28 5.0 2008 NONROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY................................. 5-1 5.1 Emission Calculation Me thodologies – Annual ..................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Nonroad Equipment....................................................................................5-1 5.1.2 Aircraft........................................................................................................ 5-8 5.1.3 Locomotives..............................................................................................5-10 5.2 Emission Calculation Methodologies – Ozone and PM Season........................... 5-21 5.2.1 Nonroad Equipment..................................................................................5-21 5.2.2 Aircraft...................................................................................................... 5-22 5.2.3 Locomotives..............................................................................................5-23 5.3 QA/QC procedures................................................................................................ 5-24 6.0 2008 BIOGENIC SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY.................................................. 6-1 6.1 Emissions Calculation Me thodologies – Annual.................................................... 6-1 6.2 Emissions Calculation Methodolog ies – Ozone and PM Season ........................... 6-1 6.3 Emission Re sults.....................................................................................................6-1 7.0 2015 AND 2023 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORIES.......................................... 7-1 7.1 Development of 2015 and 2023 Projection Factors................................................ 7-12008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### iii 7.1.1 Point Sources .............................................................................................. 7-1 7.1.2 Area Sources ............................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.2.1 Fuel Combustion............................................................................7-2 7.1.2.2 Population ...................................................................................... 7-3 7.1.2.3 Industrial Output Projections .........................................................7-3 7.1.2.4 Long-Term Agricultural Averages ................................................7-4 7.1.2.5 Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) ....................................................7-4 7.1.2.6 No Growth ..................................................................................... 7-5 7.1.2.7 Ammonia Sources.......................................................................... 7-5 7.1.2.8 Road Dust....................................................................................... 7-5 7.1.3 On-Road Motor Vehicles............................................................................ 7-6 7.1.4 Nonroad Mobile Sources ............................................................................ 7-9 7.1.4.1 Nonroad Equipment ......................................................................7-9 7.1.4.2 Aircraft ........................................................................................ 7-10 7.1.4.3 Locomotives ................................................................................7-11 7.1.5 Biogenic Sources ......................................................................................7-12 7.2 2015, 2023, and 2030 Inventory Summaries ........................................................ 7-12 8.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY DATA FORMATTING ........................................................ 8-1 9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. ... 9-1

APPENDIX A LISTING OF PBR AND UNPERMITTED FACILITIES APPENDIX B LETTERS TO TIER 1 AND 2 FACILITIES; PBR AND UNPERMITTED FACILITIES APPENDIX C AREA SOURCE SURVEY S (FUEL DEALER AND DISTRIBUTOR SURVEY, DRY CLEANING SURVEY , WASTEWATER TREATMENT SURVEY, AND LANDFILL SURVEY) APPENDIX D AURORA RESIDENTIAL WO OD COMBUSTION SURVEY REPORT APPENDIX E DEQ CONCEPT-MV TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM APPENDIX F BIOGENICS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM APPENDIX G DETAILED AREA SOU RCE EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARIES

Tables Page
Table 1-1. Source Types and Categories Incl uded in the Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories............................................................................................................ 1-4 Table 2-1. Permitted Point Sources in the Treasure Valley ..................................................2-3 Table 2-2. Facilities Operat ing Under Permit by Rule in the Treasure Valley Air Shed......2-4 Table 2-3. Unpermitted Facilities that Exceeded Point Source Thresholds in 2008 Emissions ............................................................................................................. 2-8 Table 2-4. 2008 Annual Point Source Emissions (Tons/Year) ...........................................2-10 Table 2-5. 2008 Ozone Season Point Source Emissions (Tons/Day) ................................. 2-13 Table 2-6. 2008 PM Season Point Source Emissions (Tons/Day)......................................2-16 Table 3-1. Area Source Matrix..............................................................................................3-2 Table 3-2. Emissions Potentials for Roads that are Physically Represented in the TDM ....3-9 Table 3-3. Emissions Potentials for Residential Roads.........................................................3-9 Table 3-4. Ada and Canyon County Days w ith at least 0.01 Inches of Rain......................3-102008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### iv Table 3-5. Elmore County Paved Road Parameters............................................................3-11 Table 3-6. Elmore County Silt Loading Estimates..............................................................3-11 Table 3-7. Elmore County Days with at Least 0.01 Inches of Rain....................................3-12 Table 3-8. 2008 Annual Paved Road Dust Emission Estimates..........................................3-12 Table 3-9. 2008 Unpaved Road Dust Activity Data and Sources.......................................3-14 Table 3-10. Unpaved Road Dust Precipitation Adjustments ................................................3-15 Table 3-11. Elmore County Unpaved Road Surface Silt Content.........................................3-16 Table 3-12. Unpaved Emissions Estimation Parameters.......................................................3-16 Table 3-13. 2008 Annual Unpaved Road Dust Emission Estimates.....................................3-16 Table 3-14. NAICS Code Assignments for Indus trial Surface Coating Subcategories ........3-19 Table 3-15. NAICS Code Assignments for Degreasing........................................................3-20 Table 3-16. NAICS Code Assignments for Autobody Refinishing, Industrial Refrigeration/Cold Storage, a nd Graphic Arts Categories ................................3-22 Table 3-17. Fire Code Assignments for the Structural Fire and Vehicle Fire Source Categories .......................................................................................................... 3-36 Table 3-18. DEQ and CTIC Crop Type Mapping and Descriptions.....................................3-43 Table 3-19. Idaho Crop Canopy Cover by Crop Type and Julian Day Since Planting (%)..3-44 Table 3-20. Idaho Planting and Harvesti ng Dates (Julian Day) and Crop Canopy Crop Type ................................................................................................................... 3-45 Table 3-21. Soil Texture and Soil Group Codes ................................................................... 3-49 Table 3-22. Surface Characteristics by Dust Code and Land Use Category.........................3-50 Table 3-23. 2008 Annual Windblown Fugitive PM Dust Emissions for Ada, Canyon and Elmore Counties (Tons/Year)............................................................................3-52 Table 3-24. 2008 Annual County-Leve l Livestock Head Counts.........................................3-55 Table 3-25. Ammonia Emission Factors for Livestock ........................................................3-55 Table 3-26. Monthly Livestoc k Allocation Factors .............................................................. 3-56 Table 3-27. 2008 Annual Fertili zer Application Data by Type and County (kg/year) .........3-58 Table 3-28. Ammonia Emissions Factor s for Fertilizer Application ....................................3-59 Table 3-29. Ammonia Emission Factors for Native Soils.....................................................3-60 Table 3-30. 2008 County-Level Population Estimates .........................................................3-61 Table 3-31. Ammonia Emission Factors for Domestic Ammonia Sources ..........................3-62 Table 3-32. Ammonia Emission Factors fo r Wild Animal Ammonia Sources.....................3-63 Table 3-33. CDL Classifications and NH 3 

### Model Cross-References ...................................3-64 Table 3-34. Land Use Summary by Category an d County for the 4-Km Modeling Domain (Acres)................................................................................................................ 3-67 Table 3-35. Land Use/Surroga te Cross-Reference................................................................ 3-69 Table 3-36. Source Category/Surro gate Cross-Reference .................................................... 3-69 Table 3-37. 2008 Annual Ammonia Emissions for Ada, Canyon, and Elmore Counties by Source Category (Tons/Year) ............................................................................3-71 Table 3-38. 2008 Seasonal Paved Road Dust Emission Estimates .......................................3-73 Table 3-39. 2008 Seasonal Unpaved Road Dust Emission Estimates ..................................3-74 Table 3-40. Temporal Allocation Profile Assign ment for Architectural Surface Coating ...3-74 Table 3-41. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignments for Industrial Surface Coating Subcategories ..................................................................................................... 3-75 Table 3-42. Temporal Allocation Prof ile Assignment for Degreasing .................................3-76 Table 3-43. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Graphic Arts...............................3-762008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### v Table 3-44. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Dry Cleaning..............................3-76 Table 3-45. Summarized 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions – All Counties...................3-80 Table 3-46. Summarized 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions – Ada County....................3-81 Table 3-47. Summarized 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions – Canyon County..............3-82 Table 3-48. Summarized 2008 Annual Area S ource Emissions – Elmore County...............3-83 Table 4-1. On-Road Motor Vehicle Categories .................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2. Automatic Traffic Recorder Site s Used in Temporal Profile Analysis ...............4-3 Table 4-3. FHWA Roadwa y Classifications .........................................................................4-3 Table 4-4. Assignment of Temporal Pr ofiles to Missing Roadway Types ...........................4-4 Table 4-5. FHWA Vehicl e Classifications............................................................................ 4-7 Table 4-6. Fractional Allocati on of FHWA Vehicle Classes to MOBILE Vehicle Classes.4-8 Table 4-7. FHWA Class 2 and 3 Sp lits from 2000 VTRIS Dataset......................................4-9 Table 4-8. 2008 MOBILE6 Inputs by County: Anti-Tampering Program Parameters.......4-12 Table 4-9. 2008 MOBILE6 Inputs by Count y: I/M Program Parameters...........................4-13 Table 4-10. 2008 MOBILE6 Input s by County: Other ......................................................... 4-14 Table 4-11. Representative Month for Each Season .............................................................4-22 Table 4-12. 2008 On-road Emissions Summ ary (Tons/Year and Tons/Day) .......................4-23 Table 5-1. 2008 Pleasure Craft and Recr eational Equipment Populations ........................... 5-2 Table 5-2. NONROAD Model Default and Revi sed Agricultural Equipment Populations .5-3 Table 5-3. Lawn and Garden Equipm ent Temporal Profile Groupings................................5-6 Table 5-4. 2008 Gasoline RVP (psi) by Season....................................................................5-7 Table 5-5. 2008 Annual Nonroad Equipment Emissions by County....................................5-8 Table 5-6. 2008 Annual Nonroad Equipment Emissions by Equipment Type (Ada, Canyon, and Elmore Counties Combined).........................................................................5-8 Table 5-7. 2008 Aircraft Associated Emissions by Airport (Tons/Year)............................5-11 Table 5-8. FRA Rail Link Definitions.................................................................................5-13 Table 5-9. Idaho Northern Paci fic Railroad Activity Data .................................................5-14 Table 5-10. Locomotive Emission Standards fo r Line-haul (Duty Cycle) Engines .............5-16 Table 5-11. Locomotive Emission Standards for Switching (Duty Cycle) Engines.............5-16 Table 5-12. Locomotive Emission Factors for Calendar Years 1999 and Earlier ................5-17 Table 5-13. Average Line-Haul Locomotive Emission Factors............................................5-17 Table 5-14. Fuel Efficiency by Railroad...............................................................................5-17 Table 5-15. Class 1 Railroad Emission Factors for 2008......................................................5-17 Table 5-16. 2008 Line-haul Locomotive Emissions (Tons/Year).........................................5-18 Table 5-17. Switching Locomotive Activ ity Data for the Nampa Yard ............................... 5-19 Table 5-18. Switching Locomo tive Emission Factors ..........................................................5-19 Table 5-19. Estimated Switching Locomotive Emissions in 2008 .......................................5-20 Table 5-20. 2008 Annual Locomotive Emissions by Source Category ................................5-20 Table 5-21. 2008 Seasonal Nonroad E quipment Emissions by County................................5-21 Table 5-22. 2008 Seasonal Nonroad Equipmen t Emissions by Equipment Type (Ada, Canyon, and Elmore Counties Combined) ........................................................ 5-22 Table 5-23. Fraction of Airc raft Activity Occurring in the Ozone and PM Seasons............5-23 Table 5-24. 2008 Ozone and PM Season Daily Locomotive Emission Estimates by Source Category.............................................................................................................5-23 Table 6-1. Annual, Ozone Season, a nd PM Season Biogenic Emissions .............................6-22008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### vi Table 7-1. 2015, 2023, and 2030 MOBILE6 Input s by County: Anti-Tampering Program Parameters............................................................................................................7-7 Table 7-2. 2015, 2023, and 2030 MOBILE6 Inputs by County: I/M Program Parameters.7-8 Table 7-3. Base Year Aircra ft LTO Activity Data and Future Year Projection Factors.....7-11 Table 7-4. Union Pacific Hist oric Fuel Consumption.........................................................7-12 Table 7-5. 2008 County-Level Annual Emi ssions Summarized by Source Type...............7-13 Table 7-6. 2015 County-Level Annual Emi ssions Summarized by Source Type...............7-14 Table 7-7. 2023 County-Level Annual Em issions Summarized by Source Type...............7-15 Table 7-8. 2030 County-Level Annual On-Road Emissions for Ada and Canyon Counties ............................................................................................................. 7-15 Table 7-9. 2008 County-Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type....7-16 Table 7-10. 2015 County-Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type....7-17 Table 7-11. 2023 County-Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type....7-18 Table 7-12. 2030 County-Level Ozone Seas on On-Road Emissions for Ada and Canyon Counties ............................................................................................................. 7-18 Table 7-13. 2008 County-Level PM Season Em issions Summarized by Source Type ........7-19 Table 7-14. 2015 County-Level PM Season Em issions Summarized by Source Type ........7-20 Table 7-15. 2023 County-Level PM Season Em issions Summarized by Source Type ........7-21 Table 7-16. 2030 County-Level PM Seas on On-Road Emissions for Ada and Canyon Counties ............................................................................................................. 7-21

Figures Page
Figure 3-1. DEQ 4-km Modeling Domain for Windblown Dust Emissions Development . 3-38 Figure 3-2. Merged Soil Te xture Data from the SSURGO and STATSGO Databases .......3-40 Figure 3-3. Land Use/Land Cover Data Used for the DEQ Windblown Dust PM Emissions Inventory Development.................................................................... 3-41 Figure 3-4. Comparison Between the Marticorena et al . (1997) Modeled Relationship of Threshold Friction Velocity and Aerodynamic Roughness Length and Wind Tunnel Data from Gillette et al . (1980, 1982), Gillette (1988) and Nickling and Gillies (1989) .....................................................................................................3-48 Figure 3-5. The Emission Flux as a Func tion of Friction Velocity Predicted by the Alfaro and Gomes (2001) Model Constr ained by the Four Soil Geometric Mean Diameter Classes of Alfaro et al. (2004) ................................................. 3-49 Figure 3-6. DEQ 4-km Modeling Domain for Ammonia Emissions Development.............3-53 Figure 3-7. Land Use/Land Cover Data Used for the DEQ Ammonia Emissions Inventory Development......................................................................................................3-66 Figure 3-8. Mean Soil pH for the DEQ Mode ling Domain from the STATSGO Database.3-67 Figure 4-1. Hourly Temporal Prof iles for Urban Interstates ..................................................4-5 Figure 4-2. Day of Week Temporal Profiles for Urban Interstates ........................................4-6 Figure 4-3. Monthly Tem poral Profiles by Roadway Type for Boise....................................4-6 Figure 4-4. Hourly Vehicle Mix Temporal Profiles for Ur ban Interstates in July .................4-9 Figure 4-5. Hourly Vehicle Mi x Temporal Profiles for Urban Minor Arterials in July.......4-10 Figure 4-6. 2008 COMPASS TDM Link Network .............................................................. 4-11 Figure 4-7. TOG Emissions by Day Show ing Vehicle Class Contributions........................4-162008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### vii Figure 4-8. NO x 

### Emissions by Day Showing Vehi cle Class Contributions......................... 4-17 Figure 4-9. PM 2.5 

### Emissions by Day Showing Vehi cle Class Contributions....................... 4-17 Figure 4-10. Daily Minimum and Maximu m Temperatures (Degrees Fahrenheit) Averaged Across Grid Cells Containing Roadway Links ................................. 4-18 Figure 4-11. Light Duty Gasoline Vehicl es (LDGV) Hourly VMT Profiles by Episode Date.................................................................................................................... 4-18 Figure 4-12. Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV) Hourly VMT Prof iles by Episode Date 4-19 Figure 4-13. VMT Mix by Hour for a Wee kday Episode Day (Wednesday 2/13/2008) .......4-19 Figure 4-14. VMT Mix by Hour for a W eekend Episode Day (Saturday 2/9/2008)..............4-20 Figure 4-15. Spatial Distri bution at 4km Resolution of the BOISE Network Emissions, Showing Nitric Oxide (NO)...............................................................................4-20 Figure 4-16. Vehicle Class Percent Contri butions to 2008 Ada County Annual Emissions..4-23 Figure 4-17. Vehicle Class Percent Contributions to 2008 Canyon County Annual Emissions ........................................................................................................... 4-24 Figure 4-18. Vehicle Class Percent C ontributions to 2008 Elmore County Annual Emissions ........................................................................................................... 4-24 Figure 4-19. Vehicle Class Percent Cont ributions to 2008 Ada County Average Ozone Season Day Emissions ....................................................................................... 4-25 Figure 4-20. Vehicle Class Percent Cont ributions to 2008 Canyon County Average Ozone Season Day Emissions .......................................................................................4-25 Figure 4-21. Vehicle Class Percent Contri butions to 2008 Elmore County Average Ozone Season Day Emissions .......................................................................................4-26 Figure 4-22. Vehicle Class Percent C ontributions to 2008 Ada County Average PM Season Day Emissions ....................................................................................... 4-26 Figure 4-23. Vehicle Class Percent C ontributions to 2008 Canyon County Average PM Season Day Emissions ....................................................................................... 4-27 Figure 4-24. Vehicle Class Percent Cont ributions to 2008 Elmore County Average PM Season Day Emissions ....................................................................................... 4-27 Figure 5-1. Local Off-Road Agricultural Equipment Monthly Temporal Profile..................5-4 Figure 5-2. Local Construction Equi pment Monthly Temporal Profile.................................5-5 Figure 5-3. Local Lawn-, Soil-, and Leaf-R elated Lawn and Garden Equipment Monthly Temporal Profiles.................................................................................................5-6 Figure 5-4. Local Wood-Related Lawn and Garden Equipment Monthly Temporal Profile.5-7 Figure 5-5. 2008 Aircraft Associat ed Emissions Contributions........................................... 5-12 Figure 5-6. FRA Line-H aul Freight Density ........................................................................5-142008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### viii 

## ACRONYMS

μg/m 3 

### microgram per cubic meter μm micrometers
AAR Association of American Railroads ADT average daily traffic AEO Annual Energy Outlook
AFB Air Force Base AFS Air Facility System ALVW adjusted loaded vehicle weight
AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors APU auxiliary power units
ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange ATADS Air Traffic Activity Data System Atm standard atmosphere, a unit of pressure
ATR automatic traffic recorder BEIS Biogenic Emission Inventory System
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CARB California Air Resources Board CDL cropland data layer
CH 4 

### methane CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CMU Carnegie Mellon University
CO carbon monoxide
CO 2 

### carbon dioxide COMPASS Community Planning Asso ciation of Southwest Idaho CONCEPT MV Consolidated Community Emissions Processing Tool On-Road Motor Vehicle Model CTIC Conservation Technology Information Center DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DQOs Data Quality Objectives EDMS Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System EEA European Environment Agency2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### ix EIA Energy Information Administration EIIP Emission Inventory Improvement Program ERG Eastern Research Group, Inc. ETBE ethyl tert-butyl ether
FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal High way Administration FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards
FRA Federal Railroad Administration FRS Facility Registry System
ft 3 

### cubic feet g/l grams per liter GIS Geographic Information System Gmol grams per mole GSE ground support equipment GTM gross ton-mile GVWR gross vehicle weight rating HC hydrocarbons HDDV Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle HDGV Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle HP horsepower HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System I/M inspection and maintenance
ICAO International Civ il Aviation Organization
ID identification number IDPR Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources
IFIRS Idaho Fire Incide nt Reporting System
INPR Idaho Northern Pacific Railroad IPM Integrated Pest Management IPP Inventory Preparation Plan ISDA Idaho State Department of Agriculture2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### x ITD Idaho transportation department
km kilometers lbs pounds LDDT Light-Duty Diesel Truck LDDV Light-Duty Diesel Vehicle LDGT Light-Duty Gasoline Truck LDGV Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicle LPG liquefied petroleum gas LTOs landing-takeoff cycles
LULC land use-land cover MC Motorcycles
MEGAN Model of Emissions of Ga ses and Aerosol from Nature Mg Megagrams
MM5 Fifth-Generation NCAR/P enn State Mesoscale Model mmHG millimeters of mercury
MMscf million standard cubic feet
MOVES MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator mph miles per hour mps meters per second MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Indus try Classification System NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NEI National Emissions Inventory
NH 3 

### ammonia
NO nitric oxide
NO x 

### nitrogen oxides
O 3 

### ozone ORIS Office of Regulatory Information Systems OSD ozone season daily2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### xi PAN Pesticide Action Network PBR permit by rule PM particulate matter
PM 10 

### particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less
PM 2.5 

### particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less POSST Point Source Survey Tool ppm parts per million ppmv parts per million by volume psi pounds per square inch
PTC Permit to construct QA quality assurance QAP Quality Assurance Plan QC quality control RVP Reid vapor pressure
RWC residential wood combustion
SCC Source Classification Code
scf standard cubic feet
SIC Source Industrial Classification SIP State Implementation Plan SMOKE Sparse Matrix Oper ator Kernel Emissions
SO 2 

### sulfur dioxide SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database
TAF Terminal Area Forecast TAME tert-amyl methyl ether TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone TDM Transportation Demand Model
TIMs Time-in modes TPD tons per day TPY tons per year TRI Toxic Release Inventory2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### xii TVRDS Treasure Valley Road Dust Study U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UP Union Pacific USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geological Survey UW University of Washington
VIN vehicle identification number
VKT vehicle kilometers travelled
VMT vehicle miles travelled VOC volatile organic compounds VTRIS Vehicle Travel Information System WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership WRCC Western Regiona l Climate Center WRF Weather Research and Forecasting
WSFO National Weather Service Forecast Office WWTPs wastewater treatment plants2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report was prepared by the team of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) and ENVIRON International Corporat ion (ENVIRON), with assistance from Aurora Research Group (Aurora), according to the scope of Idaho Depart ment of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Contract C774, dated March 26, 2009.
1.1 Background The Treasure Valley Airshed consists of Ad a and Canyon counties in total; portions of Elmore, Boise, Gem, Payette, and Owyhee countie s in Idaho; plus, a portion of Malheur County, Oregon (see report cover). This airshed boundary was determined using population, model runs, seasonal episodic events for particulate matter (P M) with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less (PM 2.5 

### ) and ozone (O 3 

### ), and meteorological data such as average mixing heights. Activity in
all of the counties contributes to the air quality conditions, as emissions mix within and are essentially trapped in the roughly 60-mile by 100- mile bathtub-shaped Treasure Valley. The
terrain includes mountains northwe st-north-northeast that rise to more than 7,000 feet (i.e., the Boise Front); a nearly closed end of the valley to the southeast where a rise off the Boise Front sometimes keeps pollutants from being transporte d away; mountains to the south-southwest rise to over 8,000 feet (i.e., the Owyh ee Mountains); and the valley is open to the west-northwest.

The Treasure Valley, and especially Ada County, has a history of problems with PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (μm) or less (PM 10 

### ), and carbon monoxide (CO). Local weather patterns that occur in winter m onths, terrain, and human ac tivities contributed to episodes of particulate build-up. Northern Ad a County was designated as in nonattainment of
the PM 10 

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

### NAAQS have not occurred since 1991 and north ern Ada County remains in maintenance.

The CO problem stems from automobile ex haust and residential wood heating during
winter inversions. Exceedance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS has not occurred since January 1991
and the area remains in maintenance since that time.

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

### NAAQS. Air quality monitoring data indicate the area has equaled the 0.075 parts per million (ppm) NAAQS when averaging the fourth-highest readings from 2006, 2007, and 2008. Sunny summer weather, air2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 1-2 stagnation, increased vehicle miles traveled from rapid population growt h, industrial activity, and the terrain all contribute to high O 3 

### levels. The occasional nearby wildfire and transport from other urban areas in the region also contribute to high levels of O 3 

### in the valley.

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

### ) 24-hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 

### , favorable meteorological conditi ons in the Treasure Valley du ring the winters of 2006/2007 and
2007/2008 have allowed the PM 2.5 

### design value to decrease. Lower frequency and shorter
duration inversion conditions have occurred as synoptic weather systems passed through Southwestern Idaho with more regularity. Althou gh the Treasure Valley is not in danger of violating the annual PM 2.5 

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

### emissions data for use in modeling and air qualit y studies should the typi cal winter inversions

return.

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

### , PM 10 

### , and PM 2.5 

### issues in the Treasure Valley, as well as a need for more recent SIP-level emissions inventory data. DEQ has begun an extensive effort to reduce O 3 

### levels in the valley, as well as ensuring PM 2.5 

### problems remain in check even if stagnant winter weather patter ns return. To be fully able to control certain pollutant contribu tions to the airshed, DEQ must first have the emissions inventory data to be able to determ ine controls and the human behavioral changes necessary to possibly keep the area from going into nonattainment for one or both of these pollutants.

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

### and PM 2.5 

### and their precursors for the Treasure Valle y Airshed. This emissions inventory must be of sufficient qual ity and detail to:

• Support development of O 3 

### , PM 10 

### , and PM 2.5 

### control strategies;

• Support photochemical grid modeling fo r control strategy development; and

• If necessary, in the event of a non-atta inment designation, to fully meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) expectations and guidance as part of an O3, PM 10 

### , or PM 2.5 

### non-attainment area SIP and maintenance plan submittal.
The Treasure Valley emissions inventory project was funded through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant prog ram, which is distributed via the Idaho2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 1-3 Transportation Department (ITD). DEQ is the lead agency on the project, working cooperatively with ITD; the local Metropolitan Planning Organization, COMPASS; and the contractor team of ERG, ENVIRON, and Aurora.

The emissions inventory was developed acco rding to Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Level II requirements (EIIP, 1997a).
1.2 Inventory Scope The scope of the Treasure Valley emissions inventory includes these characteristics:

• Pollutants: Emissions were estimated for the following pollutants:

– Ozone precursors: nitrogen oxides (NO x 

### ), volatile organic co mpounds (VOC), and CO;

– Primary PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### ; and

– Precursors of PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### : NO x 

### , sulfur dioxide (SO x 

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

### ).

• Time Frame and Temporal Resolution: The base year inventory was developed is for calendar year 2008. Projections were deve loped for years 2015 and 2023. In addition to annual inventories, estim ates were also developed for ozone season daily (OSD) and PM 10 

### /PM 2.5 

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

• Sources: The inventories included estimat es of emissions from industrial point sources, area sources, and nonroad mobile sources. Also, ENVIRON estimated linklevel on-road motor vehicle emissions fo r the 15-day period of February 1-15, 2008. DEQ then used the CONCEPT-MV system and identical methodologies, with assistance and peer review by ENVIRON, to estimate on-road emissions for each season during all three inve ntory years (i.e., 2008, 2015, and 2023). DEQ has also completed the CONCEPT-MV on-road m odeling procedure for the year 2030 to support update of a PM 10 

### Maintenance Plan.

• Geographic Domain and Resolution: The i nventories were estimated for the subject pollutants and sources located entirely within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties, Idaho. For the point sources, specific loca tion coordinates will be provided. For area and nonroad mobile sources, emissions will be provided at the county level.
Table 1-1 lists the source types and polluta nts included in the Treasure Valley emissions inventory.

The contract scope includes the following tasks:

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

• Task 2: Inventory Preparation Plan and Quality Assurance Plan (IPP/QAP)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 1-4 Table 1-1. Source Types and Categor ies Included in the Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Source Type Source Category Pollutants Point Industrial Facilities (Various) a NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Industrial Fuel Combustion (distillate, LPG, natural gas) NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3
Commercial/ Institutional Fuel Combustion (distillate, kerosene, LPG, natural gas) NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Residential Fuel Combustion (distillate, kerosene, LPG, natural gas) NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Residential Wood Combustion (fireplaces, woodstoves, fireplaces with inserts, pellet stoves) NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3
Paved Road Dust PM 10 , PM 2.5 Unpaved Road Dust PM 10 , PM 2.5 Commercial Cooking NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Construction Dust PM 10 , PM 2.5 Architectural Surface Coating VOC Traffic Markings VOC Autobody Refinishing VOC Industrial Surface Coating VOC Degreasing VOC Graphic Arts VOC Industrial Refrigeration/Cold Storage NH 3 Consumer Solvent Use VOC Bakeries VOC Dry Cleaning VOC Asphalt Application VOC Agricultural Pesticides VOC Gasoline Transport and Distribution VOC Wastewater Treatment Plant VOC Landfills VOC Open Burning (yard waste, household waste) NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Agricultural Tilling PM 10 , PM 2.5 Agricultural Harvesting PM 10 , PM 2.5 Agricultural Burning (fields, irrigation ditches) NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Beef Cattle Feedlots VOC, PM 10 , PM 2.5 Structural Fires NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Vehicle Fires NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Windblown Dust PM 10 , PM 2.5 Livestock Ammonia NH 3 Agricultural Fertilizer NH 3 Domestic Ammonia NH 3 Wild Animals NH 3 Area

Native soils NH 3 Nonroad Equipment NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Aircraft NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Nonroad Mobile Locomotives NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 On-Road Motor Vehicles • Vehicle Types (8)

• Roadway Types NO x , SO 2 , VOC, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , NH 3 Biogenics To be provided by DEQ NO x , VOC

a Industrial point sources include facilities that emit pollutant quantities above the following amounts: 5 tons per year (TPY) P M 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 , or NH 3 ; 10 TPY VOC; 25 TPY NO x or CO. Sources with a nnual emissions below these amounts will be included in the area sources inventory.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 1-5 • Task 3: 2008 Point Sources Emissions Inventory

• Task 4: 2008 Area Sources Emissions Inventory

• Task 5: 2008 Nonroad Mobile Sources Emissions Inventory

• Task 6: Emissions Inventory Document

• Task 7: Emissions Inve ntory Data Spreadsheets

• Task 8: Peer Review Biogenic a nd On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions

• Task 9: Provide all Data to DEQ

• Task 10: Emissions Inventor y Projections (2015 and 2023)

• Task 11: CONCEPT MV Motor Vehicle Emissions Modeling

All work under all tasks has b een completed. The methods us ed and results achieved are documented in this final report. All data files (e.g., emissions inventory calculati on spreadsheets, model-ready formatted files, etc.) are bei ng submitted along with this final report.
1.3 Report Contents The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

• Section 2.0 presents the methodologies and results for the 2008 point source inventory;

• Section 3.0 provides the methodologies a nd results for the 2008 area source inventory;

• Section 4.0 presents review and results for the 2008 on-road motor vehicle inventory;

• Section 5.0 provides the methodologies a nd results for the 2008 nonroad mobile source inventory;

• Section 6.0 provides the review and resu lts for the 2008 biogenic inventory;

• Section 7.0 outlines the methodologies used to project the 2008 point, area, on-road motor vehicle, nonroad mobile, and biogenic inventories to the future years of 2015 and 2023;

• Section 8.0 describes the emissions invent ory data formatting that was conducted;

• Section 9.0 lists all of the refe rences that were used in th e development of the overall emissions inventory.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 1-6 The report appendices contain various supplem ental information, including the following:

• Appendix A – Listing of PBR and Unpermitted Facilities

• Appendix B – Letters to Tier 1 and 2 F acilities; PBR and Unpermitted Facilities

• Appendix C – Area Source Surveys (Fuel Dealer and Distributor Survey, Dry Cleaning Survey, Wastewater Treatment Survey, and Landfill Survey)

• Appendix D – Aurora Residentia l Wood Combustion Survey Report

• Appendix E – DEQ CONCEPT- MV Technical Memorandum

• Appendix F – Biogenics Technical Memorandum

• Appendix G – Detailed Area Source Emission Inventory Summaries2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-1 2.0 2008 POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY 2.1 Point Source Data Collection Early in the development of the point source inventory, it was decided that the industrial point source facilities would be divided into two categories: permitted sources and unpermitted sources. The permitted sources incl ude facilities that operate under a current Tier 1 permit (i.e., Title V) or a Tier 2 (including permit to construct [PTC]) permits. The unpermitted sources include facilities that were operating under a pe rmit by rule (PBR) (i.e., portable sand and gravel equipment and dairies), as well as the possible universe of industr ial facilities that do not possess current DEQ air permits. DEQ provided a list of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 permitted facilities and the PBR facilities, including facility and contact name and address.

For the Treasure Valley emissions inventor y, point sources are defined to include
industrial facilities emitt ing greater than one of the following thresholds:

• 5 tons per year (tpy) of PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , SO x 

### , or NH 3 

### ;

• 10 tpy of VOC; or

• 25 tpy of NO x 

### or CO.

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

The procedure described below was used to de velop a master database of potential point
source facilities locate d within the Treasure Valley Airshed (i.e., Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties) in order to include full contact info rmation needed for mailing point source survey letters. The data sources used were DEQ’ s Tier 1, Tier 2/PTC, and PBR lists; 2002 and 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI ); the U.S. EPA’s Facility Registry System (FRS); Idaho Secretary of State Business Listing; and 2005- 2007 Toxic Release Inventories (TRI). The procedure steps included the following:

• The starting point was the DEQ’s Tier 1 and Tier 2/PTC permit list s (109 facilities). Information for these facilities included cont act person, facility name(s), and address. A unique facility identification number (ID ) was assigned. This information was given the highest priority in the merged database.

• Using the 2002 and 2005 NEI, facility info rmation was merged with the above permits list (42 facilities). For overla pping facilities, IDs were updated. Non-2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-2 overlapping facilities were appended into th e master database and a unique Facility ID was assigned. Information included: facility name(s), address information, SIC/NAICS/Industry codes and de scriptors, location coordina tes, and other facility identifiers (i.e., NEI Site ID, ORIS Facility Code, TRI ID and FRS ID). This information was assigned the second highest priority.

• Using DEQ’s listing of facilities with PBRs (i.e., portable rock crushers and dairies), facility information was added to database. Information for these facilities included contact person, facility name(s), and address. Also, these facilities were assigned an SIC of either 1442 (Construction Sand and Gr avel) or 0241 (Dairy Farms). A unique Facility ID was assigned, along with a POSST User Name and Password. This information was assigned the third highest priority.

• The next data source used for the merge was from U.S. EPA’s FRS. For Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties, over 2,100 unique facilities were id entified. For nonoverlapping facilities, the information obtai ned from FRS included facility name(s), address information, location coordinates, SIC/NAICS codes, and other facility identifiers (i.e., FRS ID, NEI ID, AFS ID , and TRI ID). This information was assigned the fourth highest priority.

• A business listing provided by the Idaho S ecretary of State was merged with the above list, and appended to the master database for non-overlapping businesses. Information included contact pe rson, facility name(s), and address information. This information was assigned the fifth highest priority.

• The final data source to be merged into the master database was the 2005 through 2007 TRI datasets. While the basic facility information was contained in the FRS data source, the TRI datasets also contai ned contact information. This information was assigned the lowest priority.
Using this procedure, the following quantities of potential point source facilities were
identified:

• Tier 1 and Tier 2 permitted facilities: 109 (see Table 2-1)

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

• Unpermitted facilitie s: 1,654 facilities
A listing of the 1,683 total PBR and unpermitted f acilities is presented in Appendix A.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-3 Table 2-1. Permitted Point S ources in the Treasure Valley

Co. Facility Name 2008 Emissions

Data Co. Facility Name 2008 Emissions

Data Ada Animal Crematorium 9 Western Aircraft Ada County/Hidden Hollow Landfill Western Electronics Inc 9 American Paving Company 9Ada
Western Idaho Cabinets 9 Arrow Planers & Moulding Ace Supply Inc B & D Foods 9 The Amalgamated Sugar Co (TASCO)-Nampa 9 BFI Boise 9 Boise Packaging & Newsprint LLC Nampa 9 Boise Independent School District - Victory 9 C & B Quality Trailer Works Inc 9 Boise Moulding & Lumber Carco Mineral Resources Inc C Wright Construction 9 Chevron USA Inc SS 98628 Chen Northern Inc Crookham Company Chevron/NW Terminalling Boise 9 Darigold-Caldwell 9 Circle K Store #440 Eco-Tech Services Inc Classic Kitchen Doors Environmental Oil Services Cremation Society Of Idaho 9 Flahiff Funeral Chapels Inc 9 Darling International Fleetwood Homes of Idaho Inc 04-1 9 Earl Scheib Inc Idaho Ethanol Processing Empire Transport Inc Cloverdale Interstate Group LLC 9 Envirosafe Svcs of Idaho Inc JC Penney Co Inc EPSCO Corporation J.R. Simplot Company-Diversified Nampa 9 Fiber Composites LLC 9 J.R. Simplot Fiberglass Systems Inc Kuna J.R. Simplot Company - Food Group 9 Fiberglass Systems Incorporated 9 Low's Ready Mix Inc 9 G2 Energy LLC Mercy Medical Center 9 Hewlett Packard Co - Boise Site 9 Micron Technology Inc Nampa 9 Idaho Timber of Boise LLC 9 Mirage Enterprises Inc 9 Jack's Tire & Oil Inc 9 Oldcastle Precast Inc 9 Lar-Ken Septic Tanks Inc 9 Pacific Press Publishing Assoc 9 Larson Miller Inc Pyro Energy MAACO Collision Repair And Auto Center Rogers NK Seed Co Michaels of Oregon 9 Seedbiotics 9 Micron Technology Inc. 9 Seminis Vegetable Seeds 9 Mike's Sand & Gravel Snake River Chemicals Caldwell Motivepower Truck and Engine Annex (TEA) 9 Snake River Trailer Company 9 Mountain View Animal Clinic Sorrent o Lactalis Inc Swiss Village Plant 9 Mountain View Funeral Home Boise 9 Summit Seed Coatings 9 Mountain View Power Teton Sales Co 9 Northwest Pipeline GP Boise 9 Univar USA Inc Nampa Nxedge Inc Of Boise 9 US Army National Guard OMS2 Plum Creek Northwest Lumber 9 Western Farm Service – Caldwell 9 Pre Cote Industries 9 Western Stockmens Inc 9 Safety Kleen Corporation 9 Western World Incorporated Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center 9 White's Hauling & Farm 9 Saint Luke's Meridian Medical Center 9 Woodgrain Millwork Inc Nampa Semmaterials L.P.-Boise Id Plant 9 XI Four Star Beef Sinclair Pipeline Company 9Canyon

Z Casting Inc St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center Double J Milling LLC 9 Summers Funeral Home Evander Andrews Power Complex 9 Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co., Boise 9 Glenns Ferry Cogeneration Partners Ltd Treasure Valley Forest Products Boise 9 Idaho Fresh Pak (Plant #4) Glenns Ferry Turner Sand & Gravel Idaho Power Co - Bennett Mountain 9 Turner Sand & Gravel Northwest Pipeline Gp Mountain Home 9 USAF Idaho Air National Guard Simplot Livestock Company Grandview US DOT FAA Traffic Control Tower Treasure Valley Forest Products Valley Sand & GravelElmore

US Air Force-Mountain Home 9Ada

West Park/Walla Walla Shopping Center2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-4 Table 2-2. Facilities Operat ing Under Permit by Rule in the Treasure Valley Air Shed

It should be noted that the listing of P BR and unpermitted sources does not include landfills, fuel suppliers/distri butors, dry cleaners, municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), beef cattle feedlots, and airports (to the extent that th ey could be identified). The reason for excluding these sources is because their activity data will be collected separately to use with methods for estimating their emissions which are unique to those source categories. These methodologies for these source categorie s are discussed in th e following sections:

• Fuel suppliers/distri butors (Section 3.1.1)

• Dry cleaners (Section 3.1.13)

• Wastewater treatment plants (Section 3.1.17) DEQ ID or County Type of Facility Facility Name 1677700335 Portable C Wright Construction Co Inc 1677700418 Portable C Wright Construction Co Inc 1677700158 Portable Camas Gravel Company 1677700093 Portable Central Paving Company 1677700024 Portable Central Paving Company 1677700243 Portable Central Paving Company 1677700304 Portable Combined Districts Crushing Fund 1677700099 Portable Concrete Placing Company Inc 1677700389 Portable Debco Construction 1677700370 Portable Deerflat Sand & Gravel 1677700378 Portable Knife River (Masco Inc) 1677700209 Portable Nelson-Deppe Inc 1677700390 Portable Rambo Crushing Company 1677700162 Portable River Rock Sand & Gravel LLC 1677700100 Portable Seubert Excavators Inc 1677700103 Portable Seubert Excavators Inc 1677700373 Portable Staker & Parson Companies 77700407 Portable Staker & Parson Company 777-00422 Portable STP Concrete Co., Inc 041-00007 Portable Treasure Canyon Calcium 1677700231 Portable Western Construction 1677700042 Portable Western Construction 1677700212 Portable Western Construction Ada Dairy Degroot Dairy Canyon Dairy Beranna Dairy Canyon Dairy Dry Lakes Dairy Canyon Dairy Sun Ridge Dairy Canyon Dairy T&T Cattle Elmore Dairy TLK Dairy2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-5 • Landfills (Section 3.1.18)

• Beef cattle feedlots (Section 3.1.23)

• Airports (Section 5.1.2)
The final database was provided to DEQ. DEQ then assigned a POSST User Name and Password to each record, and used the file to pr int names and contact information on each of the letters for both the permitted and PBR/unpermitted s ources. Letters were then developed to mail to each facility to request completion of th e POSST forms. The permitted sources were requested to complete the full POSST form (p reviously developed by DEQ for annual reporting), while the unpermitted facilities were allowed to complete a simplified “EZ” form (i.e., emission estimates were not required). Examples of thes e letters (i.e., one for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 permitted facilities, and another for the PBR and unpermitted facilities) are included in Appendix B. Finally, the contact information and POSST User Names and Passwords from the final merged database were transferred to the POSST survey letters and ma iled to each facility.

2.2 Emission Calculati on Methodologies – Annual The methodologies used to calculate annual point source emissions for the 2008 base year are presented in this section. The estimati on of the seasonal ozone and PM daily emissions for 2008 is discussed in Section 2.3, while the development of the future 2015 and 2023 projected point source emissions invent ories is presented in Section 7.1.1.

Annual point source emissions were developed from data co llected electronically by DEQ using the POSST submittal process. Of the 109 permitted facilities, a total of 60 facilities submitted 2008 annual emissions either through the co mplete POSST or as a separate facilitywide emissions inventory (see Table 2-1). Init ial quality assurance (QA) was conducted by DEQ before emissions data were compiled.

Following DEQ’s QA, an additional QA step was conducted for consistency. The PM data submitted through POSST was very inconsistent. Some facilities submitted primary PM 10 

### (PM 10 

### -PRI) emissions, while others submitted filterable PM 10 

### (PM 10 

### -FIL) emissions. Most
combustion sources did not submit condensable PM (PM-CON) emissions, even though such emissions would be expected. Some facilities submitted PM 2.5 

### emissions that were identical to
PM 10 

### emissions based on an apparent assumption of equality, even though such an assumption2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-6 was incorrect. In order to address the inconsistency in PM emissions, the PM augmentation scheme utilized in the 2002 NEI was implemented (U.S. EPA, 2006). The PM augmentation scheme provided look-up tables of SCC-specific conversion factors (e.g., PM 10 

### -PRI to PM 10 

### - FIL, PM 10 

### -FIL to PM-CON, PM 10 

### -FIL to PM 2.5 

### -FIL, etc.). The augmentation scheme was applied to either PM 10 

### -PRI or PM 10 

### -FIL emissions for every point source process reported in POSST. Wherever possible, identified contro ls were accounted for in this augmentation procedure. Application of the a ugmentation procedure resulted in PM 10 

### -FIL, PM 2.5 

### -FIL, and PM-CON emissions for every point source process. For inclusion in this report, these point source emissions were reported as PM 10 

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

### -FIL and PM-CON) and PM 2.5 

### - PRI (i.e., sum of PM 2.5 

### -FIL and PM-CON). However, in the formatted data files to be provided along with the final report, the filterable and condensable PM em issions will be provided, instead of the primary PM emissions.

Of the 1,683 unpermitted and PBR facilities included in Appendix A, a total of 632 facilities (i.e., nearly a 38 percent return rate ) submitted a simplified “EZ” form to DEQ. DEQ then performed the initial compilation of the EZ data. Subsequent QA was then conducted and
facilities with unusable data were discarded. Because the unpermitted and PBR facilities had little or no previous interaction with DEQ con cerning air emissions, there were considerable amounts of invalid data that were submitted to DEQ. Some issues included:

• Because the selection of the 1,683 unpermitte d and PBR facilities was fairly broad, there were a large number of facilities th at did not have emissive processes (e.g., businesses run out of homes, land management companies, etc.).

• Some facilities reported nonsen sical units (e.g., tons of el ectricity, million cubic feet of heat, 1000 gallons of vehicles , gallons of steel, etc.).

• Some reported material quantities were not reasonable (e.g., a part icular facility’s reported fuel use was a significant fracti on of the state’s to tal industrial or commercial fuel use, etc.).

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

• There were handful of instances where submitted incorrect or missing data were corrected (i.e., typically based upon notes found elsewher e in the submitted data records), but, in general, the intent of in correct or missing data was not discernible and so these facilities were discarded.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-7 After these QA steps, a total of 291 facilities that submitted EZ data remained with valid and reasonable activity data.

The next step for these 291 facilities was to determine which facilities exceeded the point source thresholds (i.e., 5 tpy for PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , SO x 

### , and NH 3 

### ; 10 tpy for VOC; and 25 tpy for NO x 

### and CO). This was accomplished by using emissi on factors from a variety of sources including emission factors from AP-42 and other guidance documents, as well as information submitted by respondents (e.g., paint or adhesive VOC conten t, etc.). For example, the threshold determination for natural gas combustion used th e AP-42 emission factors for small natural gas boilers (i.e., 100 lbs NO x 

### /10 6 

### ft 3 

### , 0.6 lbs SO 2 

### /10 6 

### ft 3 

### , 5.5 lbs VOC/10 6 

### ft 3 

### , 84 lbs CO/10 6 

### ft 3 

### , 7.6
lbs PM 10 

### /10 6 

### ft 3 

### , and 7.6 lbs PM 2.5 

### /10 6 

### ft 3 

### ) (U.S. EPA, 2010). The resu ltant natural gas quantities needed to exceed the respective pollutant thresholds were: 500 × 10 6 

### ft 3 

### for NO x 

### , 16,667 × 10 6


### ft 3 

### for SO 2 

### , 3,636 × 10 6 

### ft 3 

### for VOC, 595 × 10 6 

### ft 3 

### for CO, and 1,316 × 10 6 

### ft 3 

### for PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

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

### ft 3 

### for NO x 

### ) was then used to determine which facilities had natural gas combustion sources that exceeded the th resholds and should be considered to be point
sources. Threshold determinations were conduc ted for the following source categories: fuel combustion (i.e., natural gas, LPG, distillate oil, and waste o il), gasoline distribution, rock crushing, concrete batching, graphic arts, av iation gasoline distri bution, and adhesive application. Following the threshold determin ation, a total of 33 non-permitted sources were identified as exceeding DEQ’s point source thresholds with 24 of these being gasoline stations. Because of the potential difficulty associated with modeling some gasoline stations as point sources and some as area sources, all gasoline stat ions were kept in the gasoline distribution area source category, even though 24 gasoline stations exceeded DEQ’s point source thresholds. The remaining nine non-permitted sources that exceeded DEQ’s point source thresholds are listed in
Table 2-3.

The reconciliation between point source activity data and area source activity data was performed. Due to incompatib ilities between activity data and estimation methodologies, activity data reconc iliation was only possible for natural gas combustion in the industrial and commercial sectors. The activity data reconc iliation is described further in Section 3.1.1 (industrial and commercial natural gas combustion).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-8 Table 2-3. Unpermitted Facilities that Exceeded Point Source Thresholds in 2008 Emissions Facility Name County C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id: 1677700418) Ada Guerdon Enterprises LLC Ada Knife River Ada Western Construction (Portable Plant) Ada C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id: 1677700335) Canyon Combined Districts Crushing Fund Canyon Kit Home Builders West Canyon Nelson-Deppe Inc. Canyon River Rock Sand & Gravel LLC Canyon



### 2.3 Emission Calculation Methodol ogies – Ozone and PM Season After the annual point source emissions were estimated using the methodologies described in Section 2.2, the daily ozone seas on and PM season emission estimates were developed. The ozone season extends from Ap ril 1 through October 31 (i.e., 214 days), while the PM season is from November 1 through February 29 (2008 is a leap y ear) (i.e., 121 days). The seasonal emissions were developed using a seas onal temporal allocation profiles. All of the
sources that submitted electronic data via the POSST or EZ submittal identified the percent of operations, as number between 0 and 100, that oc curred during the spring (i.e., March through May), summer (i.e., June through August), fall (i .e., September through November), and winter (i.e., December through February) for each process. In a few instances, the seasonal percent of operations was not identified for a particular process at a facilit y. These were gapfilled based upon seasonal percent information for ot her processes at the same facility.

The ozone season and PM season factors were developed using the following equations:

Where:

OSF = Ozone seasonal factor PSF = PM seasonal factor SPR = Percent of operations in spring SUM = Percent of operations in summer FAL = Percent of operations in fall WIN = Percent of operations in winter 

### ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛ × ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛ + ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛ + ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛ × ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= 91 61 100 FAL 100 SUM 92 61 100 SPR OSF

⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛ + ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛ × ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= 100 WIN 91 30 100 FAL PSF2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-9 The ozone season and PM season daily emissions were calculated by multiplying annual emissions by the ozone/PM season factors and th en dividing by the number of days in the ozone/PM season. This is shown with the following equations:

Where:

E A 

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

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

### = PM season daily emissions (tons/day); OSF = Ozone seasonal factor; and PSF = PM seasonal factor. 2.4 Emission Results by Facility 

### The facility-level annual point s ource emissions are presented in Table 2-4. The facilities are listed alphabetically by county. The pe rmitted point sources are identified as a POSST facility type; the unpermitted point sources are id entified as an EZ facility type. Table cells containing a value of 0.0 represent some non-zero value less than 0.05 tons per year (tpy); blank cells represent zero emissions. One facility lis ted in Table 2-1 (Fiberglass Systems in Ada County) submitted a POSST submittal with zero emissions and was not included in Table 2-4. Similarly, the facility-level ozone season and PM season emissions are presented in Table 2-5 and 2-6, respectively. Table cells containing a value of 0.00 represent some non-zero value less than 0.005 tons per day (tpd); blank cells repres ent zero emissions. All facility-level point source data presented in Tables 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 are include d in the electronic data files submitted in conjunction with this final report.

2.5 QA/QC Procedures 

### For the point source inventory developmen t, a number of QA/QC procedures were described in the project IPP/ QAP (ERG and ENVIRON, 2009). However, the actual point source inventory development process was somewhat different than envisi oned in the IPP/QAP.
ERG’s involvement with the POSST and EZ data processing and manipulation was considerably reduced with DEQ taking on a larger role. Ho wever, ERG did conduct some QA/QC following 214 OSF E E A

OS 

### ×

=

121 PSF E E A

PS 

### ×

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

### 2-10 Table 2-4. 2008 Annual Poin t Source Emissions (Tons/Year)

Facility Name County Facility Type NO x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 Ada Animal Crematorium Ada POSST 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 American Paving Company Ada POSST 4.5 1.3 0.3 B & D Foods Ada POSST 1.2 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.4 BFI Boise Ada POSST 0.0 Boise Independent School District - Victory Ada POSST 0.0 0.0 0.0 C Wright Construction Ada POSST 0.6 0.1 1.1 3.1 1.1 0.3 C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id: 1677700418) Ada EZ 5.2 1.7 Cremation Society Of Idaho Ada POSST 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Fiber Composites LLC Ada POSST 29.5 21.3 Guerdon Enterprises LLC Ada EZ 21.4 Hewlett Packard Co - Boise Site Ada POSST 50.4 2.0 3.0 16.2 3.0 2.9 Idaho Timber of Boise LLC Ada POSST 0.1 0.0 Jack's Tire & Oil Inc Ada POSST 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Knife River Ada EZ 7.2 5.3 2.2 24.0 0.3 0.2 LAR KEN Septic Tanks Inc Ada POSST 0.5 0.2 Micron Technology Inc Ada POSST 34.0 1.4 17.1 24.6 36.7 34.2 45.9 MotivePower Truck & Engine Annex (TEA) Ada POSST 10.2 0.8 33.8 5.1 0.6 0.6 Mountain View Funeral Home Boise Ada POSST 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Northwest Pipeline - Boise Ada POSST 84.6 0.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 NW Terminalling, Boise Ada POSST 4.5 74.4 11.2 2.7 1.9 Nxedge Inc of Boise Ada POSST 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 Plum Creek Northwest Lumber Ada POSST 25.2 24.4 Pre Cote Industries Ada POSST 11.5 Safety Kleen Corporation Ada POSST 0.2 Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center Ada POSST 14.3 0.1 0.4 6.3 0.6 0.6 Saint Luke's Meridian Medical Center Ada POSST 21.7 3.7 1.2 17.5 7.6 7.4 Saint Luke's Regional Medical Center Ada POSST 115.1 46.9 4.1 52.9 23.6 23.3 Semmaterials L.P.- Boise Plant Ada POSST 2.7 0.0 2.9 2.2 0.9 0.5 Sinclair Pipeline Ada POSST 54.8

### Table 2-4. Continued

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

### 2-11 Facility Name County Facility Type NO x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 Company Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, Boise Ada POSST 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Treasure Valley Forest Products, Boise Ada POSST 0.5 0.0 1.1 1.9 25.8 18.9 Western Construction (Portable Plant) Ada EZ 7.3 5.4 2.2 24.4 0.3 0.2 Western Electronics Inc Ada POSST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Western Idaho Cabinets Ada POSST 15.1 0.1 0.1 Boise Packaging & Newsprint LLC Nampa Canyon POSST 2.1 0.0 25.2 2.2 1.8 1.3 C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id: 1677700335) Canyon EZ 9.7 3.1 C&B Quality Trailer Works Canyon POSST 0.1 0.0 33.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 Combined Districts Crushing Fund Canyon EZ 11.3 3.7 Darigold-Caldwell Canyon POSST 16.0 0.1 0.9 13.0 8.4 5.4 Flahiff Funeral Chapels Inc Canyon POSST 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Fleetwood Homes of Idaho Inc 04-1 Canyon POSST 10.6 0.3 0.2 Interstate Group LLC Canyon POSST 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.7 0.5 JR Simplot Company – Diversified Nampa Canyon POSST 31.3 0.2 41.6 32.5 52.1 39.0 JR Simplot Company - Food Group Canyon POSST 57.0 36.0 17.9 67.5 119.6 102.2 240.1 Kit Home Builders West Canyon EZ 36.1 Low's Ready Mix, Inc. Canyon POSST 0.2 0.1 Mercy Medical Center Canyon POSST 1.8 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 Micron Technology Inc Nampa Canyon POSST 3.1 0.1 40.6 2.1 1.0 0.9 0.5 Mirage Enterprises Inc Canyon POSST 12.7 0.3 0.2 Nelson-Deppe Inc. Canyon EZ 36.8 12.0 Oldcastle Precast Inc Canyon POSST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pacific Press Publishing Assoc Canyon POSST 1.3 0.0 20.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 River Rock Sand & Gravel LLC Canyon EZ 6.1 2.0 Seedbiotics Canyon POSST 9.4 8.7 Seminis Vegetable Seeds Canyon POSST 0.9 2.9 21.6 0.1 0.1 Snake River Trailer Company Canyon POSST 0.0 Sorrento Lactalis Incorporated Swiss Village Plant Canyon POSST 37.6 0.3 2.1 40.4 17.5 17.2 Summit Seed Coatings Canyon POSST 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 TASCO Nampa Canyon POSST 1,203.5 1,969.9 29.2 862.4 219.0 80.2 175.7

### Table 2-4. Continued

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

### 2-12 Facility Name County Facility Type NO x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 Teton Sales Company Canyon POSST 0.1 0.0 16.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Western Farm Service - Caldwell Canyon POSST 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 4.3 Western Stockmens Inc Canyon POSST 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 White's Hauling & Farm Canyon POSST 0.2 0.1 Double J Milling LLC Elmore POSST 5.3 0.0 0.3 4.5 5.3 3.1 Evander Andrew Complex Elmore POSST 29.1 0.5 1.8 32.7 5.6 5.6 Idaho Power - Bennett Mountain Elmore POSST 18.6 0.1 0.6 6.4 1.7 1.7 Mountain Home Air Force Base Elmore POSST 100.6 1.8 18.1 49.3 123.2 48.2 Northwest Pipeline - Mountain Home Elmore POSST 206.6 0.0 5.8 12.3 0.0 0.0 Ada County 355.6 65.7 268.1 198.5 169.1 142.6 46.0 Canyon County 1,356.5 2,007.3 303.4 1,044.7 495.9 277.8 420.6 Elmore County 360.3 2.5 26.6 105.3 135.9 58.7 0.0 Total 2,072.4 2,075.4 598.1 1,348.5 800.9 479.0 466.62008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-13 Table 2-5. 2008 Ozone Season Point Source Emissions (Tons/Day)

Facility Name County Facility Type NO x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 Ada Animal Crematorium Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 American Paving Company Ada POSST 0.01 0.00 B & D Foods Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BFI Boise Ada POSST 0.00 Boise Independent School District - Victory Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 C Wright Construction Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id: 1677700418) Ada EZ 0.01 0.00 Cremation Society Of Idaho Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fiber Composites LLC Ada POSST 0.08 0.06 Guerdon Enterprises LLC Ada EZ 0.06 Hewlett Packard Co - Boise Site Ada POSST 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 Idaho Timber of Boise LLC Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 Jack's Tire & Oil Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Knife River Ada EZ 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 LAR KEN Septic Tanks Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 Micron Technology Inc Ada POSST 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.12 MotivePower Truck & Engine Annex (TEA) Ada POSST 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 Mountain View Funeral Home Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Northwest Pipeline - Boise Ada POSST 0.23 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 NW Terminalling, Boise Ada POSST 0.01 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.01 Nxedge Inc of Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plum Creek Northwest Lumber Ada POSST 0.07 0.07 Pre Cote Industries Ada POSST 0.03 Safety Kleen Corporation Ada POSST 0.00 Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center Ada POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 Saint Luke's Meridian Medical Center Ada POSST 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.02 Saint Luke's Regional Medical Center Ada POSST 0.29 0.09 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.05 Semmaterials L.P.- Boise Plant Ada POSST 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Sinclair Pipeline Ada POSST 0.15

### Table 2-5. Continued

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

### 2-14 Facility Name County Facility Type NO x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 Company Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Treasure Valley Forest Products, Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.06 Western Construction (Portable Plant) Ada EZ 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 Western Electronics Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Western Idaho Cabinets Ada POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 Boise Packaging & Newsprint LLC Nampa Canyon POSST 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00 C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id: 1677700335) Canyon EZ 0.03 0.01 C&B Quality Trailer Works Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Combined Districts Crushing Fund Canyon EZ 0.03 0.01 Darigold-Caldwell Canyon POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 Flahiff Funeral Chapels Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fleetwood Homes of Idaho Inc 04-1 Canyon POSST 0.03 0.00 0.00 Interstate Group LLC Canyon POSST 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 JR Simplot Company – Diversified Nampa Canyon POSST 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.11 JR Simplot Company - Food Group Canyon POSST 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.16 0.32 0.28 0.65 Kit Home Builders West Canyon EZ 0.10 Low's Ready Mix, Inc. Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 Mercy Medical Center Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Micron Technology Inc Nampa Canyon POSST 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mirage Enterprises Inc Canyon POSST 0.03 0.00 0.00 Nelson-Deppe Inc. Canyon EZ 0.11 0.04 Oldcastle Precast Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pacific Press Publishing Assoc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 River Rock Sand & Gravel LLC Canyon EZ 0.02 0.01 Seedbiotics Canyon POSST 0.01 0.01 Seminis Vegetable Seeds Canyon POSST 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 Snake River Trailer Company Canyon POSST 0.00 Sorrento Lactalis Incorporated Swiss Village Plant Canyon POSST 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.05 Summit Seed Coatings Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TASCO Nampa Canyon POSST 3.14 5.10 0.06 1.63 0.57 0.21 0.40

### Table 2-5. Continued

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

### 2-15 Facility Name County Facility Type NO x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 Teton Sales Company Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Western Farm Service - Caldwell Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Western Stockmens Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White's Hauling & Farm Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 Double J Milling LLC Elmore POSST 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 Evander Andrew Complex Elmore POSST 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.02 Idaho Power - Bennett Mountain Elmore POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Mountain Home Air Force Base Elmore POSST 0.27 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.34 0.13 Northwest Pipeline - Mountain Home Elmore POSST 0.56 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 Ada County 0.96 0.16 0.75 0.58 0.46 0.38 0.12 Canyon County 3.52 5.20 0.82 2.11 1.31 0.73 1.07 Elmore County 1.00 0.01 0.07 0.32 0.38 0.17 0.00 Total 5.48 5.36 1.64 3.01 2.15 1.28 1.202008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-16 Table 2-6. 2008 PM Season Poin t Source Emissions (Tons/Day)

Facility Name County Facility Type NO x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 Ada Animal Crematorium Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 American Paving Company Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 B & D Foods Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BFI Boise Ada POSST 0.00 Boise Independent School District - Victory Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 C Wright Construction Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id: 1677700418) Ada EZ 0.01 0.00 Cremation Society Of Idaho Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fiber Composites LLC Ada POSST 0.08 0.06 Guerdon Enterprises LLC Ada EZ 0.05 Hewlett Packard Co - Boise Site Ada POSST 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 Idaho Timber of Boise LLC Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 Jack's Tire & Oil Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Knife River Ada EZ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 LAR KEN Septic Tanks Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 Micron Technology Inc Ada POSST 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.13 MotivePower Truck & Engine Annex (TEA) Ada POSST 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 Mountain View Funeral Home Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Northwest Pipeline - Boise Ada POSST 0.23 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 NW Terminalling, Boise Ada POSST 0.01 0.19 0.03 0.01 0.01 Nxedge Inc of Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plum Creek Northwest Lumber Ada POSST 0.07 0.07 Pre Cote Industries Ada POSST 0.03 Safety Kleen Corporation Ada POSST 0.00 Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center Ada POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 Saint Luke's Meridian Medical Center Ada POSST 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.03 Saint Luke's Regional Medical Center Ada POSST 0.36 0.19 0.01 0.17 0.08 0.08 Semmaterials L.P.- Boise Plant Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sinclair Pipeline Ada POSST 0.15

### Table 2-6. Continued

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

### 2-17 Facility Name County Facility Type NO x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 Company Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Treasure Valley Forest Products, Boise Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 Western Construction (Portable Plant) Ada EZ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Western Electronics Inc Ada POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Western Idaho Cabinets Ada POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 Boise Packaging & Newsprint LLC Nampa Canyon POSST 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00 C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id: 1677700335) Canyon EZ 0.03 0.01 C&B Quality Trailer Works Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Combined Districts Crushing Fund Canyon EZ 0.03 0.01 Darigold-Caldwell Canyon POSST 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 Flahiff Funeral Chapels Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fleetwood Homes of Idaho Inc 04-1 Canyon POSST 0.03 0.00 0.00 Interstate Group LLC Canyon POSST 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 JR Simplot Company – Diversified Nampa Canyon POSST 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.11 JR Simplot Company - Food Group Canyon POSST 0.21 0.10 0.05 0.23 0.33 0.28 0.66 Kit Home Builders West Canyon EZ 0.10 Low's Ready Mix, Inc. Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 Mercy Medical Center Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Micron Technology Inc Nampa Canyon POSST 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mirage Enterprises Inc Canyon POSST 0.03 0.00 0.00 Nelson-Deppe Inc. Canyon EZ 0.09 0.03 Oldcastle Precast Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pacific Press Publishing Assoc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 River Rock Sand & Gravel LLC Canyon EZ 0.02 0.01 Seedbiotics Canyon POSST 0.05 0.04 Seminis Vegetable Seeds Canyon POSST 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 Snake River Trailer Company Canyon POSST 0.00 Sorrento Lactalis Incorporated Swiss Village Plant Canyon POSST 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.05 Summit Seed Coatings Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TASCO Nampa Canyon POSST 3.94 6.40 0.14 4.22 0.72 0.27 0.68

### Table 2-6. Continued

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

### 2-18 Facility Name County Facility Type NO x SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 Teton Sales Company Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Western Farm Service - Caldwell Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Western Stockmens Inc Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White's Hauling & Farm Canyon POSST 0.00 0.00 Double J Milling LLC Elmore POSST 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 Evander Andrew Complex Elmore POSST 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 Idaho Power - Bennett Mountain Elmore POSST 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 Mountain Home Air Force Base Elmore POSST 0.28 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.34 0.13 Northwest Pipeline - Mountain Home Elmore POSST 0.57 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 Ada County 1.00 0.22 0.70 0.48 0.45 0.39 0.13 Canyon County 4.41 6.50 0.86 4.76 1.49 0.83 1.34 Elmore County 0.97 0.01 0.07 0.24 0.37 0.15 0.00 Total 6.38 6.73 1.63 5.48 2.31 1.37 1.472008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 2-19 the transmittal of the POSST and EZ data from DEQ. Before initiating any emission calculations, ERG conducted a high-level review of the transmitted POSST and EZ data files and examined the data for any questionable outliers. Questions regarding th ese outliers were then communicated to DEQ staff. Analysis of the EZ data did involved some QA/QC procedures (e.g., identification of non-emissive processes, nonsensical units, unreas onably high material quantities, SCC-material inconsistencies, incorr ectly input information, etc.). Subsequent manipulation of point source data included freque nt summation checks to ensure that individual process emissions were not accidentally omitted.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-1 3.0 2008 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY


### Area sources are defined as those sources emitting annual emissions less than the point source thresholds. The Treasure Valley emissi ons inventory includes all of the area source emission categories listed in Table 1-1. In genera l, these are identical to the categories identified in the IPP/QAP document (ERG and ENVIRON, 2009) . The only significant changes are that a few additional ammonia source categories (i.e., wild animal ammonia and soil ammonia) and a few specialized categories (i.e., i ndustrial refrigeration/cold stor age and irrigation ditch burning)
have been added.
3.1 Emissions Calculation Methodologies – Annual


### The annual area source emissions calculation methodologies are brie fly summarized in Table 3-1 (i.e., the Area Source Matrix). The Ar ea Source Matrix was previously presented in the IPP/QAP and summarized the preferred a nd alternative methodologies for each area source category, as well as activity data and emissi on factors. The Area Source Matrix has been modified based upon the methodolog ies, activity data, and emissi on factors actually used; in addition, each details of each methodology are presented in the subsections below.

3.1.1 Fuel Combustion


### Fuel combustion includes three distinct sector s (i.e., industrial, commercial/ institutional, and residential) and a number of different fuels (e .g., natural gas, distillate fuel oil, liquefied petroleum gas [LPG], etc.); residential wood co mbustion is treated as a separate area source category, which is described in the following section.

Activity data for industrial, commercial/i nstitutional, and residential fuel combustion were collected using a mail-out survey (included as Appendix C) that was sent to fuel dealers and distributors in September 2009. The survey was mailed to a total of 66 fuel dealers and distributors located in Ada, Canyon, or Elmore counties, or in adjacent counties (i.e., Boise, Gem, Gooding, Owyhee, Payette, and Twin Falls c ounties) that might sell fuel within Ada, Canyon, or Elmore counties. The list of fuel dealers and distributors was compiled from four online business directories or listings (i.e., Yellow Pages, Dun & Bradstreet, Manta, and Hoover’s).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

### 3-2 Final, August 31, 2010Table 3-1. Area Source MatrixSource CategoryPollutantsMethodologyActivity DataNotesIndustrial FuelCombustionNOx, SO2, VOC,CO, PM10, PM2.5,NH3Emission factors: AP-42 (Sections 1.3, 1.4, and1.5); 2002 NEI Documentation; EIIP AmmoniaReportLocal fuel survey (fuelquantities and sulfurcontent)Includes distillate, natural gas, andLPG.Point source reconciliation conductedfor natural gas only.Commercial/Institutional FuelCombustionNOx, SO2, VOC,CO, PM10, PM2.5,NH3Emission factors: AP-42 (Sections 1.3, 1.4, and1.5); 2002 NEI Documentation; EIIP AmmoniaReportLocal fuel survey (fuelquantities and sulfurcontent)Includes distillate, natural gas, LPG,and kerosene.Point source reconciliation conductedfor natural gas only.Residential FuelCombustion (excludingwood)NOx, SO2, VOC,CO, PM10, PM2.5,NH3Emission factors: AP-42 (Sections 1.3, 1.4, and1.5); 2002 NEI Documentation; EIIP AmmoniaReportLocal fuel survey (fuelquantities and sulfurcontent)Includes distillate, natural gas, LPG,and kerosene.Residential WoodCombustionNOx, SO2, VOC,CO, PM10, PM2.5,NH3Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Local residential woodcombustion surveyPaved Road Dust PM10, PM2.5TVRDS methodology (Ada and Canyon); AP-42(Section 13.2.1) (Elmore)VMT, silt loadingUnpaved Road Dust PM10, PM2.5TVRDS methodology (Ada and Canyon); AP-42(Section 13.2.2) (Elmore)VMT, silt contentCommercial Cooking VOC, CO, PM10,PM2.5Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Number of equipment,annual meat cooked perequipmentIncludes charbroiling, deep fatfrying, and griddle fryingBakeries VOC Per capita emissionfactors: EIIP (Vol. III,Abstracts)Population, per capitabread consumptionConstruction PM10, PM2.5Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Number of buildingpermitsIndustrial Refrigeration/Cold StorageNH3Per employee emission factors: EIIP AmmoniaReportEmployee countsArchitectural SurfaceCoatingVOC Emissions ratioing based on population andemployment: 2002 NEI Documentation2002 NEI emissions;population andemployee countsAutobody Refinishing VOC Per employee emission factors: 2002 NEIDocumentationEmployee countsTraffic Markings VOC Massbalance Traffic markingquantities; VOCcontentTable 3-1. Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

### 3-3 Final, August 31, 2010Source CategoryPollutantsMethodologyActivity DataNotesIndustrial SurfaceCoatingVOC Emissions ratioing based on employment: 2002NEI Documentation2002 NEI emissions;employee countsNo point source reconciliationconducted.Degreasing VOC Emissions ratioing based on employment: 2002NEI Documentation2002 NEI emissions;employee countsNo point source reconciliationconducted.Dry Cleaning VOC Mass balance Local survey (quantityof solvent used)Graphic Arts VOC Per employee emission factors: 2002 NEIDocumentationEmployee countsConsumer Solvent Use VOC Per capitaemission factors: 2002 NEIDocumentationPopulationPesticide Application VOC Emission factors:EIIP (Vol. III, Chap. 9) Planted acreage,application rates, %active ingredient,formulation typeGasoline Transport andDistributionVOC Emission factors: AP-42 (Section 5.2), on-roadmotor vehicle modeling filesQuantity of fuel, StageI/II controlsPoint source reconciliationconducted.Open Burning(Household and Yard)NOx, SO2, VOC,CO, PM10, PM2.5Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Population not subjectto burn bansWastewater Treatment VOC, NH3Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Local survey (quantityof water treated)Landfills VOC Theoretical first-order kinetic model: AP-42(Section 2.4)Local survey (refuseacceptance rate, landfillopening/closing)Agricultural Tilling PM10, PM2.5Emission factors: ARB Area Source Method(Section 7.4)Acreage planted,planting practicesAgricultural Harvesting PM10, PM2.5Emission factors: ARB Area Source Method(Section 7.5)Acreage harvested,harvesting practicesAgricultural Burning –FieldsVOC, CO, PM10,PM2.5Emission factors: AP-42 (Section 2.5) Burned acreage, fuelloading, burningpracticesAgricultural Burning –Irrigation DitchesVOC, CO, PM10,PM2.5Emission factors: AP-42 (Section 2.5) Burned acreage, fuelloading, burningpracticesBeef Cattle Feedlots VOC, PM10, PM2.5Emission factors: ARB Area Source Method(Section 7.6)Head of cattle,residence timeStructural Fires NOx, VOC, CO,PM10, PM2.5Emission factors: EIIP (Vol. III, Chap. 18) Number of housesburnedVehicle Fires NOx, VOC, CO, Emission factors: EIIP (Vol.III, Abstracts) Number of vehiclesTable 3-1. Continued

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

### 3-4 Final, August 31, 2010Source CategoryPollutantsMethodologyActivity DataNotesPM10, PM2.5burnedWindblown Dust PM10, PM2.5WRAP windblown dust model Wind speeds, soiltextures, crop acreages,crop calendarsLivestock Ammonia NH3WRAP NH3emissions model Livestock populationAgricultural Fertilizer NH3WRAP NH3emissions model Harvested acreage, typeand quantity offertilizersDomestic Ammonia NH3WRAP NH3emissions model PopulationWild Animals NH3WRAP NH3emissions model Wild animal populationSoil Ammonia NH3WRAP NH3emissions model Land use/land coveracreages2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-5 Out of the 66 surveys that were mailed out, 7 of the surveys were returned as undeliverable. Of the 59 surveys that were successf ully delivered, only 16 surveys were returned by actual active fuel dealers or distributors. Ho wever, an additional 11 surveys were identified as being associated with these 16 fuel d ealers/distributors (e.g ., duplicates, under common ownership, recently purchased, etc.). In additi on, another 20 surveys were returned with an
indication of no fuel sales or distribution. Base d on these actual positive and negative responses, the nominal fuel survey return rate was nearly 80 percent (i.e., 47 surv eys returned out of 59 delivered). However, examination of the remaining 12 non-respondent surveys points to a potentially even higher return ra te; a total of 9 of the non-respondent surveys were identified as being either definitively out of business or pot entially out of business based upon a number of factors (e.g., available contact numbers being disconnected, all available contact numbers being wrong numbers, no answer after repeated calls, no available contact numbers, etc.). Actual contact was only made with 3 of the 12 non-respondent surveys; in spite of this contact, these 3 companies failed to return the survey.

Based upon the survey results, the following 11 sector/fuel combinati ons were included in the Treasure Valley emissions inventory:

• Industrial dis tillate oil

• Industrial natural gas

• Industrial LPG

• Commercial/institutional distillate oil

• Commercial/institutional natural gas

• Commercial/institutional LPG

• Commercial/institutional kerosene

• Residential distillate oil

• Residential natural gas

• Residential LPG

• Residential kerosene2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-6 Although the IPP/QPP indicated an expectation that residual fuel oil and coal would be
sold or distributed in the invent ory domain, neither of these fuels were identified in the returned surveys. The industrial and commercial/instit utional natural gas quantities were adjusted downward as part of the point and area source reconciliation based upon the quantities identified by point source facilities during the POSST submittal process.

In general, fuel combustion emissions we re estimated using emission factors from AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1995). Additional emission factors for kerosene combustion and distillate combustion (NH 3 

### only) were obtained from other guida nce documents (U.S. EPA, 2006; EIIP, 2004). Two different distillate sulfur contents (i.e., 15 ppm a nd 500 ppm) were identified by the fuel survey respondents; both sulfur conten ts were used to calculate weighted SO x 

### estimates.

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

Where:

E f,p 

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

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

### ft 3 

### or 10 3 

### gal); and EF f,p 

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

### ft 3 

### or lb/10 3 

### gal).
A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual NO x 

### emissions from Ada County residential natural gas usage is as follows:

U NG 

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

### ft 3 

### ) natural gas EF NG,NOx 

### = 94 lbs NO x 

### /MMscf natural gas E NG,NOx 

### = 9,321 MMscf × 94 lbs NO x 

### /MMscf natural gas × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 438.1 tons NO x


### 3.1.2 Residential Wood Combustion


### The residential wood combustion source cate gory includes emissions from fireplaces, woodstoves, fireplaces with inserts, and pelle t stoves. Activity data for residential wood combustion were obtained from a residential wood combustion (RWC) survey conducted by Aurora (ERG’s subcontractor) (A urora, 2009). The RWC survey re port is included as Appendix D. The following steps were followed to derive activity data for each county. ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × = lbs 2,000 ton 1 EF U E p , f f p , f2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-7 1. Determine number of existing devices (i .e., fireplace, woodst ove/insert, and pellet stove) by applying existing device ratio from RWC survey to the number of households. 2. Disaggregate number of woodstoves/inse rts into number of woodstoves and number of inserts using woodst ove/insert ratio from RWC survey. 3. Determine number of actively used devi ces by applying device -specific use ratio from RWC survey to number of existing devices. 4. For woodstoves and inserts, determine the number of conventional, catalytic, and non-catalytic devices by applying device type ratios from RWC survey to number of actively used devices. 5. For each group of devices (i.e., fireplace, woodstove, insert, and pellet stove) determine the average wood use (i.e., cordwood and processed log) per device using RWC survey response – assumed weight of cordwood is 1.163 tons/cord and assumed weight of processed logs is 6 lbs/log. Based upon survey findings, the predominant wood type used in fi replaces, woodstoves, and inserts is softwood; lesser amounts of hardwood and unspecified wood are also used. Only minor amounts of processed wood logs, sc rap wood/building mate rials, and other materials are burned.

The general equation used to estimate emi ssions from residential wood combustion was:

Where:

E p 

### = Emissions for pollutant p (tons/year); D = Number of in-use devices; W = Wood usage per device (tons/yr); and EF p 

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

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual NO x 

### emissions from Ada County residential natural gas usage is as follows:
D = 20,608 in-use fireplaces W = 0.739 tons wood/device EF NOx 

### = 2.6 lbs NO x 

### /ton wood E NOx 

### = 20,608 in-use fireplaces × 0.739 tons wood/fireplace × 2.6 lbs NO x 

### /ton wood × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 19.8 tons NO x


### Emission factors for the residential wood co mbustion category were obtained from a
recent review of residential wood combusti on emission factors (Houck and Eagle, 2006). ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × × = lbs 2,000 ton 1

p p 

### EF W D E2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-8 3.1.3 Paved Road Dust 

### Fugitive dust from paved roads is a significant source of particulate matter emissions. In general, the processes that aff ect paved road dust emissions incl ude the weight of the vehicles that drive on the roadway surf ace, vehicle speed, the particles on the roadway surface available for entrainment, and precipitation on the roadwa y which decreases road dust emissions. In 2002, the Treasure Valley Road Dust Study (TVRDS) (E tymezian et al., 2002) was completed. The TVRDS included real-time measurements of pa ved road dust emissions made in Ada and Canyon counties and paved road dust emission in ventories were developed for Ada and Canyon counties. This is a primary source of data used in the development of paved road dust emissions.

The paved road dust activity data were vehicl e miles traveled (VMT) that were estimated
for the on-road motor vehicle emissions inve ntory (see Section 2.3). The 2008 COMPASS TDM VMT were used for Ada and Canyon counties and DEQ 2008 VMT estimates were used for Elmore County. The COMPASS TDM data in cluded a very limited number of unpaved roads that were excluded from the paved road dust em issions, but included with the unpaved road dust emissions (see Section 3.1.4).
Ada and Canyon County

Paved road dust emissions in Ada and Ca nyon counties were calculated based upon the methodology developed in the TVRDS; however, cha nges were made to the estimation of the precipitation adjustment estimates as described below.

The paved road dust emissions potential was estimated according to the following equation (COMPASS, 2005):

Where:
b = roadway emissions potential (grams PM 10 

### /VKT/meters per second [mps]); C C,S,T 

### = constant dependent on count y, setting, and season (grams PM 10 

### /VKT/mps); s = roadway speed (mph); and x = empirically derived exponent de pendent on county, setting, and season. x T S C 

### s C b
− 

### × =

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

### 3-9 The paved road dust emission factors were estimated according to the following equation (COMPASS, 2005):

Where:

EF S,T 

### = roadway PM 10 

### emissions factor per se tting and season (grams PM 10 

### /VKT); b S,T 

### = roadway emissions potentia l per setting and season (grams PM 10 

### /VKT/mps); and s = roadway speed (mph).

TDM and residential roadway emission potenti al estimates were taken from the TVRDS (Etymezian et al., 2002). The TDM roadway emi ssion potential estimates are shown in Table 3- 2, while the residential roadway emission poten tial estimates are shown in Table 3-3.

Table 3-2. Emissions Potentials for Road s that are Physically Represented in the TDM

Season County Setting C C,S,T (g/vkt/mps) x Summer Ada Rural 47 -1.47 Summer Ada Urban 45 -1.39 Summer Canyon Rural 370 -2.05 Summer Canyon Urban 462 -2.03 Winter Ada Rural 43 -1.32 Winter Ada Urban 72 -1.38 Winter Canyon Rural 12 -1.05 Winter Canyon Urban 318 -1.86



### Table 3-3. Emissions Potent ials for Residential Roads

Season County Setting C C,S,T (g/vkt/mps) Summer Ada Rural 0.67 Summer Ada Urban 0.76 Summer Canyon Rural 0.95 Summer Canyon Urban 1.32 Winter Ada Rural 0.77 Winter Ada Urban 1.04 Winter Canyon Rural 0.71 Winter Canyon Urban 1.00 

### s b EF T S T S 

### × =

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

### 3-10 Because annual, spring, and fall emission poten tials were not available, summer emission potentials were assumed for 75% of the year a nd winter emission potentials were assumed for 25% of the year, consistent w ith the assumptions made in th e TVRDS (Etymezian et al., 2002).

Precipitation adjustments were made accord ing to the AP-42 methodology (U.S. EPA, 2010a). The standard AP-42 methodology wa s used because the TVRDS precipitation adjustment estimates were based on engineeri ng judgment rather than actual measurements; therefore, standard AP-42 me thodology was used. The adjusted emission estimates were calculated according to the following equation:

Where:

E C 

### = estimate of actual emissions, acc ounting for precipitation control (tons); E UC 

### = estimate of emissions without acc ounting for precipitation control (tons); N P 

### = number of days in a given period with at least 0.01 inches of precipitation; and N D 

### = total number of days in a given period.

Precipitation correction factor s were estimated using 2008 pr ecipitation data from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) (WRCC, 2009). Data from the Boise WSFO Airport Station (No. 1001022) was used for Ada County, while data from the Caldwell Station (No. 101380) was used for Canyon County. These da ta are presented in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. Ada and Canyon County Days with at least 0.01 Inches of Rain
Month Ada Canyon January 12 10 February 10 8

March 10 8 April 8 7 May 8 6 June 6 5 July 2 2 August 2 2 September 4 3

October 6 5 November 10 9 December 11 10 

### ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

− =
D P UC C 

### N N E E 4 12008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-11 Based upon the TVRDS, the PM 2.5 

### fraction of PM 10 

### was estimated to be 0.057 (Etymezian et al., 2002).



### Elmore County

Because Elmore County was not included in the TVRDS, paved road dust emission estimates for Elmore County were based upon th e AP-42 methodology (U.S. EPA, 2010a). The estimation equation is shown below:

Where:
E = particulate emission factor (g/VMT); k = particle size multiplier for particle size range and units of interest (g/VMT); s = road surf ace silt loading (g/m 2 ); W = mean vehicle weight (tons); C = emission factor for 1980's vehicle fleet exhaust, brake wear and tire wear; P = number of days with at least 0.01 inch of precipitation; and N = number of days in the averaging period.



### The AP-42 default input parameters that were used are shown in Table 3-5 (U.S. EPA, 2010a). A mean vehicle weight of 3.58 tons was estimated based upon the estimated on-road vehicle mix (DEQ, 2006). Silt loading estimates were estimated as shown in Table 3-6.
Table 3-5. Elmore County Paved Road Parameters
Parameter PM 10 PM 2.5 k (g/VMT) 7.3 1.1 C (g/VMT) 0.2119 0.1617



### Table 3-6. Elmore Count y Silt Loading Estimates

Road Type Winter Silt Loading (g/m 2 ) Summer Silt Loading (g/m 2 ) Source Arterial 1.9 0.5 Etymezian et al., 2002 Local 4.0 0.4 Etymezian et al., 2002 Freeway 0.015 0.015 DEQ, 2006



### The precipitation correction factors for Elmore County were estimated using 2008 precipitation data from the Western Regional Cl imate Center (WRCC) (WRCC, 2009). Data from the Mountain Home Station (No. 106174) was used. These data are shown in Table 3-7. 

### ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

− ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

− ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

= N P C W sL k E 4 1 3 2 5

. 1 65

. 02008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-12 Table 3-7. Elmore County Days with at Least 0.01 Inches of Rain
Month Elmore January 8 February 7

March 7 April 6 May 5 June 4 July 2 August 1 September 2

October 4 November 8 December 8


### The resultant emission estimates by county a nd roadway type are shown in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8. 2008 Annual Paved Road Dust Emission Estimates Annual (TPY) Roadway Type PM 10 PM 2.5 Ada County Rural Principal Arterial – Interstate 808 46 Rural Major Collector 78 4 Rural Minor Arterial 445 25 Rural Local System 1,752 100 Urban Principal Arterial – Interstate 6,129 349 Urban Principal Arterial – Other Freeways or Expressways 927 53 Urban Principal Arterial – Other 8,691 495 Urban Collector 1,466 84 Urban Minor Arterial 5,883 335 Urban Local System 74 4 Urban Ramp 418 24 Total 26,669 1,520 Canyon County Rural Principal Arterial – Interstate 508 29 Rural Major Collector 406 23 Rural Minor Arterial 667 38 Rural Local System 1,089 62 Urban Principal Arterial – Interstate 2,314 132 Urban Principal Arterial – Other Freeways or Expressways 221 13 Urban Principal Arterial – Other 2,913 166 Urban Collector 444 25 Urban Minor Arterial 1,533 87 Urban Local System 55 3 Urban Ramp 163 9 Total 10,315 588 Elmore County Rural Interstate 29 0 Rural Local 584 137 Rural Principal Arterial 640 147 Total 1,253 2842008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-13 Although the TVRDS was conducte d around 2000, it represents the best available data for estimating past and present emission rates from dry paved roads in the Treasure Valley Area. Municipalities responsible for ro ad maintenance indicated that winter sanding application has decreased in some areas and the frequency of ro ad sweeping has increased in some areas. While such practices will likely decrease road dust emissi ons, the quantification of the effect that these practices would have on emissions is not possible based on available data.
3.1.4 Unpaved Road Dust 

### Similar to paved roads, fugitive dust from unpaved roads is a significant source of particulate matter emissions. In general, the pr ocesses that affect unpa ved road dust emissions include roadway surface material properties and moisture content, vehicle speed, and precipitation on the roadway. As with paved road dust, the primary source of data used in the development of unpaved road dust emissions is the TVRDS.

Unpaved roadway activity estimates were obt ained from a number of sources including highway districts (HDs), cities, and COMPASS as shown in Table 3- 9. In most cases, the data available was limited to unpaved roadway length, although in some cases estimates of average daily traffic (ADT) was availabl e. In cases where average daily traffic estimates were not available, an ADT estimate was assigned based on existing data as identified in Table 3-9. Annual VMT was estimated as unpaved roadway length multiplied by average daily traffic. Average speed estimates were not available; ther efore, an average speed of 25 mph was assumed for all unpaved roads per the TVRDS.


### Ada and Canyon Counties

As with paved road dust, the unpaved road dust emissions estimation methodology was taken from the TVRDS for Ada and Canyon counties. Emissions were estimated according to the following equation:

Where:
EF = roadway PM 10 

### emissions factor (grams PM 10 

### /VMT); b = roadway emissions potential (grams PM 10 

### /VMT/mph); and s = roadway speed (mph). s b EF × =2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-14 Table 3-9. 2008 Unpaved Road Du st Activity Data and Sources

City/Highway District /Area Length (miles) ADT (vehicles per day) Annual VMT (miles) Source Ada County Included in TDM 6 36 73,910 Waldinger, 2010 Not in TDM 70 129 a 3,292,940 Waldinger, 2010 Totals 88 4,220,303 Canyon County City of Caldwell 11.4 20 a 82,892 Baker, 2010 City of Greenleaf 0 - 0 Amick, 2010 City of Middleton 0.3 c 20 a 2,518 c City of Melba 0.1 c 20 a 371 c City of Nampa 8.9 c 20 a 64,755 c City of Wilder 0.1 20 a 438 Lane, 2010 Nampa Highway District 2 30 21,900 Bequeath, 2010 Notus-Parma Highway District 9 20 65,700 Bowman, 2010a Canyon Highway District 3 67 78,790 Richard, 2010a Golden Gate Highway District 18 40 259,150 Norris, 2010b Totals 53 576,514 Elmore County Atlanta Highway District 54 87.5 1,724,625 Gill, 2010 Mountain Home Highway District 291 87.5 b 9,293,813 Tindall, 2010a Glenns Ferry Hwy Highway District 250 87.5 b 7,984,375 Gluch, 2010 Totals 595 19,002,813

a Estimate taken from TVRDS (Etymezian et al., 2002). b Assumed equivalent to Atlant a Highway District since thes e data were not available.

c Estimated based on average length of unpaved roadway per population identified for other cities.



### A dry emissions potential value of 11.9 grams/VMT/mph from TVRDS was used across all unpaved roads.

Unlike the paved road dust source category wh ere precipitation related control estimates were based on engineering judgment in the TV RDS, unpaved road dust precipitation related control estimates were based directly on TV RDS observations. Consequently, the TVRDS precipitation control methodology wa s used (Etymezian et al., 2002). Table 3-10 shows the adjustment factors used to account for precip itation. It should be noted that although precipitation events might have an effect on unpave d roadway activity, data were not available to
estimate the influence of such an effect. Th erefore, while unpaved roadway VMT activity was adjusted for seasonality as described in Section 3.2. 4, the specific effect that precipitation events may have on unpaved roadway activity was not a ccounted for. Accounting for seasonality as described above is typical for regional unpaved road dust emission inventories.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-15 Table 3-10. Unpaved Road Du st Precipitation Adjustments

Month Fractional discount due to

snow Fractional discount due to precipitation effects Total fractional discount Dry emissions multiplier January 0.118 0.120 0.237 0.763 February 0.118 0.113 0.231 0.769 March 0.118 0.098 0.215 0.785 April 0.000 0.133 0.133 0.867 May 0.000 0.119 0.119 0.881 June 0.000 0.095 0.095 0.905 July 0.000 0.038 0.038 0.962 August 0.000 0.038 0.038 0.962 September 0.000 0.057 0.057 0.943 October 0.000 0.090 0.090 0.910 November 0.000 0.161 0.161 0.839 December 0.000 0.176 0.176 0.824 

### Based upon the TVRDS, the PM 2.5 

### fraction of PM 10 

### was estimated to be 0.057 (Etymezian et al., 2002).


### Elmore County

For Elmore County, the AP-42 methodology (U .S. EPA, 2010a) was used to estimate unpaved road dust emissions as shown below:

Where:
E = particulate emission factor (lb/VMT); k, a, c, d = empirical constants; s = road surface silt content (%); M = road surface moisture content (%); S = mean vehicle speed (mph); C = emission factor for 1980's vehicle fl eet exhaust, brake wear and tire wear (g/VMT); P = number of days with at l east 0.01 inch of precipitation; and N = number of days in the averaging period. 

## ( ) ( ) ( ) ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

− × ⎪ ⎭ ⎪ ⎬ ⎫ ⎪ ⎩ ⎪ ⎨ ⎧

− ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

= N P N C M S s k E

c d a


### 5

. 0 30 122008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-16 The summer and winter road surface material silt content estimates were taken from the
TVRDS and annual silt content was assumed to be the average of winter and summer silt content (Table 3-11). The AP-42 empirical constants, brak e and tire wear emission factor estimates, and
road surface moisture content defaults were used and are shown in Table 3-12.
Table 3-11. Elmore County Unpaved Road Surface Silt Content Description Silt Content (%) Summer 3.5 Winter 1.4 Annual average 2.45


### Table 3-12. Unpaved Emissions Estimation Parameters
Parameter AP-42 Default k – PM 10 (lb/VMT) 1.8 k – PM 2.5 (lb/VMT) 0.18 a 1 d 0.5 c 0.2 M (%) 0.5 C – PM 10 (g/VMT) 0.00047 C – PM 2.5 (g/VMT) 0.00036


### The days of precipitation great er than 0.01 inches estimated for Elmore County paved roads (see Table 3-7) was also used for Elmore County unpaved roads.

The resultant emission estimates by county are presented in Table 3-13. Elmore County contains the highest unpaved roadway mileage and therefore has the highest unpaved road dust emission estimates of the three counties in the Treasure Valley.
Table 3-13. 2008 Annual Unpaved Road Dust Emission Estimates Annual (TPY) County PM 10 PM 2.5 Ada 966 55 Canyon 165 9 Elmore 2,648 262 Totals 3,779 327 

### 3.1.5 Commercial Cooking 

### The commercial cooking category includes five subcategories: conveyerized (or chaindriven) charbroiling, under-fired charbroiling, deep fat frying, flat griddle frying, and clamshell griddle frying.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-17 Commercial cooking emissions were estim ated using the methodology (e.g., national average number of equipment pieces, meat c ooking quantities, etc.) and associated emission factors presented in the 2002 National Emissions Inventory documentation (U.S. EPA, 2006). The number of county-level establ ishments was obtained from 

### 2007 County Business Patterns (U.S. Census, 2009a). The types of restaurant were determined from the 

### 2002 Economic Census (U.S. Census, 2005a).

The equation for estimating emissions from each of the commercial cooking subcategories is the following is:

Where:

E p 

### = Emissions for pollutant 

### p (tons/year); EF p 

### = Emission factor for pollutant 

### p (lbs/ton meat cooked); EQ = Number of pieces of equipment; and M = Annual meat cooked per piece of equipment (tons meat cooked/equipment-year).
A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from
chain-driven charbroilers is as follows:

EF VOC 

### = 4 lbs VOC/ton meat cooked EQ = 892 chain-driven charbroilers M = 1,623.6 lbs meat/equipment-week × 52 weeks = 84,427.2 lbs/equipment-year E VOC 

### = 892 × 84,427.2 lbs/equipment-year × 4 lbs VOC/ton meat × (1 ton VOC/2,000 lbs VOC) = 75.3 tons VOC

3.1.6 Construction 

### County-level residential building permit data were obtained from the U.S. Census (U.S. Census, 2010). Construction durations and cons truction dust emission factors were obtained from the 2002 NEI methodology document for the followi ng residence types: single family, two family, three and four family, and five or more family units (U.S. EPA, 2006). Discussions with government agencies that issue building perm its indicated that industrial and commercial building activity during 2008 was minimal and that relevant activity data were not available (Webb, 2009; Radek, 2009; H unter, 2009; Winterfield, 2009). 

### ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × × = lbs 2,000 ton 1 

### M EQ EF E p

p2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-18 3.1.7 Architectural Surface Coatings


### The architectural surface coa tings category was estimated following the hybrid approach outlined in the 2002 NEI methodology document (U.S. EPA, 2006). The hybrid approach
utilized national-level emissions that were scaled down using both county-level population and county-level employee statistics. The scaling was weighted 40 percent for population and 60 percent for employees. The employee portion of the scaling was conducted in the same manner as industrial surface coating (Section 3.1.9), de greasing (Section 3.1.10), and other per employee source categories (Section 3.1.11) and wa s based on employee counts for NAICS 238320 (Painting and Wall Covering Contractors).
3.1.8 Traffic Markings 

### Usage quantities of traffic markings within the three-county area, as well as relevant material safety data sheets (MSDS) and pr oduct specifications, were obtained through telephone contacts with nine different government agenci es (i.e., Idaho Transpor tation Department, county highway departments, city public works depart ments, and local highw ay districts). The identified traffic marking usage quantities we re 45,250 gallons for Ada County, 40,381 gallons for Canyon County, and 6,590 gallons for Elmore County. The MSDSs and product specifications indicated various VOC contents; ho wever, 150 grams per liter (g/l) was the most prevalent. Therefore, this VOC content was used for the estimating emissions. Emissions were calculated using the methodologies identified in the EIIP guidance document (EIIP, 1997b).
3.1.9 Industrial Surface Coating 

### The industrial surface coating category consists of 13 subcategories (e.g., factory finished wood, wood furniture, plastic products, etc.) th at were inventoried for the Treasure Valley inventory. These subcategorie s were all estimated by ratioing emission estimates from the 2002 NEI. Each of the 13 industrial surface coating subcategories were assigned a specific NAICS code for which county-level employee data for 2002 and 2007 were obtained from County Business Patterns (U.S. Census, 2009a). Employ ee data were not available for 2008, so it was assumed that 2007 employee data were a reas onable approximation of 2008 employee data.

The specific county-level NAICS code assignm ents for the 13 indus trial surface coating subcategories are shown in Table 3-14. The 2007 employee data were adjusted downward based2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-19 upon employee counts obtained from telephone c ontacts with permitted point sources having
NAICS codes relevant to the industrial surface co ating area source category. These adjustments
are also indicated in Table 3-14.
Table 3-14. NAICS Code Assignme nts for Industrial Surface Coating Subcategories Industrial Surface Coating Subcategory NAICS Codes Factory Finished Wood 321XXX (Wood Product Manufacturing) a Wood Furniture 337XXX (Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing) b Metal Furniture 337XXX (Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing) b Paper 322XXX (Paper Manufacturing) c Plastic Products 326XXX (Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing) Miscellaneous Finished Metals 332XXX (Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing) b Machinery and Equipment 333XXX (Machinery Manufacturing) Electronic and Other Electrical 334XXX (Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing) a Motor Vehicles 3362XX (Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Manufacturing) c Aircraft 3364XX (Aerospace Prod ucts and Parts Manufacturing) Marine 3366XX (Ship and Boat Building) Railroad 3365XX (Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing) b Miscellaneous Manufacturing 31XXXX (Manufacturing)

a Employee counts adjusted downwar d for Ada and Canyon counties. b Employee counts adjusted downward for Ada County.

a Employee counts adjusted downward for Canyon County. 

### The Area Source Matrix previously presente d in the IPP/QAP indicated that emission factors from EIIP guidance would be used for a ll industrial surface coati ng subcategories. As discussed for other categories a bove, it was felt that the per ca pita factors from the 2002 NEI documentation would be more representative of current conditions associated with industrial surface coating since the EIIP guidance is from 1997.

The general equation used to estimate em issions for the industrial surface coating subcategories was:

Where:

E 2007 

### = Emissions for 2007 inventory year (tons/year); E 2002 

### = Emissions for 2002 inventory year (tons/year); EM 2007 

### = Employees for 2007 inventory year (adj usted for point source employment, if necessary) (people); and EM 2002 

### = Employees for 2002 inventory year (people). ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× =
2002 2007 2002 2007 

### EM EM E E2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-20 A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from factory finished wood industrial surface coating in Ada County is as follows:

E 2002 

### = 79.9 tons VOC EM 2002 

### = 883 people EM 2007 

### = 1,029 people E 2007 

### = 79.9 tons VOC × (1,029 pe ople/883 people) = 93.1 tons VOC 3.1.10 Degreasing 

### The degreasing category consists of open top degreasing and cold cleaning for 13 sectors (e.g., furniture and fixtures, primary metal industries, fabricated metal products , etc.) for a total of 26 subcategories that were inventoried for the Treasur e Valley inventory. As with industrial surface coating, these subcategories were estimated by ratioing emission estimates from the 2002 NEI with employee count data. Each of the 26 degreasing sub categories were assigned a specific NAICS code for which county-level employee data for 2002 and 2007 were obtained from 

### County Business
Patterns (U.S. Census, 2009a). Employee data were not available for 2008, so it was assumed that 2007 employee data were a reasonable a pproximation of 2008 employee data.
The specific county-level NAICS code assignmen ts for the 26 degreasing subcategories are shown in Table 3-15. The 2007 employee data were adjusted downward based upon employee counts obtained from telephone contacts with perm itted point sources having NAICS codes relevant to the degreasing area source categories. These ad justments are also indicated in Table 3-15.
Table 3-15. NAICS Code Assignments for Degreasing Degreasing Subcategory (Open Top Degreasing and Cold Cleaning) NAICS Codes Furniture and Fixtures 337XXX (Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing) a Primary Metal Industries 331XXX (Primary Metal Manufacturing) Secondary Metal Industries 331XXX (Primary Metal Manufacturing) Fabricated Metal Products 332XXX (Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing) a Industrial Machinery and Equipment 333XXX (Machinery Manufacturing) 334XXX (Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing) b Electronic and Other Electrical 335XXX (Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing) Transportation Equipment 336XXX (Transportation Equipment Manufacturing) b Instruments and Related Products 3345XX (Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical and Control Instruments Manufacturing) Miscellaneous Manufacturing 339XXX (Miscellaneous Manufacturing) Transportation Maintenance Facilities 488XXX (Support Activities for Transportation) Automotive Dealers 4411XX (Automobile Dealers) Auto Repair Services 8111XX (Automotive Repair and Maintenance) a Miscellaneous Repair Services 811XXX (Repair and Maintenance) except 8111XX (Automotive Repair and Maintenance)

a Employee counts adjusted downward for Ada County. b Employee counts adjusted downwar d for Ada and Canyon counties.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-21 The Area Source Matrix previously presente d in the IPP/QAP indicated that emission factors from EIIP guidance would be used for all of the degreasi ng subcategories. As discussed for other categories above, it was felt that the per capita fact ors from the 2002 NEI documentation would be more representative of current conditions associated with degreasing since the EIIP guidance is from 1997.

The general equation used to estimate emi ssions for the degreasing subcategories was:

Where:

E 2007 

### = Emissions for 2007 inventory year (tons/year); E 2002 

### = Emissions for 2002 inventory year (tons/year); EM 2007 

### = Employees for 2007 inventory year (adj usted for point source employment, if necessary) (people); and EM 2002 

### = Employees for 2002 inventory year (people). A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from furniture and fixture open top degreas ing in Ada County is as follows:

E 2002 

### = 12.6 tons VOC EM 2002 

### = 325 people EM 2007 

### = 566 people E 2007 

### = 12.6 tons VOC × (566 peopl e/325 people) = 21.9 tons VOC 3.1.11 Other Per Employee Emi ssion Factor Source Categories


### In addition to industrial su rface coating and degreasing, there were three other area source categories that were estimated using em ployee counts and per employee emission factors. These categories were autobody refinishing, in dustrial refrigeration/cold storage (NH 3 

### ), and graphic arts.

County-level employee data were obtained from 

### County Business Patterns (U.S. Census, 2009a) for 2007; employee data were not avai lable for 2008, so it was assumed that 2007 employee data were a reasonable approximati on of 2008 employee data. The specific countylevel NAICS code assignments for autobody refinish ing, industrial refrig eration/cold storage, and graphic arts are shown in Table 3-16. For autobody refinishing a nd graphic arts, the 2007 employee data were adjusted downward based upon employee counts obtained from telephone ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× =
2002 2007 2002 2007 

### EM EM E E2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-22 contacts with permitted point sources having releva nt NAICS codes. These adjustments are also
indicated in Table 3-16.
Table 3-16. NAICS Code Assignments for Autobody Refinishing, Industrial Refrigeration/Cold Storage, and Graphic Arts Categories Category NAICS Codes Autobody Refinishing 492XXX (Couriers and Messengers) 5321XX (Automotive Equipment Rental and Leasing) 8111XX (Automotive Repair and Maintenance) a 31132X (Chocolate and Confectionery Manufacturing from Cacao Beans) Industrial Refrigeration/ Cold Storage 31133X (Confectionery Manufacturing from Purchase Chocolate) 3114XX (Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing) 3115XX (Dairy Product Manufacturing) 3116XX (Animal Slaughtering and Processing) 3117XX (Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging) 31181X (Bread and Bakery Product Manufacturing) 311991 (Perishable Prepared Food Manufacturing) 311999 (Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing) 3121XX (Beverag e Manufacturing) 325211 (Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing) 493120 (Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage) Graphic Arts 3222XX (Converted Paper Product Manufacturing) b 32311X (Printing)

a Employee counts adjusted downward for Ada County. b Employee counts adjusted downward for Canyon County. 

### For autobody refinishing and graphic arts , the per employee emission factors were obtained from the 2002 NEI documentation (U.S . EPA, 2006). The Area Source Matrix previously presented in the I PP/QAP indicated that emission f actors from EIIP guidance would be used for these categories (i.e. per employ ee factors for autobody refinishing and per capita factors for graphic arts). As discussed for other categories above, it was felt that the per capita
factors from the 2002 NEI documentation would be more representative of current conditions. The per employee emission factor for industrial refrigeration/cold stor age was obtained from EIIP ammonia guidance for anthropogenic nonagricultu ral sources (EIIP, 2004).

The general equation used to estimate em issions for categories using per employee
emission factors was:


### ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × = lbs 2,000 ton 1 

### EM EF E2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-23 Where:
E = Emissions (tons/year); EF = Per capita emission factor (lbs/person-year); and EM = Employees (people).
A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual NH 3 

### emissions from Ada County cold storage is as follows:

EM = 635 people EF = 30 lbs NH 3 

### /person E = 635 people × 30 lbs NH 3 

### /person × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 9.5 tons NH 3


### 3.1.12 Bakeries and Consumer Solvents 

### Two source categories were estimated usi ng per capita emission factors. These categories were bakeries and consumer solv ents (e.g., personal care products, household products, etc.).

County-level population data were obtained from the U.S. Census (U.S. Census, 2009b). For bakeries, an annual per capita bread cons umption rate of 70 lbs of bread/person was
combined with an emission factor of 5 lbs VOC per 1,000 lbs of sponge-dough bread produced. Both the emission factor and the consumption rate were obtained from EIIP guidance (EIIP, 1999). The per capita emission factors for consum er solvents were obtained from the 2002 NEI documentation (U.S. EPA, 2006). The Area Source Ma trix previously pres ented in the IPP/QAP indicated that the per capita emission factors from EIIP guidance would be used for consumer solvents; however, the EIIP guidance for consumer solvents is from 1996 and it was felt that the per capita factors from the 2002 NEI documentati on would be more representative of current
conditions associated with consumer solvents.

The general equation used to estimate emissi ons for categories using per capita emission
factors was:

Where:
E = VOC emissions (tons/year); EF = VOC per capita emission f actor (lbs/person-year); and P = Population (people). 

### ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × = lbs 2,000 ton 1 

### P EF E2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-24 A sample calculation using this equation fo r estimating annual VOC emissions from Ada County consumer products (personal care products) is as follows:

P = 380,920 people EF = 2.04 lbs VOC/person E = 380,920 people × 2.04 lbs VOC/person × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 388.5 tons VOC 3.1.13 Dry Cleaning 

### Activity data for dry cleaning were collect ed using a mail-out survey (included as Appendix C) that was sent to dry cleaners lo cated in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties in October 2009. Additional follow-up was conducted via phone during in January 2010. A total of 24 dry cleaners were identifie d as conducting on-site cleaning in the three countie s. Of these 24 dry cleaners, 13 exclusively us ed perchloroethylene, 10 exclus ively used petroleum solvents, and 1 used both perchloroethylene and petroleu m solvents. Since perchloroethylene is not a VOC species, it was not included in the emission calculations. The petroleum solvents used by the 11 petroleum solvent dry cleaners included Stoddard solvent, ECOSOLV, and DF-2000. A total of 1,815 gallons of petroleum solvent were identified for Ada County; while a total of 600 gallons of petroleum solvent were identifie d for Canyon County. Only two dry cleaners identified solvent being sent off-site; for both of these facilities, the off-site quantities exceeded the purchase statistics, so the purchase statistics for these facilities were excluded. Solvent densities were obtained from material safety da ta sheets (MSDSs) provided by the dry cleaners. It was assumed that purchase statistics were equal to emissions (i.e., all purchased solvent was used and subsequently evaporated).
3.1.14 Asphalt Application 

### Usage quantities of asphalt within the three-county area, as well as relevant material safety data sheets (MSDS) and product specific ations, were obtained th rough telephone contacts with 11 different government agencies. These government agencies included the following:



### • Idaho Transportation Department (IT D), District 3 (Morrison, 2010a)



### • Highway districts:



### − Ada County Highway District (inclu ding City of Boise) (Nobel, 2010)



### − Nampa (Canyon County) Highway District No. 1 (Kennedy, 2010)



### − Notus-Parma (Canyon County) Highwa y District No. 2 (Bowman, 2010b)



### − Golden Gate (Canyon County) Highway District No. 3 (Norris, 2010b)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-25 

### − Canyon (Canyon County) Highway Di strict No. 4 (Richard, 2010c)



### − Mountain Home (Elmore County ) Hi ghway District (Tindall, 2010b)



### • City public works departments:



### − City of Caldwell Streets De partment (Caldwell, 2010)



### − City of Middleton Public Works Department (Green, 2010)



### − City of Mountain Home Public Wo rks Department (Harvel, 2010)



### − City of Nampa Public Works Department (Barr, 2010)
Usage quantities were collected for hot mix asphalt, emulsified asphalt, and cutback asphalt. However, based upon the survey-based methodologies identifie d in EIIP guidance documents (EIIP, 2001a), emissions were only es timated for emulsified asphalt and cutback asphalt (i.e., emissions are typically not esti mated for hot mix asphalt and an appropriate methodology was not identified).

Most of the asphalt applied in the three-coun ty area is hot mix asphalt. Five agencies (i.e., ITD District 3, Nampa Highw ay District No. 1, City of Mi ddleton, City of Mountain Home, and City of Nampa) used hot mix asphalt exclusiv ely. Only two agencies (i.e., Golden Gate Highway District No. 3 and Mount ain Home Highway District) id entified any cutback asphalt usage with a total of only 75 tons. Emulsified as phalt usage was identified in four agencies (i.e., Ada County Highway District, Golden Gate Highw ay District No. 3, Ca nyon Highway District No. 4, and Mountain Home Highway Di strict) with a to tal of 7,875 tons.

Asphalt usage could not be obtained from No tus-Parma Highway District No. 2 and the City of Caldwell. Consideration was given to gap fill the missing data for these two agencies, but a reasonable approach could not be identified. For the City of Caldwell, asphalt data from
the other three cities co ntacted was limited to hot mix asphalt, so there was no basis for extrapolation of cutback or emulsified asphalt. For Notus-Parma Highway District No.2, data from the three other highway districts in Canyon County were examined. However, these three highway districts did not provide a reasonable set of data to base a gap filling extrapolation upon (i.e., hot mix asphalt only for Nampa Highway Distri ct No. 1, emulsified and cutback asphalt for Golden Gate Highway District No. 3, and emul sified asphalt only for Canyon Highway District No. 4.).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-26 A number of assumptions from the EIIP guida nce were used to calculate emissions (EIIP, 2001a). The cutback asphalt was assumed to be me dium cure cutback and the emulsified asphalt
was assumed to be medium set emulsified. In addition, asphalt densities of 7.8 lb/gal and 8.34 lb/gal were assumed for cutback and emulsified, re spectively. Likewise, d iluent densities of 6.67 lb/gal (cutback) and 8.34 lb/gal (emulsified) were also assumed. It was assumed that the diluent content of cutback asphalt was 35 percent (EIIP, 2001a), while recent resear ch has indicated that
the diluent content of emulsifi ed asphalt is approximately 12 percent (Midwest, 2006). Finally, it was assumed that 75 percent of the cutback diluent evaporated, wh ile 100 percent of the emulsified diluent evaporated..

Ozone seasonal daily emissions were estim ated by dividing annual emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days). All of the agencies contacted indicated that asphalt application is typically not conducted during the PM season, so PM seasonal daily
emissions were not calculated.
3.1.15 Pesticide Application 

### Emissions from agricultural pesticide applic ation were estimated as indicated in the IPP/QAP Area Source Matrix. Planted crop acreage data were obtained from the 

### 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2009). Pesticide application info rmation (i.e., fraction of acreage applied, quantity of active ingredient pe r acre, and applications per y ear) were obtained from crop profiles: however, only 11 crop pr ofiles were available (i.e., apples, barley, dry beans, sweet corn, lentils, mint, dry peas, green peas, potatoes, sugar beet s, and wheat) (IPM Center, 2010). Only pesticides with applicati on rates in terms of pounds per acr e were considered; pesticides with unusual application rates (e .g., ounces per hundredweight of seed, ounces per linear row, etc.) were not included. Emissions were esti mated using the methodology outlined in the EIIP guidance (EIIP, 2001c). Typical pe sticide characteristics (i.e., percent active ingredient and formulation type) were obtained from a pesticid e database (PAN, 2010). Wherever possible, the product names and/or formulation types indi cated by the IPM Center crop profiles were followed. If assumptions were made for specific pesticides, then pesticides with an active U.S. product regulatory status were selected.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-27 Emissions were estimated using the methodology outlined in the EIIP guidance (EIIP, 2001c). Typical pesticide characteristics (i.e., percent active ingredient and formulation type) were obtained from a pesticide database (PAN, 2010). Wherever possible, the product names and/or formulation types indicated by the IP M Center crop profiles were followed. If assumptions were made for specific pesticides, then pesticides with an active U.S. product regulatory status were selected.

The equation for estimating emissions from pesticide application was as follows:

Where:

E p,t 

### = Total emissions from pesticide 

### p (tons VOC/year); E p,a 

### = Emissions from active ingredient of pesticide 

### p (tons VOC/year); E p,i 

### = Emissions from inert ingredient of pesticide 

### p (tons VOC/year); R

p 

### = Application rate of pesticide 

### p (lbs/acre-year); A p 

### = Harvested acreage that had a pplication of pesticide p (acres);

a p 

### = Percent of active i ngredient in pesticide 

### p (%); EF p 

### = Emission factor for active ingredient in pesticide 

### p (lbs/ton); i p 

### = Percent of inert ingredient in pesticide 

### p (%); and V p 

### = Volatile content of inert fraction of pesticide 

### p (%).
A sample calculation using this equation fo r estimating annual VOC emissions from the application of Bravo 500 (active ingredient chloro thalonil) on potatoes in Elmore County is as
follows:

R

p 

### = 9.282 lbs/acre-year A p 

### = 8,967 acres × 0.60 (application fraction) = 5,380.2 acres

a p 

### = 40.4 percent active ingredient i p 

### = 59.6 percent inert ingredient V p 

### = 56 percent volatile content of inert ingredient EF p 

### = 1,160 lbs VOC/ton active ingredient applied (vapor pressure 1 × 10 -3 

### mmHg) E p,a 

### = 9.282 lbs/acre-year × 5,380.2 acres × 0.404 × 1,160 lbs VOC/ton active ingredient applied × 1 ton VOC/2,000 lbs VOC = 5.85 tons VOC E p,I 

### = 9.282 lbs/acre-year × 5,380.2 acres × 0.596 × 0.56 × 1 ton VOC/2,000 lbs VOC = 8.34 tons VOC E p,t 

### = E p,a 

### + E p,i 

### = 5.85 tons VOC + 8.34 tons VOC = 14.19 tons VOC 

### ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × × × + ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × × × = + = lbs 2,000 ton 1 V i A R lbs 2,000 ton 1 EF a A R E E E p p p p p p p p i , p a , p t , p2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-28 3.1.16 Gasoline Distribution 

### State-level gasoline consumption statistics were obtained from the Idaho Tax Commission (Walters, 2010). These state-level gasoline statistics were disaggregated down to the individual county-level based upon 2008 population estimates (U.S. Census, 2009b). Although 24 gasoline stations were identified as exceeding DEQ’s point source thresholds, all gasoline stations were kept in the gasoline di stribution area source cate gory in order to avoid potential modeling difficulty.

Emission factors for underground tank filling (Stage I), breathing and emptying losses,
and tank truck transit losses were obtained from EIIP guidance (EIIP, 2001b). It was assumed that the Stage I underground tank filling was submerged fill throughout Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. Refueling (Stage II) emi ssion factors were devel oped from MOBILE6 input files used by ENVIRON in their on-road motor vehicle analysis (Grant, 2010).

The equation for estimating emissions from gasoline distribution is as follows:

Where:
E = Emissions (tons VOC/year); EF = Emission factor (l bs/gal throughput); and T = Annual fuel throughput (gal/year). A sample calculation using this equation fo r estimating annual VOC emissions from Ada County Stage I underground tank filling is as follows:

T = 151,687,674 gallons (or 151,687.674 × 10 3 

### gallons) EF = 7.3 lbs VOC/10 3 

### gallons E = 151,687.674 × 10 3 

### gallons × 7.3 lbs VOC/10 3 

### gallons × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 553.7 tons VOC

3.1.17 Wastewater Treatment 

### Activity data for wastewater treatment were collected using a mail- out survey (included as Appendix C) was that sent to wastewater treatment facilities located in Ada, Canyon, and
Elmore counties in October 2009. A total of 17 surveys were mailed out of which 14 surveys were returned that identified the monthly quantiti es of wastewater treated. Additional follow-up 

### ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × = lbs 2,000 ton 1 T EF E2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-29 was attempted for the three non-respondent facili ties (i.e., Glenns Ferry, Kuna, and Notus), but
contact could not be made. Since these non- respondent facilities ar e located in small communities, they are likely comparatively small f acilities and their missing data is unlikely to affect the overall uncertainty of the emission esti mates. In addition, the wastewater quantities from the Eagle Sewer District Treatment Plant were not included since efflue nt from that facility is pumped to the West Boise Wastewater Treatment Plant for further processing. The emission
factors were obtained from the 2002 NEI documentation report (U.S. EPA, 2006).

It should be noted that the WATER9 model was identified as the wastewater treatment source category methodology in the IPP/QAP Area Source Matrix. However, further investigation revealed that th e collection of the activity data needed to run WATER9 was
extensive and it would be infeasible to collect for all of the wastewater treatment facilities located in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. Therefore, the alternate emission factor methodology described above was used to estimat e emissions from wastewater treatment.

3.1.18 Landfills 

### Landfill gas is generated by microorganism within the landfill under anaerobic conditions. The primary landfill ga s constituents are methane (CH 4 

### ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ); however, lesser amounts of VOC are also genera ted either from decomposition products or the volatilization of biodegradable wastes.

Activity data for landfills were collected us ing a mail-out survey (included as Appendix C) that was sent to landfills lo cated in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties in October 2009. A total of 14 surveys were mailed out. However, not all locations identified as landfills were actually landfills (e.g., slash piles, illegal dump sites, etc.). Only 3 surveys were returned: Ada County Landfill (i.e., Hidden Hollow), Pickles Bu tte Sanitary Landfill (Canyon County), and Mountain Home AFB (Elmore County). Emissi ons calculations for th ese three landfills confirmed that none of them exceed the VOC point source threshold of 10 tpy VOC. Therefore,
emissions from these landfills were inventoried as an area source.

Emissions were estimated using the methodol ogy outlined in Section 2.4 of AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 2010). This methodology is based on a th eoretical first-order kinetic model of CH 4 

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

### 3-30 The equations for estimating emissions from landfills are as follows:

Where:
Q CH4 

### = Methane generation rate at time t (m 3 

### /yr); L o 

### = Methane generation potential (m 3 

### CH 4 

### /Mg) (default value of 100 m 3 

### CH 4 

### /Mg); R = Average annual refuse acceptanc e rate during active life (Mg/yr); k = Methane generation rate constant (yr -1 

### ) (default value of 0.02); c = Time since landfill closure (years); and t = Time since the initial refuse placement (years).

Where:
Q VOC 

### = Emission rate of VOC (m 3 

### /yr); C VOC 

### = Concentration of VOC in landfill gas (ppmv) (default value of 835 ppmv); and C CH4 

### = Concentration of CH 4 

### in landfill gas (assumed to be 50% expressed as 0.5).

Where:

UM VOC 

### = Uncontrolled mass emis sions of VOC (kg/yr); Q VOC 

### = Emission rate of VOC (m 3 

### /yr); MW VOC 

### = Molecular weight of VOC (g/gmol) (default value of 86.18 as hexane); and T = Temperature of landfill gas ( ° 

### C).
A sample calculation using these equations for estimating annual VOC emissions from the Ada County Landfill is as follows:

L o 

### = 100 m 3 

### CH 4 

### /Mg R = 299,420 Mg refuse/year k = 0.02 c = 0 years (active landfill) t = 35 years Q CH4 

### = 1.3(100 m 3 

### CH 4 

### /Mg)( 299,420 Mg refuse/year)(e -[0.02 × 0] 

### – e -[0.02 × 35] 

### ) = 19,595,216 m 3 

### /yr CH 4 

# ( ) kt kc

o CH 

### e e R L Q − −



### − × × = 3

. 1 4



### ) 10 1 ( 6 4 4


### ×

× ×

=
CH VOC CH VOC 

### C C Q Q



## ( )
) T 273 ( kg g 1000 K

- gmol atm

- m 00008205

. 0 atm 1

3 

### + × ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛ × × = VOC VOC VOC 

### MW Q UM2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-31 C VOC 

### = 835 ppmv C CH4 

### = 0.5 Q VOC 

### = (19,595,216 m 3 

### /yr CH 4 

### × 835 ppmv)/(0.5 × 1,000,000) = 32,724 m 3 

### VOC/yr
MW VOC 

### = 86.18 g/gmol T = 25 ° 

### C UM VOC 

### = [(32,724 m 3 

### VOC/yr)( 86.18 g/gmol)(1 atm)]/{(0.00008205 m3-atm/gmolK)(1000 g/1 kg)(273 + 25K)} = 5, 038 kg VOC/yr = 5.6 ton VOC/yr
3.1.19 Open Burning (Yard Waste and Household Waste) 

### The methodology identified in the IPP/ QAP Area Source Matrix was tentatively identified as a mass balance approach which incorporates waste generation rates and local landfilling and recycling rates. Some landfilling information was available; however, in general, it was not possible to positively distinguish between local landfill material (i.e., originating in Ada, Canyon, or Elmore counties) and landfill mate rial originating outside of the three-county area. In addition, conversati ons with Ada County Solid Waste Management Department staff indicate that open burning activity, as reflected by public nuisance complaints, has dramatically decreased in recent years. Furthermore, concer ns over air quality and fire hazards have also affected the public acceptance level of open burning (Hutchinson, 2010). Therefore, an alternative methodology was used to estimate open burning emissions.

The city and county codes were examined for all government entities located within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. The codes were examined for mandatory residential waste collection requirements and prohi bitions of household and/or yard waste burning. This examination was greatly facilitated by the availab ility of city/county codes on-line. The Boise city code was available from the City of Boise we bsite (Boise, 2010). The city/county codes for 14 other government entities (i.e., Caldwell, Eagle, Garden City, Greenleaf, Kuna, Meridian, Middleton, Mountain Home, Nampa, Parma, Star , Wilder, Ada County, and Canyon County) were maintained on-line by a codifying company (Sterling, 2010). The c ity/county codes for only four government entities (i.e., Glenns Ferry, Melba, Notu s, and Elmore County) could not be identified.
Based on the review of these ci ty/county codes, the following information was determined:

• Mandatory residential waste collection

− Required in most areas located with in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties

− Not explicitly required in Glenns Ferry, Greenleaf, Melba, Notus, Parma, Star, and the unincorporated portions of Canyon and Elmore counties2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-32 • Household waste burning

− Explicitly banned in most areas loca ted within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties

− Not explicitly banned in Glenns Ferry, Greenleaf, Melba, Notus, and the unincorporated portion of Elmore County

• Yard waste burning

− Explicitly banned in only a few areas (i.e., Boise, Caldwell, Meridian, Nampa, and the unincorporated portion of Ada County)

− Allowed in the other areas subject to nece ssary burn permits (typically from local fire agencies) and sufficiently lo w air quality index (AQI) values. It was assumed that household waste (i.e., m unicipal solid waste) and yard waste burning
was conducted in all areas without explicit codified bans. Nati onal per capita waste generation
rates for 2008 were derived from national statis tics (U.S. EPA, 2009a). The per capita yard waste generation was reduced by 50 percent to a ccount for the grass clippings portion which is typically not burned. These per capita waste gene ration rates were applied to the populations in the non-ban areas (i.e., 18,691 fo r household waste burning and 139,846 for yard waste burning). Based upon the methodology used in the 2002 NEI, it was assumed that 28 percent of the household and yard waste generate d was actually burned (U.S. EPA, 2006). Emission factors for the residential and yard waste burning were obtained from the documentation from the 2002
National Emissions Inve ntory (U.S. EPA, 2006).

The equation for estimating emissions open bur ning (household waste or yard waste) is:

Where:

E p 

### = Emissions for pollutant p (tons/year); BF = Fraction of generated waste burned; W = Per capita waste genera tion rate (tons/person-day); P = Population (people); and EF p 

### = Emission factor for pollutant p (lbs/ton). A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from Elmore County household waste burning is as follows:
BF = 28% of generated waste is burned W = 3.18 lbs waste/day P = 16,615 people without hous ehold waste burning bans 

## [ ] ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × × × = lbs 2,000 ton 1

p p 

### EF P W BF E2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-33 EF p 

### = 30 lbs VOC/ton waste E = 0.28 × 3.18 lbs waste/person-day × 16,615 people × 366 days/year × 1 ton waste/2,000 lbs waste × 30 lbs VOC/ton wast e × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 40.6 tons VOC 3.1.20 Agricultural Ti lling and Harvesting 

### Emissions from both agricultural tilling a nd agricultural harvest operations were estimated using per-acre emission factors deve loped by the California Air Resources Board (CARB, 2003a; CARB, 2003b). It was assumed th at these per-acre emi ssion factors provide a reasonable approximation of conditions in the Treasure Valley. Planted and harvested crop acreage data were obtained from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2009).

The equation for estimating emissions from agri cultural tilling and harvest activities is as
follows:

Where:

E c 

### = Emissions for crop c (tons PM 10 

### /year); EF c 

### = Emission factor for crop c (lbs PM 10 

### /acre planted/harvested); and A c 

### = Acres planted/harvested for crop c (acres/year).
A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual PM 10 

### emissions from sugarbeet tilling in Ada County hous ehold waste burning is as follows:

EF c 

### = 22.8 lbs PM 10 

### /acre planted A c 

### = 1,976 planted acres of sugarbeets E = 1,976 acres × 22.8 lbs PM 10 

### /acre × 1 ton/2,000 lbs = 22.5 tons PM 10 

### 3.1.21 Agricultural Burning – Fields 

### As part of the recently implemented Crop Residue Burning Program , agricultural field burning was only allowed between September 1 and October 31, 2008. County-level field burning acreage statistics for th e Southwest Idaho Burn Management Area were obtained from DEQ staff (Pettit, 2009). Field burning acreage was limited to 29.2 acres of cereal grains in Ada County and 202 acres of other crops in Canyon C ounty. For estimation purposes, backfired wheat fuel loading and emission factors were a ssumed for the Ada County cereal grain acreage. Likewise, backfired alfalfa loading and emi ssion factors were assumed for the Canyon other ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × = lbs 2,000 ton 1

c c c 

### A EF E2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-34 acreage. Fuel loadings and emissions were es timated using appropriate emission factors from AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 2010a).

The equation for estimating emissions from agricultural open burning is as follows:

Where:

E p,c 

### = Emissions for pollutant p and crop c (tons/year); AB c 

### = Acreage burned for crop c (acres/year); FL c 

### = Fuel loading for crop c (tons/acre); and EF p,c 

### = Emission factor for pollutant p and crop c (lbs/ton).
A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual CO emissions from field burning of other crops in Canyon County is as follows:
AB = 202 acres other crops (assumed to be alfalfa) FL = 0.8 tons/acre EF p,c 

### = 119 lbs CO/ton E = 202 acres × 0.8 tons/acre × 119 lbs CO /ton × 1 ton/2,000 lbs = 9.6 tons CO 3.1.22 Agricultural Burni ng – Irrigation Ditches 

### An additional source of agricultural burning that was not identifie d in the IPP/QAP Area Source Matrix was the burning of weeds in irriga tion canals and ditches. The weeds in the ditch bottoms are typically burned during the month of March just before the irrigation water is first released in the spring. Although the ditch width is quite variable (i.e., from 3 feet to over 70 feet), a typical ditch width was assumed to be 5 feet. The ditch length w ithin a given irrigation district or ditch company can be quite extens ive, but not necessarily well quantified. For instance, it was roughly estimated within the Na mpa & Meridian Irrigati on District that there
were 500 to 600 miles of ditches (Anderson, 2010). A total of 56 irrigation districts and ditch companies have been identified by the Idaho De partment of Water Resources in Ada and Canyon counties (IDWR, 2006; IDWR, 2007). Therefore, it was not feasible to contact all of the irrigation districts and ditch companies. An alternative data source for ditch lengths was identified in the U.S. Geological Service’s National Hydrography Data set (USGS, 2010); ditch lengths were derived from a data layer of canals and ditches. Based on the National Hydrography Dataset, the county ditch lengths were estimated to be 796.28 kilometers (km) for ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × × = lbs 2,000 ton 1

, , c p c c c p 

### EF FL AB E2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-35 Ada County, 1,980.25 km for Canyon County, and 366.00 km for Elmore County. Emissions were estimated using appropriate fuel loadings (assumed to be unspecified weeds) and emission factors from AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 2010a). The emi ssion estimation equation is identical to that used for agricultural field burning.

3.1.23 Beef Cattle Feedlots


### This category includes PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions from beef cattle feedlots and VOC emissions from all cattle and calves; NH 3 

### emissions are addressed under the livestock ammonia category in Section 3.1.26.

The total number of cattle and calves was obt ained from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2009). In addition, the number of cattle on feed was also obtained from the same data source. The population of cattle on feed for Ca nyon County was explicitly reported; however, the population of cattle on feed for Ada County a nd Elmore County were not presented due to confidentiality reporting requirements. The ove rall population of cattle on feed for those counties in Idaho with confidentiality “shiel ded” data (including Ada and Elmore) was determined by subtracting known county populations of cattle on feed from the overall state population of cattle on feed resulting in the stat e shielded population. The state shielded population of cattle on feed was then allocated to the shielded counties based upon the reported quantity of other cattle (i.e., not beef cows or milk cows). Th e total number of cattle and calves was 66,476 head for Ada County, 129,561 head for Canyon County, and 109,065 head for Elmore County. The total number of cattle on feed was 13,770 head for Ada County, 7,221 head for Canyon County, and 24,862 head for Elmore County.

The emission factors were obtained from th e California Air Resources Board (CARB, 2004). The PM 10 

### emission factor was 28.9 lbs/1000 head -day, while the VOC emission factor was 12.8 lbs/head-year. Since the PM 10 

### emission factor was units of lbs/head-day, it was necessary to determine how long each head of cattle on feed is typica lly present in the feedlot. A typical residence time of 136 days was obtained from a feedlot cattle be havioral study (Stanford et al., 2009). The annual VOC emissions were cal culated for all cattle and calves regardless of whether or not they were located on a feedlot.
The equation for estimating emissions from beef cattle feedlots is as follows:2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-36 Where:
E = Emissions (tons/year); EF = Emission factor (lbs/head); and BC = Beef cattle population (head).
A sample calculation using this equation fo r estimating annual VOC emissions from Ada County is as follows:

BC = 66,476 head EF = 12.8 lbs VOC/head-year E = 66,476 head × 12.8 lbs VOC/head-year × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 425.4 tons VOC

3.1.24 Other Fires 

### The other fire source category includes struct ural fires and vehicle fires. County-level
structural and vehicle fire statis tics were obtained from the Idaho State Fire Marshal’s Idaho Fire Incident Reporting System (IFIRS) (Karnowski, 2009). Review of the statistics indicates nearly 100 percent reporting by the fire districts located in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. Based on the IFIRS summary data, the assignment of fire types to the structur al and vehicle sources categories is shown in Table 3-17. The specifi c county-level employee da ta obtained were for the following NAICS codes:
Table 3-17. Fire Code Assignments for the Structural Fire and Vehicle Fire Source Categories Category IFIRS Codes Structural Fires 111 (Building fire) 112 (Fire in structures other than buildings) 120 (Fire in mobile property used as a fixed structure) 121 (Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence) 122 (Fire in motor home, camper, recreational vehicle used as fixed residence ) 123 (Fire in portable building at a fixed location) Vehicle Fires 130 (Mobile property/vehicle fire) 131 (Passenger vehicle fire) 132 (Road freight or transport vehicle fire) 134 (Water vehicle fire) 137 (Camper or recreational vehicle fire) 138 (Off-road vehicle or heavy equipment fire)



### Emission factors for structural fires and vehicle fires were obtained from EIIP guidance documents (EIIP, 2001c; EIIP, 2000). Based on the EIIP guidance documents, a fuel loading of ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × = lbs 2,000 ton 1 BC EF E2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-37 1.15 tons/fire was assumed for structural fires an d a fuel loading of 0.25 tons/fire was assumed
for vehicle fires.

The general equation for estimating emissions from structural and vehicle fires is as
follows:

Where:

E p 

### = Emissions for pollutant p (tons/year); F = Annual structural or vehicle fires (fires/year); FL = Fuel loading (tons material/fire); and EF p 

### = Emission factor for pollutant p (lbs/tons material).
A sample calculation using this equation fo r estimating annual CO emissions from Ada County structural fi re is as follows:

F = 150 fires FL = 1.15 tons material/fire EF = 60 lbs CO/ton material E = 150 fires × 1.15 tons/fire × 60 lbs CO/per son × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 5.2 tons CO
3.1.25 Windblown Dust 

### The windblown fugitive dust emissions for th e Treasure Valley Airshed were developed using the estimation methodology developed for the Western Regional Air Part nership (WRAP) by a team of contractors led by E NVIRON (ENVIRON, 2004a) and subse quently revised by Mansell and others (Mansell, 2003a; 2003b; Mans ell, et al. 2004). The met hodology was based upon the results
of wind tunnel studies and a detailed characteri zation of vacant lands. Windblown dust emissions were estimated hourly on a gridded modeling domai n using hourly averaged wind speeds and other meteorological parameters. Hourly emission estimates were developed for each hour in 2008. The methodology involves application of wind speed- and soil-dependent emission factors to estimate emissions rates on a gridded modeling domain. Land use characteristics were used to estimate threshold friction velocities, based on gridded me teorological data, to determine the potential forwind erosion. Additional agricultural adjustments were applied to capture the impacts of cropspecific planting and harvesting practices. A detailed description of the windblown dust model estimation methodology and implementation is provided below. ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛
× × × = lbs 2,000 ton 1

p p 

### EF FL F E2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-38 While the Treasure Valley Airshed emissions inventory is limited to Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties, the implementation of the mo deling system for the development of windblown fugitive dust PM emissions requires the use of a larger Cartesian modeling grid domain. As such, the emission estimates described below in clude additional Idaho counties, as well as neighboring counties in Oregon. Figure 3- 1 displays the modeling domain for which
windblown dust PM emissions were estimated. In addition, the model requires hourly gridded meteorological data and generates emission esti mates for each hour for the entire time period considered. For the DEQ inventory, these estim ates are aggregated to counties and summed across all hours of calendar year 2008, as described below.

258 278 298 318 338 358 378 398 418 438 458 478 498 -666 -646 -626 -606 -586 -566 -546 -526 -506 -486 -466 -446

IDEQ 4-km Modeling domain (258,-666) -- (510,-442) nx=63; ny=56 LCP (30,60,-121,49)



### Figure 3-1. DEQ 4-km Modeling Do main for Windblown Dust Emissions Development2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-39 Data Collection

Input data required by the model include:

• Soil characteristics;

• Land use/land cover data;

• Crop-specific agricultural data; and

• Meteorology

Soil Characteristics
Application of the emission factor re lations, described below, requires the
characterization of soil te xture in terms of the four soil group s considered by the model. The characteristics or type of soil is one of the pa rameters of primary importance for the application
of the emission estimation relations de rived from wind tunnel study results.

The windblown dust model utilized the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) available from the USDA (USDA, 2010). In so me parts of the country, the SSURGO data are incomplete. Alternatively, the State Soil Geogra phic Database (STATSGO) was used to gap-fill the SSURGO data for the modeling domain (US DA, 1994). The STATSGO database provides detailed information concerning the taxonomy of the soils, including soil texture class, percentage of sand, silt and clay, and the available water capacity of the soil. Figure 3-2 displays the final merged soil texture data, which comb ines the SSURGO and STATSGO databases, as
used in the windblown dust model.

Land Use-Land Cover
Land use-land cover (LULC) data required for the windblown dust model was derived from crop-specific GIS data layers obtained from the USDA NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL) Program and represent agricultural, as well as non-agricultural, la nds throughout the region based on data for calendar year 2007 (NASS, 20 07). The primary purpose of the CDL Program is to use satellite imagery to provide acreage esti mates to the Agricultural Statistics Board for the state’s major commodities and produce digital, cr op-specific, categorized geo-referenced output products. These data were reviewed and proces sed for use in the windblown dust model. Figure 3-3 presents a display of the final land use/ land cover data for the 4-km modeling domain.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-40 Figure 3-2. Merged Soil Texture Data from the SSURGO and STATSGO Databases2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-41 Figure 3-3. Land Use/Land Cover Data Used for the DEQ Windblown Dust PM Emissions Inventory Development2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-42 Agricultural Data

Unlike other types of vacant land, windblown dust emissions from agricultural land are subject to a number of non-climatic influen ces, including irrigation a nd seasonal crop growth. As a result, several non-clima tic correction or adjustment factors were developed for applicability to the agricultural wind erosion emissions. These factors included:

• Long-term effects of irriga tion (i.e., soil “clodiness”);

• Crop canopy cover;

• Post-harvest vegetative cover (i.e., residue);

• Bare soil (i.e., barren areas within an agriculture field that do not develop crop canopy for various reasons, etc.); and

• Field borders (i.e., bare areas surroundi ng and adjacent to agricultural fields).
The methodology used to develop individual non-climatic correction factors was based upon previous work performed by the California Ai r Resources Board in their development of California-specific adjustment factors for the USDA’s Wind Erosion Equation (CARB, 1997).

In order to apply the agricultural adjust ments described above, crop information, including types of crops and planti ng schedules, were required. Th ese crop data (i.e., crop types, tilling and harvesting practices, crop calendars , and planting and harvesting schedules) were obtained from the National Agricultural Statis tics Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (NASS, 2009b; USDA, 1997; USDA, 2009). In the wi ndblown dust model, specific crop types were mapped to those recognized by the model, based on the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) crop data base, in order to pr ovide a link between specific crop planting and harvesting schedul es, tilling and irrigation practices, and canopy growth curves. Table 3-18 summarizes the Id aho-specific crop types and the mapping between DEQ’s data and the CTIC crop types.

The windblown dust model used the percenta ge of canopy cover for each crop type as crops are grown throughout the year to apply va rious adjustments to the estimated hourly wind
blown dust emissions. For the 2008 inventor y, the crop canopy cover data, developed from2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-43 crop report data (NASS, 2009b; USDA, 1997), are summarized in Table 3-19, which provides the percentage of canopy cover fo r each crop type in 15-day in crements throughout the year. Table 3-20 presents the Idaho crop canopy inform ation regarding planti ng and harvesting dates by crop type and region used in combination with the canopy growth curv es shown in Table 3- 19. These data are available for broad regions within the State of Id aho including the Central (C), Southwestern (SW) and South Central (SC) re gions of the state, as indicated in Table 3-20.
Table 3-18. DEQ and CTIC Crop Type Mapping and Descriptions

DEQ Crop Code Description CTIC Crop Name CTIC Crop Code FD01 Barley (grain) Barley BAR01 FD02 Corn (grain) Corn COR01 FD03 Dry edible beans (excluding limas) Peas/Beans BEA01 FD04 Dry lima beans Peas/Beans BEA01 FD05 Dry edible peas Peas/Beans BEA01 FD06 Mustard seed Canola POT01 FD07 Oats (grain) Oats OAT01 FD08 Safflower Canola POT01 FD09 Sugarbeets (sugar) Sugar Beets SUG01 FD10 Triticale Wheat WHE02 FD11 Winter wheat (g rain) Wheat WHE02 FD12 Durum wheat (grain) Wheat WHE01 FD13 Spring wheat (grain) Wheat WHE01 SH01 All grass seeds Forage Crops HAY01 SH02 Hay (alfalfa) Forage Crops ALF01 SH03 Hay (small grain) Forage Crops HAY01 SH04 Hay (other tame) Forage Crops HAY01 SH05 Hay (wild) Forage Crops HAY01 SH06 Corn (silage and greenchop) Corn COR01 OT01 Hops n/a n/a OT02 Mint for oil (peppermint) Canola POT01 OT03 Mint for oil (spearmint) Canola POT01 OT04 Sweet corn (for seed) Corn COR01 VG01 Onions, Dry Vegetables ONI01 VG02 Peas, Chinese (sugar and snow) Vegetables PEA01 VG03 Potatoes Potatoes POT01 VG04 Sweet Corn Corn COR01 FR01 Apples n/a n/a FR02 Cherries, Sweet n/a n/a FR03 Grapes n/a n/a FR04 Peaches n/a n/a FR05 Plums and Prunes n/a n/a2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-44 Table 3-19. Idaho Crop Canopy Cover by Crop Type and Julian Day Since Planting (%)

% canopy cover (CC) Canopy_Spr or Canopy_Fall 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 BAR01 0 1 15 55 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 OAT01 0 10 35 60 85 95 95 95 SUG01 0 5 10 20 30 40 60 80 90 95 POT01 0 10 25 40 55 65 80 70 WHE01 0 5 10 30 75 95 95 95 95 95 95 WHE02 0 5 10 20 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 30 30 40 65 95 95 95 95 95 COR01 0 5 10 50 75 95 95 95 95 95 85 65 BEA01 0 5 15 40 65 75 75 60 30 ONI01 1 5 7 10 15 20 15 10 HAY01 43 50 63 78 90 80 75 90 95 80 75 90 95 75 67 75 80 75 67 57 50 50 53 58 43 ALF01 47 55 67 25 47 67 82 92 95 42 48 53 48 43 40 37 35 35 35 35 37 38 45 55 47 Day2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-45

Table 3-20. Idaho Planting and Harvest ing Dates (Julian Day) and Crop Canopy Crop Type Crop Code Crop Description Region Plant_Spr Harv_Spr Plant_Fall Harv_Fall Canopy_Spr Canopy_ Fall FD01 Barley (grain) SW 91 218 BAR01 FD01 Barley (grain) SC 102 228 BAR01 FD01 Barley (grain) E 129 251 BAR01 FD02 Corn (grain) SW 134 299 COR01 FD02 Corn (grain) SC 134 299 COR01 FD02 Corn (grain) E 134 299 COR01 FD03 Dry edible beans SW 148 261 BEA01 FD03 Dry edible beans SC 148 261 BEA01 FD03 Dry edible beans E 148 261 BEA01 FD04 Dry lima beans SW 148 261 BEA01 FD04 Dry lima beans SC 148 261 BEA01 FD04 Dry lima beans E 148 261 BEA01 FD05 Dry edible peas SW 133 235 BEA01 FD05 Dry edible peas SC 133 235 BEA01 FD05 Dry edible peas E 133 235 BEA01 FD06 Mustard seed SW 116 207 POT01 FD06 Mustard seed SC 116 207 POT01 FD06 Mustard seed E 116 207 POT01 FD07 Oats (grain) SW 118 242 OAT01 FD07 Oats (grain) SC 118 242 OAT01 FD07 Oats (grain) E 118 242 OAT01 FD08 Safflower SW 116 269 POT01 FD08 Safflower SC 116 269 POT01 FD08 Safflower E 116 269 POT01 FD09 Sugarbeets (sugar) SW 99 303 SUG01 FD09 Sugarbeets (sugar) SC 107 300 SUG01 FD09 Sugarbeets (sugar) E 114 295 SUG01 FD10 Triticale SW 268 217 WHE02 FD10 Triticale SC 265 225 WHE02 FD10 Triticale E 269 233 WHE02 FD11 Winter wheat (grain) SW 268 217 WHE02 FD11 Winter wheat (grain) SC 265 225 WHE02 FD11 Winter wheat (grain) E 269 233 WHE02 FD12 Durum wheat (grain) SW 83 220 WHE01 FD12 Durum wheat (grain) SC 90 227 WHE01 FD12 Durum wheat (grain) E 118 246 WHE01 FD13 Spring wheat (grain) SW 83 220 WHE01 FD13 Spring wheat (grain) SC 90 227 WHE01 FD13 Spring wheat (grain) E 118 246 WHE01 FR01 Apples SW FR01 Apples SC FR01 Apples E FR02 Cherries, Sweet SW FR02 Cherries, Sweet SC FR02 Cherries, Sweet E FR03 Grapes SW FR03 Grapes SC FR03 Grapes E FR04 Peaches SW FR04 Peaches SC FR04 Peaches E FR05 Plums and Prunes SW FR05 Plums and Prunes SC FR05 Plums and Prunes E

### Table 3-20. Continued

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

### 3-46 Crop Code Crop Description Region Plant_Spr Harv_Spr Plant_Fall Harv_Fall Canopy_Spr Canopy_ Fall OT01 Hops SW OT01 Hops SC OT01 Hops E OT02 Mint for oil (peppermint) SW OT02 Mint for oil (peppermint) SC OT02 Mint for oil (peppermint) E OT03 Mint for oil (spearmint) SW OT03 Mint for oil (spearmint) SC OT03 Mint for oil (spearmint) E OT04 Sweet corn (for seed) SW 131 233 COR01 OT04 Sweet corn (for seed) SC 131 233 COR01 OT04 Sweet corn (for seed) E 131 233 COR01 SH01 All grass seeds SW 106 105 HAY01 SH01 All grass seeds SC 106 105 HAY01 SH01 All grass seeds E 106 105 HAY01 SH02 Hay (alfalfa) SW 122 121 ALF01 SH02 Hay (alfalfa) SC 122 121 ALF01 SH02 Hay (alfalfa) E 122 121 ALF01 SH03 Hay (small grain) SW 106 105 HAY01 SH03 Hay (small grain) SC 106 105 HAY01 SH03 Hay (small grain) E 106 105 HAY01 SH04 Hay (other tame) SW 106 105 HAY01 SH04 Hay (other tame) SC 106 105 HAY01 SH04 Hay (other tame) E 106 105 HAY01 SH05 Hay (wild) SW 106 105 HAY01 SH05 Hay (wild) SC 106 105 HAY01 SH05 Hay (wild) E 106 105 HAY01 SH06 Corn (silage/greenchop) SW 134 277 COR01 SH06 Corn (silage/greenchop) SC 134 277 COR01 SH06 Corn (silage/greenchop) E 134 277 COR01 VG01 Onions, Dry SW 96 263 ONI01 VG01 Onions, Dry SC 96 263 ONI01 VG01 Onions, Dry E 96 263 ONI01 VG02 Peas, Chinese SW 106 172 PEA01 VG02 Peas, Chinese SC 106 172 PEA01 VG02 Peas, Chinese E 106 172 PEA01 VG03 Potatoes SW 112 257 POT01 VG03 Potatoes SC 116 278 POT01 VG03 Potatoes E 133 280 POT01 VG04 Sweet Corn SW 131 233 COR01 VG04 Sweet Corn SC 131 233 COR01 VG04 Sweet Corn E 131 233 COR012008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-47 Meteorological Data

Gridded hourly meteorological data, required for the dust estimation methodology, were based on MM5/WRF model simulation results pr ovided by DEQ (Zhang, 2009). Required data fields included wind speeds, prec ipitation rates, soil temperatures and ice/snow cover. These data were obtained from DEQ and then review ed and formatted for use in the windblown dust
model.

Emissions Calculation

As noted above, the windblown fugitive dust PM emissions for the Treasure Valley Airshed were developed for each day of 2008 using the estimation methodology previously developed for the WRAP and were estimated hourly on a gridded modeling domain using hourly averaged meteorology, surface characteristics (so il and land use) and crop-specific agricultural
information as described above. The wi ndblown dust model estimation methodology was developed b ased on a review of wind tunnel studies which noted that the two important components to characterize the dust emission process from an erodible surface were the threshold friction velocity that defines the inception of the emission process as a function of the wind speed and as influenced by the surface characteristics, and the strength of the emissions that follow the commencement of particle movement. The two critical factors affecting emission strength are the wind speed (wind friction velocity) that drives the saltation system, and the soil characteristics.



### Friction Velocities

Surface friction velocities are determ ined from the aerodynamic surface roughness lengths and wind speeds derived from the MM5/WRF model simulations. Friction velocity, u * 

### , is related to the slope of th e velocity versus the natural logarithm of height through the relationship:

Where:

u z 

### = wind velocity at height z (m/s);

u * 

### = friction velocity (m/s);

κ = von Karman’s constant (0.4); and

z 0 

### = aerodynamic roughness height (m). o z 

### z z

u u ln 1

* 

### κ

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

### 3-48 The threshold friction velocities, u *t 

### , are determined using empiri cal relationships that are functions of the aerodynamic surface roughness length, z 0 

### (Marticorena et al., 1997). Surface friction velocities, including the threshold fric tion velocity, are a f unction of the aerodynamic surface roughness lengths. The surface friction ve locities are, in turn, dependent upon surface characteristics, particularly land use/land cover. The empirical relationships implemented in the model are shown in Figure 3-4.

Figure 3-4. Comparison Between the Marticorena et al . (1997) Modeled Relationship of Threshold Friction Velo city and Aerodynamic Roughness Length and Wind Tunnel Data from Gillette et al . (1980, 1982), Gillette (1988) and Nickling and Gillies (1989)



### Emission Fluxes

Emission fluxes, or emission rates, are de termined as a function of surface friction velocity and soil texture. Key relationships we re established between the 12 soil types in the classical soil texture triangle and their four dry soil types (i.e., silt [FSS] , sandy silt [FS], silty sand [MS], and sand [CS]) (Chatene t et al., 1996). Dust emissi on fluxes were estimated using relationships developed for each of the soil text ure groups (Alfaro and Gomes, 2001; Alfaro et u *t = 0.31e 7.44 x (Zo)
R 2 = 0.60

u *t = 0.30e 7.22 x (Zo)

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

z o (cm)u*t(m s-1)

wind tunnel data Marticorena et al. 1997 Expon. (wind tunnel data) Expon. (Marticorena et al. 1997)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-49 al., 2004). These relationships are presented in Figure 3-5. The ma pping used to relate the soil textures to the soil groups are presented in Table 3-21.

Figure 3-5. The Emission Flux as a Function of Friction Velocity Predicted by the

Alfaro and Gomes (2001) Model Constrai ned by the Four Soil Geometric Mean Diameter Classes of Al faro et al. (2004)

Table 3-21. Soil Texture and Soil Group Codes

Soil Texture Soil Texture Code Soil Group Soil Group Code No Data 0 N/A 0 Sand 1 CS 4 Loamy Sand 2 CS 4 Sandy Loam 3 MS 3 Silt Loam 4 FS 2 Silt 5 FSS 1 Loam 6 MS 3 Sandy Clay Loam 7 MS 3 Silty Clay Loam 8 FSS 1 Clay Loam 9 MS 3 Sandy Clay 10 MS 3 Silty Clay 11 FSS 1 Clay 12 FS 2 FFS F = 2.45 x 10 -6 (u * ) 3.97

FS F = 9.33 x 10 -7 (u * ) 2.44

M S F = 1.243 x 10 -7 (u * ) 2.64

CS F = 1.24 x 10 -7 (u * ) 3.44

0.000000001 0.00000001 0.0000001 0.000001 0.00001

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Friction Velocity (m s -1 )Emission Flux (F, g cm-2s-1) FSS FS MS CS Power (FSS) Power (FS) Power (MS) Power (CS)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-50 Surface Roughness Lengths

Surface roughness lengths can vary considerably for a given land type, and are assigned as a function of land use type based on a review of information reported in the literature. The
disturbance level of various surfaces has the effect of altering th e surface roughness lengths, which in turn impact the potential for vacant lands to emit dust from wind erosion.

An examination of the relationship between th e threshold surface friction velocity and the aerodynamic surface roughness length, reveals that for surface roughness lengths larger than approximately 0.1 cm, the threshold friction veloc ities increase rapidly above values that can be realistically expected to occur in the meteorol ogical data used in the model implementation. Therefore to simplify the mode l implementation, only those land types with roughness length less than or equal to 0.1 cm are consid ered as potentially erodible surfaces.

For a given surface roughness, as determined by the land use type, the threshold friction velocity has a constant value. Thus, the land use data is mapped to an internal dust code used within the model to minimize computer resource requirements and coding efforts. The mapping of land use types to dust codes 3 (agricultural), 4 (grassland), 6 (shrubland), and 7 (barren) is presented in Table 3-22; dust codes 1 (w ater/wetlands), 2 (f orest/urban), and 5 (orchards/vineyards) are not included.
Table 3-22. Surface Characteristics by Dust Code and Land Use Category
Dust Code 3 4 6 7 Land use category Agricultural Grassland Shrubland Barren Surface roughne ss length, Z 0 (cm) 0.031 0.1 0.05 0.002 Threshold friction velocity (m/s) 3.72 6.17 4.30 3.04 Threshold wind velocity at 10 meter height (m/s [mph]) 13.2 [29.5] 19.8 [44.3] 14.6 [32.8] 12.7 [28.5]



### Soil Reservoir Characteristics

Soil reservoirs are classified as limited for stable land parcels and unlimited for unstable land parcels. Classification of soil reservoirs as limited or unlimited has implications with respect to the duration of time over which the dust emissions are generated. In general, soil
reservoirs should be classified in terms of the type of soils, the depth of the soil layer, soil moisture content and meteorological parameters. Finally, the time required for a soil reservoir to2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-51 recharge following a wind event is influenced by a number of factors, including prec ipitation and snow events and freezing conditions of the soils. A recharge time of 24 hours was assigned to all surfaces. In addition, it was assumed that no su rface will generate emissions for more than 10 hours in any 24-hour period.

The duration and amount of precipitation and snow and freeze events will also affect the
dust emissions from wind erosion. A set of c onditions were developed for treating these events based on seasons, soil characteri stics and the amounts of rainfa ll and snow cover (Barnard, 2003). In addition, the time necessary to re-i nitiate wind erosion afte r a precipitation event ranges from 1 to 10 days, depending on the soil type, season of the year, and whether the precipitation event rainfall amount exceeds 2 inches.

Soil Disturbance

The disturbance level of a surface has the eff ect of lowering the threshold surface friction velocity. Except for agricultural lands, which ar e treated separately in the model as described below, vacant land parcels are ty pically undisturbed unless some activity is present such as to cause a disturbance (e.g., off-road recreational vehicle activity in desert lands, animal grazing on rangelands, etc.). It was assumed that all non- agricultural land types were undisturbed, since
there is no a priori information to indicate otherwise for the regional scale modeling domain.

Other Adjustments

Two other adjustments to modeled air quality imp acts related to fugitive dust transportability and partitioning between fine and coarse fractions of PM 10 

### . Transport fractions as a function of land use were assigned to all emission estimates (Pace, 2003; Pace, 2005). In addition, new fine fraction values developed from controlled wind tunnel studies of western soils were applied to determine the fine and coarse fractions of wind-gene rated fugitive dust emissions (MRI, 2005).

Model Application

The windblown fugitive dust model was applie d for the entire calendar year 2008 at a spatial resolution of 4-km on a modeling domain encompassing the Treasure Valley Airshed. The model generates estimates of PM 10 

### dust emissions. The fine fraction of dust is obtained by2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-52 using a PM 2.5 

### /PM 10 

### ratio of 0.10 (MRI, 2005). Gridded em issions estimates were allocated to counties using GIS processing techniques and are summarized below.

Emission Results for 2008

Annual 2008 windblown dust emissions are pres ented in Table 3-23 for Ada, Canyon and Elmore counties. Annual emissions were calculated by summing hourly emission estimates across all days in ca lendar year 2008.

Table 3-23. 2008 Annual Wind blown Fugitive PM Dust Emissions for Ada, Canyon and Elmore Counties (Tons/Year) Annual 2008 (tpy) County FIPS PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) Ada 16001 8,606 861 Canyon 16027 888 89 Elmore 16039 17,720 1,772 Total 27,214 2,721



### 3.1.26 Ammonia Emissions 

### Ammonia emissions come from a variety s ources including: livestock, agricultural fertilizer application, natural soils, domestic sources, wild animals, and ammonia from cold storage/industrial refrigeration. With the ex ception of ammonia from co ld storage/industrial refrigeration (see Section 3.1.11), emissions ha ve been developed usi ng a GIS-based ammonia emissions modeling system developed for the WR AP (Chitjian and Mans ell, 2003a; Chitjian and Mansell, 2003b; Mansell, 2005). The activity and emission factor data and sources are described below. A description of the emission estima tion methodology, as well as summaries of the ammonia emission estimates are also provided.
Like the windblown dust model, the implem entation of the modeling system for the development of ammonia emissions for the Treasure Valley Airshed emissions inventory requires the use of a Cartesian modeling grid domain that is la rger than Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. As such, the emission estimates described below include additional Idaho counties, as well as neighboring counties in Oregon. Figure 3-6 displays the m odeling domain for which ammonia emissions were estimated. In addition, the model requires hourly gridded meteorological data and generates emission estimates for each hour for the entire time period cons idered. For the DEQ inventory, these estimates are aggregated to counties and summed across all hours of calendar year 2008, as described below.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-53 258 278 298 318 338 358 378 398 418 438 458 478 498 -666 -646 -626 -606 -586 -566 -546 -526 -506 -486 -466 -446

IDEQ 4-km Modeling domain (258,-666) -- (510,-442) nx=63; ny=56 LCP (30,60,-121,49)



### Figure 3-6. DEQ 4-km Modeling Doma in for Ammonia Emissions Development



### Data Collection
Input data required by the model for each subcategory (i.e., livestock, fertilizer application, natural soil, domestic sources, wild animals, etc.) include:

• Activity data;

• Emission factors; and

• Temporal variations. In addition, land use/land cover data and me teorology data for the inventory domain were
used to run the model.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-54 Livestock Activity Data

Ammonia emissions from livestock were de veloped using county-le vel head counts and dairy and beef cattle feedlot estimates pr ovided by the DEQ (Strachan, 2009). The DEQ obtained these data (i.e., headcounts for dairy cattl e and beef cattle on feed lots, including specific locations of dairies and feedlots) from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. However, in
order to avoid disclosure of de tailed information regarding any pa rticular dairy or feedlot, DEQ subsequently aggregated these data to the 4-km grid cells within the modeling domain. The gridded dairy and beef cattle data for all Idaho counties were then used to spatially allocate county-level headcounts for 2008, obtained from the USDA National Ag ricultural Statistics Service (NASS, 2009a). All other livestock amm onia emissions (i.e., poultry, swine, sheep and horses) within Idaho were estimated based on 2007 county-level head counts, which were
obtained from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2009) and spatially allocated using gridding surrogates. For the portions of th e two Oregon counties (i.e., Baker and Malheur) within the domain, livestock emissions were developed based on county-level activity data
obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and spatially allocated as described below. Estimates for sheep, poultr y and swine were obtained from NASS (NASS, 2009a). Table 3-24 summarizes the county-level liv estock activity data for calendar year 2008.

Livestock Emission Factors

The approach used in the WRAP ammonia m odel does not treat the individual processes leading to ammonia emissions from various ma nure management practices, as has been the subject of recent research in the emission inve ntory development community. Instead, emission factors based on a “whole animal” approach are us ed. The emission factors are based on a recent literature review and are presented in Table 3-25 (Chi nkin et al., 2003).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-55 Table 3-24. 2008 Annual County-Level Livestock Head Counts County Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Swine Poultry Sheep Horses Ada 10,065 56,411 1,837 1,948 1,806 3,904 Adams 6,175 6,543 41 206 609 749 Blaine 8,042 7,700 11 67 13,789 915 Boise 1,827 457 0 144 0 338 Camas 3,938 1,287 0 57 0 100 Canyon 13,908 115,653 1,534 6,737 19,627 6,525 Custer 18,057 8,008 99 218 481 1,625 Elmore 23,904 85,971 56 654 717 1,161 Gem 10,939 11,799 74 911 6,138 2,831 Gooding 11,035 270,877 160 459 0 1,826 Jerome 10,231 209,322 282 298 1,081 1,386 Lincoln 8,701 61,162 0 301 537 1,182 Owyhee 36,586 109,786 149 687 5,228 2,687 Payette 9,095 53,598 332 887 1,289 2,410 Twin Falls 25,898 146,861 0 982 14,007 2,457 Valley 3,024 3,545 18 196 120 235 Washington 19,154 28,522 300 400 15,532 1,551 Baker (OR) 46,608 34,273 111 663 5,509 4,211 Malheur (OR) 70,562 142,763 311 811 10,104 5,825



### Table 3-25. Ammonia Emi ssion Factors for Livestock Source Category Emission Factor (kg/animal-yr) 

### Beef Cattle 9.0 Dairy Cattle 25.0 Poultry 0.1 Swine 7.0 Horses 8.0 Sheep 1.34

Livestock Temporal Variations

A review of current literature reveals a lack in consistency of results quantifying temporal
variations in ammonia emissions from livestock (Chitjian and Mansell, 2003a). However, a preponderance of the studies cited concluded th at ammonia emissions from livestock display both a seasonal and diurnal variation consistent, in general, with increased ammonia emissions associated with warmer temperatures.

Seasonal allocation factors have been devel oped using inverse modeling results (Chinkin et al., 2003; Gilliland et al., 2003). The factors were further adjust ed to reflect the current ORD-2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-56 recommended emission factors, which were not available when the initial modeling methodology was developed (U.S. EPA, 2002a), which were not available at the time the modeling was performed by Gilliland et al. The adjusted factors are shown on Table 3-26, which indicates over a threefold increase in emissions during the wa rmest months and minimum emissions during the late fall, as opposed to the coldest months. The minimum in the fall is explained by the relatively dry conditions at th at time of the year.
Table 3-26. Monthly Li vestock Allocation Factors

Month Temporal Allocation Factor January 67 February 75 March 75 April 82 May 126 June 164 July 183 August 154 September 115 October 73 November 51 December 51



### The diurnal variation of lives tock ammonia emissions was also previously investigated (Chitjian and Mansell, 2003a). In general, the literature reports an increase in daytime emissions relative to nighttime emissions. A theoretica l equation (i.e., Russell and Cass equation) was developed to predict diurnal emi ssion variations as a function of meteorological data (Russell and Cass, 1986). The Russell and Cass equation relates hourly ammonia emission rates to temperature and wind speed as follows:

Where:

E i 

### = emission rate at hour i from animal waste decomposition; A = daily total emission rate for ammonia from animal waste = ∑ E i 

### ; T i 

### = ambient temperature in degrees Kelvin at hour i ; and V i 

### = wind speed in meters per second (m/s) at hour i (a minimum wind speed of 0.1 m/s). ( ) 

## [ ] A V E i T i i 10 / 273 

### 36

. 2

− 

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

### 3-57 Although the seasonal and diurnal variations presented abov e are empirically based, they are consistent with the theory that greater te mperatures and greater wi nd speeds will result in larger ammonia volatilization rates.

For the 2008 DEQ inventory, the Russell a nd Cass equation was used to provide the
diurnal variation of livestock ammonia emissions. Th is approach is consistent with first principal assumptions and with measurements showing increased ammonia release with increased temperature and wind speed. The monthly livestoc k allocation factors show n in Table 3-26 were
used to allocate annual emission esti mates to each month of the year.

Fertilizer Application Activity

Although the Idaho State Department of Agri culture (ISDA) was contacted in order to obtain local county-level data, ISDA only maintains these data at a state-wide basis. Additionally,
ISDA’s state-wide data did not in clude details on the specific types of fertilizers applied, as required by the WRAP GIS NH 3 

### model. Therefore, ammonia emissions from fertilizer application were developed using monthly county-level fertil izer activity data obtained from the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) Ammonia Model input database developed fro m the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Survey (NASS) (Strader et al., 2004). Table 3- 27 summarizes the annual county-level fertilizer activity data used for modeling of the Treasure Valley inventory domain.

Fertilizer Emission Factors

Emission factors for ammonia emissions from fertilizer applicati on were based upon data from the European Environment Agency ( EEA, 2002) as recommended by the WRAP model methodology (Chitjian and Mansell, 2003b). Emissi on factors for fertiliz er application are presented in Table 3-28. As discussed in th e WRAP model methodology (Chitjian and Mansell, 2003a), fertilizer emission factors were adjusted as a function of the soil pH. Based upon recent research, the emission factors are scaled according to the following relation as a function of the soil pH (Potter et al., 2001):


### 01

. 1 3125

. 0

− × = pH a2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

### 3-58 Final, August 31, 2010Table 3-27. 2008 Annual Fertilizer Application Data by Type and County (kg/year)CountyStateAnhydrousAmmoniaAqueousAmmoniaNitrogenSolutionsUreaAmmoniumNitrateAmmoniumSulfateAmmoniumThiosulfateAmmoniumPhosphatesCalciumAmmoniumNitratePotassiumNitrateAda Idaho 313,638 14,867 332,092 898,450 300,150 284,480 48,777 3,050,300 325 34Adams Idaho 12,072 571 12,766 34,549 11,540 10,930 1,876 117,230 12 1Blaine Idaho 107,032 5,077 113,318306,690 102,476 97,060 16,658 1,041,600 111 11Boise Idaho 4,426 210 4,69012,698 4,243 4,020 689 43,076 4 0Camas Idaho 60,099 2,845 63,575172,068 57,507 54,452 9,336 584,340 62 6Canyon Idaho 1,562,920 74,098 1,655,040 4,478,000 1,495,900 1,416,830 243,278 15,191,000 1,622 169Custer Idaho 34,458 1,632 36,47998,748 32,971 31,237 5,365 334,960 35 3Elmore Idaho 541,010 25,648 572,460 1,549,100 517,810 490,700 84,235 5,257,700 561 58Gem Idaho 94,452 4,472 99,886 270,264 90,382 85,546 14,695 917,980 97 10Gooding Idaho 446,610 21,192 473,140 1,281,720 428,290 405,640 69,552 4,348,700 464 48Jerome Idaho 669,030 31,704 707,470 1,916,560 640,480 606,120 104,098 6,502,500 695 72Lincoln Idaho 151,368 7,163 160,234432,790 144,836 137,088 23,523 1,473,100 157 16Owyhee Idaho 432,650 20,498 457,880 1,239,260 413,780 392,120 67,301 4,206,700 449 47Payette Idaho 259,124 12,298 274,398741,760 248,242 235,088 40,327 2,519,900 269 28Twin Falls Idaho 1,131,320 53,482 1,201,1803,269,500 1,091,410 1,038,610177,732 11,252,000 1,151 124Valley Idaho 19,078 904 20,18154,558 18,260 17,288 2,968 185,470 20 2Washington Idaho 193,948 9,191 205,400555,660 185,754 175,930 30,170 1,884,600 201 21Baker Oregon 177,090 6,235 301,240 796,800 97,240 155,110 8,280 623,200 1,487 538Malheur Oregon 1,320,700 46,564 2,248,600 5,944,000 726,000 1,157,000 61,724 4,651,400 11,087 4,0112008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-59 Table 3-28. Ammonia Emissions F actors for Fertilizer Application Fertilizer Type %N volatized as NH 3 kg NH 3 /kg fertilizer applied Anhydrous ammonia 4 0.04857 Aqueous ammonia 2.4 0.02914 Nitrogen solutions 8 0.09714 Urea 15 0.18214 Ammonium nitrate 2 0.02428 Ammonium sulfate 10 0.12143 Calcium ammonium nitrate 2 0.02428 Ammonium thiosulfate 2.4 0.02914 Other straight nitrogen 2.4 0.02914 Ammonium phosphates 5 0.06071 N-P-K 2 0.02428 Potassium nitrate 2.4 0.02914



### Soil pH scalars were not applied to urea emissi on factors as research has indicated that urea emissions are not affected by initial soil pH. Soil pH data used for the Treasure Valley emissions inventory are described below.

Fertilizer Temporal Variation

Emissions from fertilizer application were temporally allocated monthly based on the monthly activity data. Diurnal variations in fer tilizer emissions are expected as temperature and wind speed affect ammonia pr oduction and volatilization. Th e Russell and Cass equation, described above, was used to temporally allocate daily emissions to each hour of the day as a function of temperature and wind speed, as was done for livestock emissions.

Natural Soil Activity

Ammonia emissions from natural soils are based on land use/land cover acreages. The
same database used for the windblown dust model was used for the estimation of ammonia
emissions from natural soils. Land use-land cove r (LULC) data required for the windblown dust model was derived from crop-specific GIS data layers obtained from the USDA NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL) Program and represent agricu ltural, as well as non-agricultural, lands throughout the region based on data for calendar year 2007 (NASS, 2007). The primary purpose of the CDL Program is to use satellite imagery to provide acreage estimates to the Agricultural
Statistics Board for the state’s major commodities and produce digita l, crop-specific, categorized geo-referenced output products. These data we re reviewed and pro cessed for use in the2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-60 windblown dust model. Figure 3-3 (windblown dust se ction) presents a display of the final land use/land cover data for the 4-km modeling domain.

Natural Soil Emission Factors:

Natural soil ammonia emissions were esti mated based on emission factors developed from recent research (Battye et al., 2003; Ch inkin et al., 2003); these emission factors are presented in Table 3-29.

Table 3-29. Ammonia Emissi on Factors for Native Soils Land type Emission Factor (kg/km 2 -yr) Urban 10 Barren/Desert land 10 Deciduous Forest 174 Evergreen Forest 54 Mixed Forest 114 Shrubland 400 Grasslands 400 Fallow 205 Urban/Recreational Grasses 400 Wetlands 400



### A previous study estimated ammonia emissi ons from native soils based on several environmental variables including monthly rainfall , surface air temperature, solar radiation, soil texture, land cover type and vegetative type (P otter et al., 2001). The model first calculated the available mineral nitrogen substrate for ammoni a emissions and then modified this value by applying scalars for soil surface temperature (T s 

### ), pH, and soil moisture content (M). The scalars
are of the form:

where ‘c’ is a constant, which determines the sensitivity to pH. The study authors used ‘c’ values of 1.3 (i.e., consistent with measurem ents made) and 10 (i.e, to produce results with minimal pH effects). The emission factors presented in Table 3- 29 were modified for temperature and pH effects using th ese scalars using a ‘c’ value of 1.3. Soil temperature and soil moisture content are taken from the meteorological da ta used for the project as discussed below. ( ) 

## ( ) M

c pH T s 

### − × ⎪ ⎭ ⎪ ⎬ ⎫
⎪ ⎩ ⎪ ⎨ ⎧

+ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

×

− ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

+ + 

### 1

10 1 1

16

. 273 92

. 2729 09018

. 02008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-61 Natural Soil Temporal Variation

The temporal allocation of native soil amm onia emissions were calculated using the emission factor scalars described above, which are temporally resolved based on the hourly meteorological data.

Domestic Sources Activity Data

Domestic sources of ammonia emissions cons idered in the current inventory include human respiration and perspirati on, disposable and cloth diaper s and domestic pets (cats and dogs). Ammonia emissions from domestic source s use county-level populations as activity data. County-level populations were obtained from the U. S. Census (U.S. Census, 2009c). Estimates of total county-level populations are needed fo r human perspiration and respiration. The number of cats and dogs are scaled based on total popu lation. County-level estimates of infant populations are used to estimate ammonia emissions from cloth a nd disposable diapers. The 2008 county-level population estimates are presented in Table 3-30 for all counties within the 4- km modeling domain used for the project.
Table 3-30. 2008 County-Level Population Estimates County State Total Population Infant Population Ada Idaho 380,920 29,211 Adams Idaho 3,499 184 Blaine Idaho 21,731 1,437 Boise Idaho 7,504 314 Camas Idaho 1,126 85 Canyon Idaho 183,939 17,764 Custer Idaho 4,254 180 Elmore Idaho 28,997 2,594 Gem Idaho 16,513 1,113 Gooding Idaho 14,295 1,212 Jerome Idaho 20,468 1,955 Lincoln Idaho 4,503 417 Owyhee Idaho 10,877 852 Payette Idaho 22,966 1,694 Twin Falls Idaho 74,284 6,008 Valley Idaho 8,862 531 Washington Idaho 10,206 659 Baker Oregon 15,983 791 Malheur Oregon 30,907 2,192 Total 861,834 69,1932008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-62 Domestic Source Emission Factors

Domestic source emissions were estimated based on emission factors recommended by recent studies (Chitjian et al., 2000; Chitjian and Mansell, 2003a). Table 3-31 presents the emission factors used for the project.

Table 3-31. Ammonia Emission Fact ors for Domestic Ammonia Sources
Source Emission Factor Unit Cats 0.348 lb N/cat-yr Dogs 2.17 lb N/dog-yr Human Perspiration 0.55 lb NH 3 /person-yr Human Respiration 0.0035 lb NH 3 /person-yr Cloth Diapers 6.9 lb NH 3 /infant-yr Disposable Diapers 0.36 lb NH 3 /infant-yr



### Domestic Sources Temporal Variation

The ammonia emissions from domestic sources we re assumed to be temporally invariant.

Wild Animal Activity Data

Although ammonia emissions from wild animal s constitute a comparatively small portion of the overall ammonia emission inventory, these emissions were included given the availability of activity data. Ammonia emissions from wild animals are based upon estimates of the number of animals at the county level. These data we re obtained from the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) Ammonia Model input databa se (Strader et al., 2004). It should be noted that countylevel wild animal populations are obtained from state-level data allocated to counties based on surrogates. Consequently, the county-level populations may result in fractional numbers, particularly for those animals with relatively small overall populations.

Wild Animal Emission Factors

Ammonia emissions from wild animals were estimated using emission factors obtained
from the CMU NH 3 

### model (Strader, et al., 2004) and are presented in Table 3-32.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-63 Table 3-32. Ammonia Emission Factor s for Wild Animal Ammonia Sources



### Wild Animal Temporal Variations

The ammonia emissions from wild animals were assumed to be temporally invariant.

Land Use/Land Cover Data
The Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) data used for the ammonia inventory were developed from the NASS CDL database described above (NA SS, 2007). LULC data is directly used for estimating natural soil ammonia emissions, as well as for spatial allocation of livestock and fertilizer application emissions, as described belo w. The land use classifications available in the CDL database are presented in Table 3-33. Figu re 3-7 displays the CDL data for the 4-km DEQ modeling and are summarized at the county-level in Table 3-34.

Soil pH is used in the ammonia model for applying adjustments to emission factors for natural soil and fertilizer application em issions. The State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) was used to specify the soil pH ne cessary for the development of the emission inventory for the project (USDA, 1994). Figure 3-8 displays the mean soil pH for the DEQ modeling domain.
Meteorology

Gridded hourly meteorological data required for the model include wind speeds, ambient temperatures, soil temperatures and soil mo isture and are based on the MM5/WRF model simulation results provided by DEQ (Zhang, 2009).

Emission Calculation

Model Application

A GIS-based modeling system was used to generate the gridde d ammonia emissions inventory incorporating various improvements as implemented for the WRAP (Chitjian and Source Emission Factor Unit Black bears 4.536 kg NH 3 /animal-yr Grizzly bears 4.536 kg NH 3 /animal-yr Elk 24.48 kg NH 3 /animal-yr Deer 4.536 kg NH 3 /animal-yr2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-64 Table 3-33. CDL Classifications and NH 3 

### Model Cross-References
CDL Code NH 3 Code Crop Description LU Description 1 10 Corn Row Crops 2 10 Cotton Row Crops 3 10 Rice Row Crops 4 10 Sorghum Row Crops 5 10 Soybeans Row Crops 6 10 Sunflowers Row Crops 10 10 Peanuts Row Crops 11 10 Tobacco Row Crops 21 10 Barley Grains/Hays/Seeds 22 10 Durum Wheat Grains/Hays/Seeds 23 10 Spring Wheat Grains/Hays/Seeds 24 10 Winter Wheat Grains/Hays/Seeds 25 10 Other Small Grains Grains/Hays/Seeds 26 10 Winter Wheat/Soybeans Double-Cropped Grains/Hays/Seeds 27 10 Rye Grains/Hays/Seeds 28 10 Oats Grains/Hays/Seeds 29 10 Millet Grains/Hays/Seeds 30 10 Speltz Grains/Hays/Seeds 31 10 Canola Grains/Hays/Seeds 32 10 Flaxseed Grains/Hays/Seeds 33 10 Safflower Grains/Hays/Seeds 34 10 Rape seed Grains/Hays/Seeds 35 10 Mustard Grains/Hays/Seeds 36 10 Alfalfa Grains/Hays/Seeds 37 10 Other Hays Grains/Hays/Seeds 41 10 Sugarbeets Other Crops 42 10 Dry Beans Other Crops 43 10 Potatoes Other Crops 44 10 Other Crops Other Crops 45 10 Sugarcane Other Crops 46 10 Sweet Potatoes Other Crops 47 10 Miscellaneous Vegetables & Fruit Other Crops 48 10 Watermelon Other Crops 50 10 Pickles Other Crops 51 10 Chick Peas Other Crops 52 10 Lentils Other Crops 53 10 Peas Other Crops 58 10 Clover/Wildflowers Other Crops 61 12 Fallow/Idle Cropland Open Non-Crop 62 9 Grass/Pasture/Non-agricultural Open Non-Crop 63 5 Woodland Open Non-Crop 64 6 Shrubland Open Non-Crop 65 2 Barren Open Non-Crop 67 10 Peaches Tree Crops 68 10 Apples Tree Crops 69 10 Grapes Tree Crops

### Table 3-33. Continued

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

### 3-65 CDL Code NH 3 Code Crop Description LU Description 70 10 Christmas Trees Tree Crops 71 10 Other Tree Nuts & Fruit Tree Crops 72 10 Citrus Tree Crops 73 10 Other Tree Fruit Tree Crops 80 10 Other Non-Tree Fruit Tree Crops 81 13 Clouds Other Non-Crops 82 1 Urban/Developed Other Non-Crops 83 13 Water Other Non-Crops 87 8 Wetlands Other Non-Crops 92 13 Aquaculture Other Non-Crops 111 13 NLCD-Open Water NLCD Non-Crop 112 13 NLCD-Perennial Ice/Snow NLCD Non-Crop 121 1 NLCD-Developed/Open Space NLCD Non-Crop 122 1 NLCD-Developed/Low Intensity NLCD Non-Crop 123 1 NLCD-Developed/Medium Intensity NLCD Non-Crop 124 1 NLCD-Developed/High Intensity NLCD Non-Crop 131 2 NLCD-Barren NLCD Non-Crop 141 3 NLCD-Deciduous Forest NLCD Non-Crop 142 4 NLCD-Evergreen Forest NLCD Non-Crop 143 5 NLCD-Mixed Forest NLCD Non-Crop 152 6 NLCD-Shrubland NLCD Non-Crop 171 7 NLCD-Grassland He rbaceous NLCD Non-Crop 181 9 NLCD-Pasture/Hay NLCD Non-Crop 182 10 NLCD-Cultivated Crop NLCD Non-Crop 190 8 NLCD-Woody Wetlands NLCD Non-Crop 195 8 NLCD-Herbaceous Wetlands NLCD Non-Crop2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-66 Figure 3-7. Land Use/Land Cover Data Used for the DEQ Ammonia Emissions Inventory Development2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-67

Table 3-34. Land Use Summary by Category and County for the 4-Km Modeling Domain (Acres)

County State Urban Land Forest Land/Wetlands Agricultural Lands Grasslands Shrublands Barren Lands Ada Idaho 100,990 7,539 46,682 354,735 157,842 2,327 Adams Idaho 2,078 113,107 494 18,003 152,634 0 Blaine Idaho 655 170,408 140 59,807 81,215 2,988 Boise Idaho 4,690 676,163 279 152,293 375,662 1,147 Camas Idaho 5,950 167,759 29,348 196,542 257,873 1,346 Canyon Idaho 80,459 3,183 186,583 83,998 9,364 4,942 Custer Idaho 1,730 840,939 185 200,777 254,396 10,205 Elmore Idaho 34,270 388,334 74,469 721,049 734,830 4,836 Gem Idaho 10,231 51,890 23,639 117,980 153,711 309 Gooding Idaho 23,664 844 107,229 104,031 226,637 556 Jerome Idaho 5,171 0 21,756 7,751 4,025 62 Lemhi Idaho 0 39,380 0 8,521 10,170 0 Lincoln Idaho 2,093 0 6,552 12,035 50,050 62 Owyhee Idaho 20,011 86,658 104,867 411,322 1,174,541 4,633 Payette Idaho 12,667 2,612 39,963 159,559 41,392 1,173 Twin Falls Idaho 5,831 453 33,579 50,096 30,445 310 Valley Idaho 3,577 735,764 124 75,919 214,516 0 Washington Idaho 9,404 117,440 30,869 199,095 549,927 611 Baker Oregon 6,354 41,817 3,818 48,107 418,567 0 Malheur Oregon 40,403 24,951 126,640 491,460 1,626,267 29,037 Domain Total 370,227 3,469,242 837,215 3,473,078 6,524,066 64,545



### Figure 3-8. Mean Soil pH for the DEQ Modeling Domain from the STATSGO Database2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-68 Mansell, 2003a; Chitjian and Mans ell, 2003b; Mansell, 2005). The county level activity data were used in conjunction with the emission factors and environmental factors described above to generate a gridded inventory of ammonia emissions on the DEQ 4-km resolution modeling domain. The gridded emission inventory wa s temporally resolved hourly.

The modeling system applied gridding surrogate s (described below) to the county-level emission estimates on an annual basis (or monthly for fertilizer applica tion emissions). The effects of soil pH on the emission factors for fert ilizer application were applied to the annual gridded ammonia emission estimates. Other envi ronmental factors were incorporated in the temporal allocation modules since these factors im pact the diurnal variation of emissions through gridded, hourly temperatures and wind speeds. For natural soil emissions estimates, the effects of soil conditions (pH and moistu re) and meteorological data we re both incorporated in the emissions estimates during the temporal allocation process.
Spatial Surrogate
The GIS model used for estimating ammonia em issions applied gridded spatial surrogates to county-level activity and emissi on factor data to generate gri dded hourly emission estimates. Spatial surrogates were developed based on popul ation and land use/land cover data. The land use data used for the project was processed fo r developing spatial surr ogates through aggregation
of individual land use classes in to more broadly defined clas ses for spatial allocation of emissions. The spatial surrogate codes, associated land use classes and descriptions, as used in the model, are presented in Table 3-35 and disp layed graphically in Figure 3-7 above. Each ammonia emission source category considered was then cross-referenced to the appropriate spatial surrogate code (b oth primary and secondary surrogate assignments), as shown in Table 3- 36. It should be noted that for beef and dairy cattle emissions, spatial su rrogates were only used for the portions of the domain within Washington . Within Idaho, beef and dairy cattle were spatially allocated based on the gr idded distribution of dairies and feedlots, as discussed above.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-69 Table 3-35. Land Use/Surrogate Cross-Reference Surrogate Number CDL Classes Description 

### 1 1 Urban 2 2 Barren 3 3 Deciduous Forest 4 4 Evergreen Forest 5 5 Mixed Forest 6 6 Shrublands 7 7 Grasslands 8 8 Wetlands 9 9 Grass + Pasture 10 10 Agricultural 11 3-10,12 Rural 12 12 Fallow 13 13 Water 14 3-5,7 Forest + Shrub + Grasslands
Table 3-36. Source Category/Surrogate Cross-Reference

Source category Primary Surrogate Code and Description Secondary Surrogate Code and Description Fertilizers 10 – Agricultural 11 – Rural Livestock – Dairy & Beef Cattle 9 – Grass + Pasture 11 – Rural Livestock – Other 9 – Grass + Pasture 11 – Rural Domestic Respiration Population Population Native Soils – Urban 1 – Urban 1 – Urban Native Soils – Barren 2 – Barren 2 – Barren Native Soils – Deciduous Forest 3 – Deciduous Forest 3 – Deciduous Forest Native Soils – Evergreen Forest 4 – Ev ergreen Forest 4 – Evergreen Forest Native Soils – Mixed Forest 5 – Mixed Forest 5 – Mixed Forest Native Soils – Shrubland 6 – Shrublands 5 – Mixed Forest Native Soils – Grassland 7 – Grasslands 7 – Grasslands Native Soils – Fallow 12 – Fallow 12 – Fallow Native Soils – Urban Grass 1 – Urban 1 – Urban Native Soils – Wetlands 8 – Wetlands 8 – Wetlands Wild Animals 14 – Forest + Shrub + Grassl ands 14 – Forest + Shrub + Grasslands



### Emission Results

The GIS NH 3 

### model was applied using the data as described above for each day in calendar year 2008 on the 4-km modeling domain. For reporting purposes, the hourly, gridded emissions were aggregated to the county level using a GIS processing approach. For each county border-line grid cell, emissions were distributed among the countie s intersecting the grid cell in proportion to the area of each of thes e counties within the grid cell.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-70 Annual 2008 ammonia emissions by source categor y are presented in Table 3-37 for Ada, Canyon and Elmore counties. Annual emissi ons were calculated by summing hourly emission estimates across all days in calendar year 2008. A comparis on with previous inventories developed for calendar year 2010 by ERG/E NVIRON (ENVIRON and ERG, 2002) shows that
the 2008 annual ammonia emission estimates for the Ada and Canyon counties are relatively
consistent with the current estima tes based on the WRAP GIS-based NH 3 

### model (11,535 tpy from all sources or 8,040 tpy from all non-soil sources versus 6,228 tpy based on previous work not inclusive of soils). Likely reasons for the 30 percent increase in emission estimates are differences in activity data and methodologies.

3.2 Emissions Calculation Met hodologies – Ozone and PM Season


### After the annual area source emissions were estimated using the methodologies described
in the various subsections of Section 3.1, the daily ozone season and PM season emission estimates were developed. The ozone season ex tends from April 1 through October 31 (i.e., 214 days), while the PM season is from November 1 through February 29 (2008 was a leap year) (i.e., 121 days). Wherever possible, Idaho-specific activity/surrogate data were used to develop temporal allocation profiles. If Idaho-specific da ta were not available, then U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions modeling clearinghouse were used instead (U.S. EPA, 2002b).

3.2.1 Fuel Combustion 

### As part of the fuel survey mailed out to fuel dealers and distributors, monthly fuel quantity data were requested. In general, fuel respondents were able to furnish relevant monthly statistics. In a few cases, respondents were contacted by phone to clarify the appropriate seasonal distribution. These monthly fuel quant ity data were used to develop seasonal fuel quantities which were then divided by the numbe r of days in the season resulting in seasonal daily fuel use. As pointed out by several respond ents, it should be noted that the monthly fuel quantity data were based upon fuel deliveries an d not actual consumption. As a result, the reported monthly fuel quantity data probably l ead consumption by a few weeks (i.e., fuel would ordered and stockpiled prior to the winter heating season).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-71 Table 3-37. 2008 Annual Ammonia Emissi ons for Ada, Canyon, and Elmore Counties by Source Category (Tons/Year)

2008 Annual Ammonia Emissions (tpy) SCC Description Ada Canyon Elmore 2805023300 Dairy Cattle 1,554.56 3,187.14 2,369.17 2805003100 Beef Cattle 99.85 137.98 237.15 2805025000 Swine 14.17 11.84 0.43 2805030000 Poultry 0.21 0.74 0.07 2805035000 Horses 34.43 57.54 10.24 2805040000 Sheep 2.67 28.99 1.06 Total Livestock 1,705.9 3,424.2 2,618.1 9999101002 Native Soils – Urban 26.41 27.04 14.54 9999101003 Native Soils – Barren 0.00 0.00 0.24 9999101004 Native Soils – Deciduous Forest 0.19 0.00 0.02 9999101005 Native Soils – Evergreen Forest 4.92 0.45 103.55 9999101006 Native Soils – Mixed Forest 0.47 0.00 0.00 9999101007 Native Soils – Shrubland 49.55 3.10 100.11 9999101008 Native Soils – Grassland 127.48 22.80 173.45 9999101009 Native Soils – Fallow 19.45 31.57 19.30 9999101010 Native Soils – Urban Grass 1,056.44 1,081.63 581.46 9999101011 Native Soils – Wetlands 6.90 30.11 13.04 Total Native Soils 1,291.8 1,196.7 1,005.7 8888101001 Wild Animals – Black bears 1.26 0.12 4.58 8888101002 Wild Animals – Grizzly bears 0.00 0.00 0.01 8888101003 Wild Animals – Elk 35.08 3.32 127.37 8888101004 Wild Animals – Deer 2.07 0.20 7.55 Total Wild Animals 38.4 3.6 139.5 6906950001 Domestic – Respiration 0.66 0.32 0.05 6906950002 Domestic – Perspiration 104.75 50.58 7.97 6906950006 Domestic – Cloth Diapers 100.78 61.29 8.95 6906950007 Domestic – Disposable Diapers 5.26 3.20 0.47 6906950008 Domestic – Cats 6.43 3.10 0.49 6906950010 Domestic – Dogs 59.72 28.84 4.55 Total Domestic 277.6 147.3 22.5 2801700001 Fertilizer – Anhydrous Ammonia 21.52 109.18 39.05 2801700002 Fertilizer – Aqueous Ammonia 0.61 3.11 1.11 2801700003 Fertilizer – Nitrogen Solutions 45.57 231.23 82.63 2801700004 Fertilizer – Urea 180.39 899.07 311.02 2801700005 Fertilizer – Ammonium Nitrate 10.29 52.24 18.68 2801700006 Fertilizer – Ammonium Sulfate 48.80 247.45 88.54 2801700007 Fertilizer – Ammonium Thiosulfate 2.01 10.20 3.65 2801700009 Fertilizer – All Ammonium Phosphates 261.59 1,326.44 474.30 2801700011 Fertilizer – Calcium Ammonium Nitrate 0.01 0.06 0.02 2801700012 Fertilizer – Potassium Nitrate 0.00 0.01 0.00 Total Fertilizers 570.8 2,879.0 1,019.0 Grand Total 3,884 7,651 4,8052008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-72 3.2.2 Residential Wood Combustion 

### Annual residential wood quanti ties were allocated to the ozone and PM seasons based upon results from the residential wood combus tion survey (Aurora, 2010). The seasonal fractions were derived from survey responses con cerning the number of tim es a particular device (i.e., fireplace, woodstove, insert, or pellet stove) was used each month. Seasonal fractions were estimated for each county and device type. These seasonal fractions were then multiplied by the annual residential wood quantities resulting in seasonal wood quanti ties. Finally, these seasonal wood quantities were then divided by the number of days in each season.

3.2.3 Paved Road Dust 

### The temporal allocation factors developed for on-road motor vehicles using traffic counter data were also used for paved road dust emissions. This is discussed further in Section 4.0. Summer season emission potentials were assumed for the ozone season, while winter season emission potentials were assumed for the PM season. Precipitation adjustment factors were estimated for each season based on the number of days with at least 0.01 inches of rain as
shown in Table 3-4 and Table 3-7.

Seasonal emission estimates by county and road way type are shown in Table 3-38. As shown, emissions are higher in the PM season th an the ozone season due to emissions potentials that were generally higher in the PM season than in the ozone seas on. Although precipitation factors and temporal activity factors have the e ffect of decreasing emissions in the PM season relative to the ozone season, differences in emi ssion potentials cause higher emissions in the PM
season relative to the ozone season.
3.2.4 Unpaved Road Dust 

### Temporal allocation of unpaved road dust emi ssions was performed in the same way as described in Section 3.2.3 for paved road dust. Although it is possible that unpaved road dust temporal allocations may differ from paved road dust allocations, there were no seasonal activity data available specific to unpaved roads. Ther efore, paved road temporal allocations were
assumed. Summer and winter road surface ma terial silt content estimates taken from the
TVRDS were used for the ozone a nd winter season, respectively.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-73 Emission estimates by county are presented in Table 3-39. As noted in Section 3.1.4, Elmore County contains the highest unpaved ro adway mileage and the highest unpaved road dust emission estimates of all counties in the Treasure Valley. Ozone season emission estimates are considerably higher than PM season emission esti mates due to seasonal precipitation adjustments and higher estimated activity le vels in the ozone season.

Table 3-38. 2008 Seasonal Paved Road Dust Emission Estimates PM Season (TPD) Ozone Season (TPD) Roadway Type PM 10 PM 2.5 PM 10 PM 2.5 Ada County Rural Principal Arterial – Interstate 2.8 0.2 2.1 0.1 Rural Major Collector 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 Rural Minor Arterial 1.5 0.1 1.2 0.1 Rural Local System 4.8 0.3 5.1 0.3 Urban Principal Arterial – Interstate 21.4 1.2 15.8 0.9 Urban Principal Arterial – Other Freeways or Expressways 3.2 0.2 2.4 0.1 Urban Principal Arterial – Other 30.3 1.7 22.4 1.3 Urban Collector 5.1 0.3 3.8 0.2 Urban Minor Arterial 20.5 1.2 15.2 0.9 Urban Local System 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 Urban Ramp 1.5 0.1 1.1 0.1 Total 91.7 5.2 69.2 3.9 Canyon County Rural Principal Arterial – Interstate 1.8 0.1 1.3 0.1 Rural Major Collector 1.3 0.1 1.1 0.1 Rural Minor Arterial 2.3 0.1 1.7 0.1 Rural Local System 2.1 0.1 3.5 0.2 Urban Principal Arterial – Interstate 7.0 0.4 6.3 0.4 Urban Principal Arterial – Other Freeways or Expressways 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 Urban Principal Arterial – Other 8.6 0.5 8.1 0.5 Urban Collector 1.3 0.1 1.2 0.1 Urban Minor Arterial 4.5 0.3 4.3 0.2 Urban Local System 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 Urban Ramp 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 Total 30.3 1.7 28.7 1.6 Elmore County Rural Interstate 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Rural Local 2.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 Rural Principal Arterial 2.4 0.6 1.0 0.2 Total 5.1 1.2 1.7 0.32008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-74 Table 3-39. 2008 Seasonal Unpaved Road Dust Emission Estimates PM Season (TPD) Ozone Season (TPD) County PM 10 PM 2.5 PM 10 PM 2.5 Ada 1.65 0.09 3.03 0.17 Canyon 0.28 0.02 0.52 0.03 Elmore 3.44 0.34 12.20 1.21 Totals 5.36 0.45 15.75 1.41


### 3.2.5 Commercial Cooking 

### No definite seasonality could be estab lished for the five commercial cooking subcategories. Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally distributed throughout the year, so seasonal daily emissions were ca lculated by dividing annual emissions by 366.

3.2.6 Construction 

### Inclement weather can possibly affect constructi on activities in the winter. The seasonal profile for construction activitie s was developed using precipitation adjustme nt factors based on the number of days with at least 0.01 inches of rain as shown in Table 3-4 and Table 3-7. For any day with precipitation, it was assumed that e ither construction activity did not occur or that
the construction activities did occur did not have emissions due to wet soil.
3.2.7 Architectural Surface Coatings 

### Idaho-specific temporal usage patterns we re not identified for architectural surface coatings. Therefore, the U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions modeling clearinghouse were used for architectural surface coati ng (U.S. EPA, 2002b). This temporal allocation profile is shown in Table 3-40.
Table 3-40. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Architectural Surface Coating

Category Profile ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ozone Factor PM Factor Architectural Surface Coating 199 82 82 81 81 81 85 85 85 85 85 85 82 0.5876 0.3313


### 3.2.8 Traffic Markings


### Local staff at the Idaho Tr ansportation Department and the Canyon Highway District were contacted regarding the seasonality of traffic marking applica tion (Morrison, 2010b; Newlun, 2010; Richard, 2010c). These staff indicat ed that generally traffic marking application2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-75 corresponds with the ozone season months and is not conducted during th e winter (i.e., PM season). Therefore, daily ozone season traffi c marking emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days).
3.2.9 Industrial Surface Coating 

### Idaho-specific temporal usage patterns were not identified for industrial surface coating. Therefore, the U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions modeling clearinghouse were used for the 13 industrial su rface subcategories (U.S. EPA, 2002b). The assignment of these temporal allocation profiles is shown in Table 3-41. The monthly values shown in Table 3-41 represent the monthly fractiona l value out of an annual total of 1,000. The
ozone season and PM season factors are calculat ed by summing up the monthly fractional values for the respective seasons and then dividing by 1,000.
Table 3-41. Temporal Allocation Prof ile Assignments for Industrial Surface Coating Subcategories

Subcategory Profile ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ozone Factor PM Factor Factory Finished Wood 173 81 81 82 82 82 86 86 86 85 85 85 81 0.5908 0.3273 Wood Furniture 287 84 84 79 79 79 84 84 84 86 86 86 84 0.5826 0.3383 Metal Furniture 287 84 84 79 79 79 84 84 84 86 86 86 84 0.5826 0.3383 Paper 257 83 83 82 82 82 84 84 84 84 84 84 83 0.5846 0.3333 Plastic Products 200 82 82 81 81 81 86 86 86 85 85 85 82 0.5888 0.3303 Miscellaneous Finished Metals 253 83 83 81 81 81 84 84 84 85 85 85 83 0.5846 0.3343 Machinery and Equipment 253 83 83 81 81 81 84 84 84 85 85 85 83 0.5846 0.3343 Electronic and Other Electrical 253 83 83 81 81 81 84 84 84 85 85 85 83 0.5846 0.3343 Motor Vehicles 140 80 80 79 79 79 87 87 87 87 87 87 80 0.5936 0.3273 Aircraft 169 81 81 80 80 80 87 87 87 86 86 86 81 0.5918 0.3283 Marine 266 83 83 83 83 83 84 84 84 83 83 83 83 0.5846 0.3323 Railroad 169 81 81 80 80 80 87 87 87 86 86 86 81 0.5918 0.3283 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 260 83 83 82 82 82 85 85 85 85 85 85 83 0.5861 0.3323


### 3.2.10 Degreasing 

### Idaho-specific temporal usage patterns were not identified for degreasing. Therefore, the U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions modeling clearinghouse were used for degreasing (U.S. EPA, 2002b). Unlike industrial surface coating, the same temporal allocation profile was assigned to all of the degr easing subcategories. This temporal allocation profile is shown in Table 3-42.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-76 Table 3-42. Temporal Allocati on Profile Assignment for Degreasing

Category Profile ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ozone Factor PM Factor Degreasing 253 83 83 81 81 81 84 84 84 85 85 85 83 0.5846 0.3343


### 3.2.11 Other Per Employee Em ission Factor Source Categories 

### No Idaho-specific seasonality could be esta blished for two of the per employee emission factor source categories (i.e., au tobody refinishing and industrial refrigeration/cold storage). Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally distributed th roughout the year, so seasonal daily emissions were calcula ted by dividing annual emissions by 366.

For graphic arts, the U.S. EPA’s default tem poral allocation profiles from its emissions modeling clearinghouse were used (U .S. EPA, 2002b). This temporal allocation profile is shown
in Table 3-43.
Table 3-43. Temporal Allocation Pr ofile Assignment for Graphic Arts

Category Profile ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ozone Factor PM Factor Graphic Arts 257 83 83 82 82 82 84 84 84 84 84 84 83 0.5846 0.3333



### 3.2.12 Bakeries and Consumer Solvents 

### No Idaho-specific seasonality could be esta blished for the per capita emission factor source categories (i.e., consumer bakeries and solvents). Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally distri buted throughout the year, so seasonal daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366.
3.2.13 Dry Cleaning 

### Although the dry cleaning survey include d a question regard ing month-to-month variations, almost all of the dry cleaning facilities that returned the survey did not respond to this question. Therefore, the U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions modeling clearinghouse were used for dry cleaning (U.S. EPA, 2002b). This temporal allocation profile is shown in Table 3-44.
Table 3-44. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Dry Cleaning

Category Profile ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ozone Factor PM Factor Dry Cleaning 199 82 82 81 81 81 85 85 85 85 85 85 82 0.5876 0.33132008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-77 3.2.14 Asphalt Application


### Local staff at the Idaho Tr ansportation Department and the Canyon Highway District were contacted regarding the seasonality of as phalt application (Morri son, 2010b; Newlun, 2010; Richard, 2010b). These staff i ndicated that generally asphalt application corresponds with the ozone season months and is not conducted during the winter (i.e., PM seas on). Therefore, daily ozone season asphalt emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days).
3.2.15 Pesticide Application 

### As discussed below in Section 3.2.20, it wa s assumed that all tilling and harvesting activities occur during the ozone season. Based upon this assumption, it is also reasonable to assume that most pesticide application also occu rs during the ozone season (i.e., between tilling and harvesting). The crop profiles examined dur ing the development of the annual pesticide application emissions indicate onl y minimal amounts of pre-planting or off-season pesticide use. Daily emissions were calculated by dividing a nnual emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days).

3.2.16 Gasoline Distribution 

### The gasoline distribution statistics were originally prov ided on a monthly basis. These monthly gasoline quantities were then used to develop seasonal gasoline quantities which were then divided by the number of days in the seas on resulting in seasona l daily gasoline use.

3.2.17 Wastewat er Treatment 

### As part of the fuel survey mailed out to wastewater treatment facilities, monthly treatment quantities were requested . In general, the treatment facilities were able to furnish relevant monthly statistics. In a few cases, re spondents were contacted by phone to clarify the appropriate seasonal distribution. These monthly treatment quant ities were used to develop seasonal treatment quantities which were then divided by the number of days in the season resulting in seasonal daily treatment quantities.

3.2.18 Landfills 

### Although emissions from landfills are affected by the landfill gas temperature, it was not clear what the relationship between landfill gas temperature and ambient temperature was.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-78 Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally distributed th roughout the year, so seasonal daily emissions were calcula ted by dividing annual emissions by 366.
3.2.19 Open Burning (Yard Waste and Household Waste) 

### No definite seasonality could be establis hed for the open burning of yard waste and household waste. Therefore, it was assumed th at emissions were equa lly distributed throughout the year, so seasonal daily emissions were calcu lated by dividing annual emissions by 366. It is possible that an announced burn ban might prev ent open burning on a particular day with poor air quality, but the open burning w ould likely only be postponed to the next allowable burn day and would not significantly affect the overall tem poral profile. It is also possible that an announced burn ban might also be ignored.
3.2.20 Agricultural Tilling and Harvesting 

### Based upon the Idaho Crop Progress and Condition Reports issued by the National Agricultural Statistics Serv ice (NASS, 2009b), the weekly cr op progress (from April 6 to October 28) was identified. These weekly pr ogress reports indicate regional climate, crop growth progress, and percent plan ted and harvested for the primary Idaho crops in four different regions. Nearly all of the Ida ho crops within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties are planted and harvested during the crop progr ess reporting period. Since th e crop progress reporting period very closely corresponds to the ozone season, it was assumed that all tilling and harvesting activities occur during the ozone season. Daily emissions were calcul ated by dividing annual emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days).
3.2.21 Agricultural Burning – Fields 

### As indicated in Section 3.1.21, agricultu ral field burning was only allowed between September 1 and October 31, 2008. Daily emi ssions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days).
3.2.22 Agricultural Burning – Irrigation Ditches 

### As indicated in Section 3.1.22, irrigation di tch burning is typically conducted during the
month of March. Since March is not included in either the ozone season or PM season, no daily
seasonal emissions were calculated.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-79 3.2.23 Beef Cattle Feedlots 

### No definite seasonality could be established for beef cattle feedlots. Therefore, it was
assumed that emissions were e qually distributed throughout the ye ar, so seasonal daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366.

3.2.24 Other Fires 

### The Idaho Fire Incident Reporting System (IFIRS) did not provide any seasonal
distribution of structure fi res or vehicles. Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally distributed throughout the year, so seasonal dail y emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366.

3.2.25 Windblown Dust 

### As discussed in Section 3.1.25, annual emissions were calculated by summing hourly emission estimates across all days in calendar year 2008. Ozone season day emissions were calculated by summing all hourly estimates across a ll days in the season (April through October) and dividing by the total number of days in the ozone season. Similarly, PM season emission estimates were obtained by summing across a ll hours from November through February and dividing by the total number of days in the PM season.

3.2.26 Ammonia Emissions 

### As discussed in Section 3.1.26, the GIS NH 3 

### model was run for each day in the 2008 calendar year on the 4-km modeling domain. Annual emissions were calculated by summing hourly emission estimates across all days in ca lendar year 2008. Ozone season day emissions were calculated by summing all hourly estimates across all days in the season (April through October) and dividing by the total number of days in the ozone season. Similarly, PM season emission estimates were obtained by summing acro ss all hours from November through February and dividing by the total number of days in the PM season.

3.3 Emission Results 

### The 2008 annual area source emissions are pres ented in Table 3-45 (all counties), 3-46 (Ada County), 3-47 (Canyon County), and 3-48 (Elm ore County). These emissions have been presented for aggregated source categories. Detailed 2008 annual area source emission inventories are presented in Appendix G.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-80 Table 3-45. Summarized 2008 Annual Ar ea Source Emissions – All Counties

Aggregated Source Category NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) Industrial Combustion 269 2 13 194 19 17 9 Commercial/Institutional Combustion 311 11 15 226 22 22 4 Residential Combustion (excluding wood) 689 5 39 280 53 52 129 Residential Wood Combustion 269 33 2,760 14,774 2,712 2,712 0 Commercial Cooking 0 0 191 600 1,201 1,133 0 Other Industrial Activities a 0 0 104 0 161 16 51 Industrial Surface Coating 0 0 3,235 0 0 0 0 Other Surface Coating b 0 0 1,245 0 0 0 0 Degreasing 0 0 7,383 0 0 0 0 Consumer Solvents 0 0 2,142 0 0 0 0 Other Solvent Application c 0 0 1,541 0 0 0 0 Gasoline Transport and Distribution 0 0 1,397 0 0 0 0 Open Burning 9 2 70 262 87 82 0 Other Fires 1 0 5 23 7 7 0 Waste Disposal d 0 0 88 0 0 0 1 Agricultural Burning 0 0 20 174 31 31 0 Other Agricultural e 0 0 1,953 0 1,408 387 0 Paved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 38,237 2,392 0 Unpaved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 3,779 327 0 Windblown Dust 0 0 0 0 27,214 2,722 0 Ammonia - Fertilizer 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,469 Ammonia - Livestock 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,748 Ammonia - Domestic Ammonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 447 Ammonia - Wild Animals 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 Ammonia - Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,494 Total 1,547 52 22,201 16,533 74,931 9,900 16,534

a Includes bakeries, construction, and industrial refrigeration. b Includes architectural surface coating, aut obody refinishing, an d traffic markings.

c Includes dry cleaning, graphic arts, asphalt application, and pesticides application. d Includes landfills and wastewater treatment.

e Includes agricultural tilling, agricultural harvesting, and beef cattle feedlots.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-81 Table 3-46. Summarized 2008 Annual Area Source Emissions – Ada County

Aggregated Source Category NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) Industrial Combustion 110 1 5 80 8 7 4 Commercial/Institutional Combustion 225 8 11 168 16 16 2 Residential Combustion (excluding wood) 463 3 27 194 37 37 94 Residential Wood Combustion 122 15 1,239 6,713 1,208 1,208 0 Commercial Cooking 0 0 145 455 912 860 0 Other Industrial Activities a 0 0 67 0 94 9 10 Industrial Surface Coating 0 0 2,229 0 0 0 0 Other Surface Coating b 0 0 889 0 0 0 0 Degreasing 0 0 4,749 0 0 0 0 Consumer Solvents 0 0 1,374 0 0 0 0 Other Solvent Application c 0 0 837 0 0 0 0 Gasoline Transport and Distribution 0 0 887 0 0 0 0 Open Burning 0 0 9 47 10 10 0 Other Fires 0 0 3 13 4 4 0 Waste Disposal d 0 0 63 0 0 0 1 Agricultural Burning 0 0 5 44 8 8 0 Other Agricultural e 0 0 425 0 185 49 0 Paved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 26,669 1,520 0 Unpaved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 966 55 0 Windblown Dust 0 0 0 0 8,606 861 0 Ammonia - Fertilizer 0 0 0 0 0 0 571 Ammonia - Livestock 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,706 Ammonia - Domestic Ammonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 Ammonia - Wild Animals 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 Ammonia - Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,292 Total 921 27 12,963 7,715 38,723 4,644 3,995

a Includes bakeries, construction, and industrial refrigeration. b Includes architectural surface coating, au tobody refinishing, and traffic markings.

c Includes dry cleaning, graphi c arts, asphalt application, and pesticides application. d Includes landfills and wastewater treatment.

e Includes agricultural tilling, agricultural harvesting, and beef cattle feedlots.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-82

Table 3-47. Summarized 2008 Annual Ar ea Source Emissions – Canyon County Aggregated Source Category NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) Industrial Combustion 156 1 7 112 11 10 5 Commercial/Institutional Combustion 71 2 3 51 5 5 1 Residential Combustion (excluding wood) 195 2 10 74 14 13 31 Residential Wood Combustion 123 14 1,269 6,670 1,251 1,251 0 Commercial Cooking 0 0 39 123 246 232 0 Other Industrial Activities a 0 0 32 0 59 6 39 Industrial Surface Coating 0 0 905 0 0 0 0 Other Surface Coating b 0 0 327 0 0 0 0 Degreasing 0 0 2,403 0 0 0 0 Consumer Solvents 0 0 663 0 0 0 0 Other Solvent Application c 0 0 539 0 0 0 0 Gasoline Transport and Distribution 0 0 428 0 0 0 0 Open Burning 1 0 16 73 19 19 0 Other Fires 0 0 2 8 3 3 0 Waste Disposal d 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 Agricultural Burning 0 0 13 111 20 20 0 Other Agricultural e 0 0 829 0 720 206 0 Paved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 10,315 588 0 Unpaved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 165 9 0 Windblown Dust 0 0 0 0 888 89 0 Ammonia - Fertilizer 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,879 Ammonia - Livestock 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,424 Ammonia - Domestic Ammonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 Ammonia - Wild Animals 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Ammonia - Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,197 Total 546 19 7,508 7,222 13,716 2,450 7,727

a Includes bakeries, construction, and industrial refrigeration. b Includes architectural surface coating, aut obody refinishing, an d traffic markings.

c Includes dry cleaning, graphic arts, asphalt application, and pesticides application. d Includes landfills and wastewater treatment.

e Includes agricultural tilling, agricultural harvesting, and beef cattle feedlots.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-83

Table 3-48. Summarized 2008 Annual Ar ea Source Emissions – Elmore County Aggregated Source Category NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) Industrial Combustion 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 Commercial/Institutional Combustion 14 1 0 7 1 1 0 Residential Combustion (excluding wood) 30 0 2 12 2 2 4 Residential Wood Combustion 25 3 252 1,391 254 254 0 Commercial Cooking 0 0 7 22 44 41 0 Other Industrial Activities a 0 0 5 0 8 1 3 Industrial Surface Coating 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 Other Surface Coating b 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 Degreasing 0 0 231 0 0 0 0 Consumer Solvents 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 Other Solvent Application c 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 Gasoline Transport and Distribution 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 Open Burning 8 1 46 142 57 53 0 Other Fires 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Waste Disposal d 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Agricultural Burning 0 0 2 19 3 3 0 Other Agricultural e 0 0 698 0 502 133 0 Paved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 1,253 284 0 Unpaved Road Dust 0 0 0 0 2,648 262 0 Windblown Dust 0 0 0 0 17,720 1,772 0 Ammonia - Fertilizer 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,019 Ammonia - Livestock 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,618 Ammonia - Domestic Ammonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Ammonia – Wild Animals 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 Ammonia - Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,006 Total 80 6 1,730 1,596 22,492 2,806 4,812

a Includes bakeries, construction, and industrial refrigeration. b Includes architectural surface coating, aut obody refinishing, an d traffic markings.

c Includes dry cleaning, graphic arts, asphalt application, and pesticides application. d Includes landfills and wastewater treatment.

e Includes agricultural tilling, agricultural harvesting, and beef cattle feedlots.


### 3.4 QA/QC Procedures 

### For the area source inventory development, the procedures described in the project IPP/QAP (ERG and ENVIRON, 2009) were used to check, and correct when necessary, the area
source emission estimates. Area source emi ssions were estimated using calculational spreadsheets. Separate spreadsheets were developed for each area source category; these category-specific spreadsheets were then linked to a summary spreadsheet. The calculational2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 3-84 spreadsheets were well-documented and clearly identify the source of various activity data. All emission calculations were internally checked by senior ERG staff and reviewed by the project QA/QC manager. Special attention was paid to the source categories for which a survey was conducted (i.e., fuel dealers and distributors, dry cleaners, wastewater treatment, and landfills). After obtaining the returned survey forms in s canned PDF format, ERG ma nually transcribed the
data into an Access database us ing a front-end form. All input data were checked against the returned survey forms by senior ERG staff for accuracy.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-1 4.0 2008 ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE SO URCE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES


### On-road mobile source emissions were estimate d for eight vehicle classes shown in Table 4-1. Emissions were estimated using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) activity data and emission
factors from U.S. EPA’s MOBILE6 vehicle mode l. For Ada and Canyon counties, the emissions were estimated on a link basis using the CONC EPT-MV model and output from the COMPASS transportation demand model (TDM) for the Boise metropolitan area. For Elmore County, emissions were estimated using county-wide VMT data. U.S. EPA recently (December 2009) released a entirely new vehicle emissions m odel, the MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator 2010 (MOVES2010) (U.S. EPA, 2010c ). MOVES is now the official U.S. EPA vehicle emissions
model to be used in SIP mode ling; it will completely replace its predecessor model MOBILE6 after a grace period for SIPs that were already in progress at the time of the new model’s release. The emissions reported here were estimated us ing MOBILE6, but DEQ has initiated work with MOVES to ultimately replace MOBILE6-based emissions.

Table 4-1. On-Road Mo tor Vehicle Categories

ALVW = adjusted loaded vehicle weight GVWR = gross vehicle weight rating LVW = loaded vehicle weight



### On-road motor vehicle emissions were esti mated for Ada, Canyon and Elmore counties as part of the Treasure Valley Airshed emissi on inventory analysis. ENVIRON generated the episodic on-road mobile source emissions from February 1, 2008 to February 15, 2008 using CONCEPT-MV for Ada and Canyon County; transf erred the entire CO NCEPT-MV setup and code to DEQ; and trained DEQ staff to run CONCEPT-MV. DEQ then ran CONCEPT-MV for other time periods in 2008 and future years a nd estimated annual and average PM and ozone season day emissions for 2008, 2015 and 2023. E NVIRON performed a separate analysis for

Abbreviation Description LDGV Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (Passenger Cars) LDGT1 Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks (0-6,000 lbs. GVWR, 0-5750 lbs LVW) LDGT2 Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks (6,001-8,500 lbs. GVWR, 0 to >5761 lbs. ALVW) HDGV Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (8,501 to >60,000 lbs. GVWR) LDDV Light-Duty Diesel Ve hicles (Passenger Cars) LDDT Light-Duty Diesel Trucks (0-8,500 lbs. GVWR) HDDV Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (8,501 to >60,000 lbs. GVWR) MC Motorcycles (gasoline)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-2 Elmore County using emission factors from MOBILE6 and county-level VMT provided by DEQ in order to estimate annual and average PM and ozone season day emissions for 2008, 2015, and 2023. The future year methodology and results for 2015 and 2023 are discussed in Section 7.0.

There were various data required to estimat e emissions from on-road motor vehicles including transportation network in formation and traffic counts for developing temporal profiles,
These data are described below.

Boise Transportation Network and Temporal Profiles

The CONCEPT-MV model calcul ates motor vehicle emissions on an hourly basis by vehicle class. The primary source of activity data comes from tran sportation demand model (TDM) output, which is typically provided for multi-hour periods (e.g., annual average weekday for am peak/pm peak/off-peak, etc.). The 2008 tr ansportation network data used for the Boise network were provided by the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS). The traffic volume link data fr om the COMPASS TDM were provided as 24-hour daily total (Waldinger, 2009).
CONCEPT used total volume hourly profiles to split the multi-hour period (i.e., daily in Boise’s case) volumes into hourly volumes per li nk. The total volume temporal profiles were specified by roadway type, hour of day, day of week, and month. Temporal allocation was applied to the VMT, volume, and capacity data. CONCEPT then split the hourly VMT into the eight vehicle classes listed in Table 4-1 using vehicle mix tempor al profiles, which are specified on an hourly basis by roadway type, month, and day of week.
Total Volume Temporal Profiles
The data used in developing the tempor al profiles were provided by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) (Fugit, 2010). The data consis ted of twelve months of 2009 observations from automatic traffic recorder (A TR) data in the Boise region. The ATR data
consisted of fifteen-minute counts of vehicles by length bin and lane. The length bins included Bin 1 (0-5.9 feet), Bin 2 (6-22.9 feet), Bin 3 (23-39.9 feet), Bin 4 (40-69.9 feet), and Bin 5 (greater than 70 feet). Descriptions of the ATR sites used in the analysis are provided in Table
4-2.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-3 Table 4-2. Automatic Traffic Recorder Si tes Used in Temporal Profile Analysis

ATR # Name Route FHWA Road Type Description FHWA Road Type Code 272 Star Rd STC 3770 Rural Minor Arterial 6 9 Caldwell SH 19 Rural Minor Arterial 6 274 Firebird SH 16 Rural Principle Arterial 2 263 Overland W.B. I 84 Urban Interstate 11 262 Orchard W.B. I 84 Urban Interstate 11 261 Orchard E.B. I 84 Urban Interstate 11 165 Broadway IC EB I 84 Urban Interstate 11 94 West Nampa I 84 Urban Interstate 11 271 Linder Rd STC 3781 Urban Minor Arterial 16 275 McMillan SH 55 Urban Principle Arterial 14 236 H-P US 20 Urban Principle Arterial 14



### The ATR data used consisted of all twelve months in 2009 with the exception of January 2008 at ATR sites 272, 274, and 275. These site s experienced equipment trouble during that month, so the January observati ons from 2008 were substituted.

The roadway type definitions used in CO NCEPT-MV are those of the FHWA roadway classification system, shown in Table 4-3. Th e temporal profiles were constructed for these roadway classes, and the TDM data were also mapped to these classes.

Table 4-3. FHWA Ro adway Classifications FHWA Road Type Description Rural 01 Principal Arterial – Interstate 02 Principal Arterial – Other 06 Minor Arterial 07 Major Collector 08 Minor Collector 09 Local System 

### Urban 11 Principal Arterial – Interstate 12 Principal Arterial

– Other Freeways or Expressways 14 Principal Arterial – Other 16 Minor Arterial 17 Collector 19 Local System



### Not all FHWA roadway types were measured in the ATR data; in cases where there were no data, the temporal profiles ge nerated from the closest roadway type were assigned to the2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-4 missing types. Table 4-4 displays the roadwa y type assignment for these missing classes of
roads.
Table 4-4. Assignment of Temporal Profiles to Missing Roadway Types Missing Road Type Substitute Road Type Rural Interstates (1) Urban Interstates (11) Rural Major Collectors (7) Rural Minor Arterials (6) Rural Minor Collector (8) Rural Minor Arterials (6) Rural Local (9) Rural Minor Arterials (6) Urban Other Freeway or Expressway (12) Urban Interstates (11) Urban Collector(17) Urban Minor Arterials (16) Urban Local (19) Urban Minor Arterials (16)



### The steps followed in generating the total volume profiles were as follows:
1) The vehicle counts were summed over all leng th bins, lanes, and 15 minute intervals in each hour. 2) Each observation hour was checked for comp leteness; partial hours (less than four 15 minute intervals) were dropped from the analysis. 3) Each observation day was checked for completeness; days with fewer than 24 complete hours of observations were dropped. 4) Each month at each site was checked for comp leteness; a month of data at a site was dropped if fewer than all seven days of the week were observed. Note that there were no incomplete site-months in these data, and so none were dropped. 5) Average hourly counts by day of week a nd month were calculated at each site. 6) Average hourly counts were tabulated across all sites for each roadway type. The reason for tabulating the average hourly counts at each site prior to averaging across sites was so that each site is weighted equally. Sites with more observations were not given greater weight than sites with fewer observations in a month. 7) The hourly profiles were calculated for each month, day of week, and roadway type as the fraction of the daily total. 8) The day of week profiles were calculated for each month and roadway type as the fraction of the weekly total. 9) Prior to calculating the annual temporal prof iles, sites with fewe r than 12 months of complete observations (with all seven days of the week represented) were dropped from the analysis. In this case, sites 165 and 262 were dropped from the analysis. 10) The monthly temporal profiles were calcula ted by roadway type as the fraction of the annual total.
An example of the hourly temporal profiles for urban interstates is presented in Figure 4-1, where the profiles are from Sunday through Saturday (going from left to right). For each day of the week and month, the profiles su m to 1.0. In this figure, the morning and afternoon peaks are clearly visible Monday through Friday (i.e ., the middle five days in the figure).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-5 Boise Hourly Profiles for Urban Interstates (Function Class 11)

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 HourFraction of Total Traffic Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec



### Figure 4-1. Hourly Temporal Profiles for Urban Interstates



### An example of the day of week profiles for ur ban interstates is pres ented in Figure 4-2. The profiles show a small peak on Fridays, less traffic on Saturdays, and even less on Sundays. In these profiles, the profiles sum to 1 across the days of week for each month.

An example of the monthly temporal profiles fo r all roadway types is presented in Figure 4-3. In general, there is great er traffic during summer months.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-6 Figure 4-2. Day of Week Temporal Profiles for Urban Interstates

Figure 4-3. Monthly Temporal Profiles by Roadway Type for Boise Boise Day of Week Profiles for Urban Interstates (Function Class 11)

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat DayFraction of Total Traffic Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Boise Monthly Profiles by Facility Class

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MonthFraction of Total Traffic Rural Principal Arterial

Rural Minor Arterial

Urban Interstate

Urban Principal Arterial

Urban Minor Arterial2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-7 Vehicle Classification Temporal Profiles

The vehicle mix profiles were used to provide hourly estimates of vehi cle type, especially of heavy and light-duty vehicl e types that are matched with MOBILE6 emission factors. CONCEPT requires only hourly vehicle mix profile s, but they must be specified for each roadway type by day of the week and month of the year. The vehicle mix profiles were generated using the same vehicle length data pr ovided by ITD as that used to create the total volume temporal profiles. The vehicle lengths we re converted to the MOBILE vehicle classes in a two-step process. First, the lengths were ma pped to FHWA vehicle classes (defined in Table 4-5), and then the FHWA vehicle classes were mapped to the MOBILE classes (using the matrix displayed in Table 4-6) . A detailed discussion of the de velopment of the cross-reference assignments of the FHWA vehicle classes to the MOBILE classes has been developed by U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA, 2007).

Table 4-5. FHWA Ve hicle Classifications FHWA Class VTRIS Vehicle Type 1 Motorcycle 2 Passenger cars 3 Other 2-axle, 4-tire single unit vehicles 4 Buses 5 2-axle, 6-tire single-unit vehicles 6 3-axle, 6-tire single-unit vehicles 7 4+ axle single-unit vehicles 8 4 or less axle combination vehicles 9 5-axle combination vehicles 10 6+ axle combination vehicles 11 5-axle multi-trailer vehicles 12 6-axle multi-trailer vehicles 13 7+ axle multi-trailer vehicles 14 Unclassified 15 Unclassifiable2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-8 Table 4-6. Fractional A llocation of FHWA Vehicle Classes to MOBILE Vehicle Classes
FHWA

Class LDGV LDGT1 LDGT2 HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0.52225 0.35340 0.11183 0.00748 0.00085 0.00180 0.00238 0 3 0.51365 0.34758 0.11956 0.00689 0.00084 0.00190 0.00957 0 4 0 0 0 0.16928 0 0 0.83072 0 5 0 0.24070 0.19405 0.12262 0 0.00287 0.43976 0 6 0 0.24070 0.19405 0.12262 0 0.00287 0.43976 0 7 0 0.24070 0.19405 0.12262 0 0.00287 0.43976 0 8 0 0.00031 0.00701 0.02044 0 0.00010 0.97214 0 9 0 0.00031 0.00701 0.02044 0 0.00010 0.97214 0 10 0 0.00031 0.00701 0.02044 0 0.00010 0.97214 0 11 0 0.00031 0.00701 0.02044 0 0.00010 0.97214 0 12 0 0.00031 0.00701 0.02044 0 0.00010 0.97214 0 13 0 0.00031 0.00701 0.02044 0 0.00010 0.97214 0



### ITD provided the mapping of the length data to the FHWA classes as follows:

• ITD Length Bin 1 (0-5.9 feet) – C ondensed Class 1 (Motorcycles)

• ITD Length Bin 2 (6-22.9 feet) – Condens ed Class 2 and Class 3 (Small cars and trucks)

• ITD Length Bin 3 (23-39.9 feet) – Condens ed Class 5-7 (Single unit trucks, small truck/trailer combinations)

• ITD Length Bins 4 and 5 (40-69.9 feet, 70 f eet and over) – Condensed Class 8-13 (Large trucks and combinations)
This information was nearly sufficient to complete the mapping of the length data to the
FHWA classes. The FHWA Cla ss groups 5-7 and 8-13 were mapped with the same fractions to
the MOBILE classes in Table 4-6. However, FHWA Classes 2 and 3 were split differently. In order to split Classes 2 and 3, the relative fr actions of Classes 2 and 3 in the 2000 national Vehicle Travel Information System (VTRIS) datase t were used by roadway type. These relative splits are presented in Table 4-7. The split factor s for rural road types 8 and 9 were set equal to that of Class 7, and the split factors for urban road types 17 and 19 were set equal to that of road type 16.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-9 Table 4-7. FHWA Class 2 and 3 Splits from 2000 VTRIS Dataset Road Type Class 2 Class 3 1 0.79 0.21 2 0.73 0.27 6 0.75 0.25 7 0.63 0.37 11 0.81 0.19 12 0.83 0.17 14 0.77 0.23 16 0.81 0.19



### Figures 4-4 and 4-5 display some of the hour ly vehicle mix profiles from Sunday through Saturday for urban interstates and urban minor arte rials. In these figures, the sum of the class fractions for a specific hour (along the vertical axis) sum to 1. In these figures, the fraction of the heavy-duty diesel vehicles is greater on the interstates than the minor arterials. In addition,
the fraction of the fleet that is heavy-duty is greater during the early morning hours, with a rise mid-day.

Boise Urban Interstates (Function Class 11), July Hourly Class Fractions Sunday through Saturday

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21

HDDV HDGV LDDT LDDV LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGV MC 

### Figure 4-4. Hourly Vehicle Mix Temporal Profiles for Urban Interstates in July2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-10 Boise Urban Minor Arterials (Function Class 16), July

Hourly Class Fractions Sunday through Saturday

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21

HDDV HDGV LDDT LDDV LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGV MC 

### Figure 4-5. Hourly Vehicle Mix Temporal Profiles for Urban Minor Arterials in July


### Spatial Allocation

CONCEPT-MV spatially allocates emissions by hour to grid cells that are covered by the link network and has the ability to allocate emissi ons using additional gridding surrogates. Start exhaust emissions can be allocated to grid cells using the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) network distribution of trip starts. Similarly, hot soak emissions can be allocated to grid cells using the TAZ network distribution of trip ends. The spatial distri bution of engine starts and hot soaks varies throughout the day, and the temporal detail of the trip starts and ends by TAZ reflects the spatial changes by time period of day. Because the COMPASS TDM and TAZ time period was a daily total, the TAZ network was not included as a spatial surrogate due to insufficient temporal detail. All emissions were allocated to grid cells by hour using the link network surrogate shown below in Figure 4-6.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-11 Figure 4-6. 2008 COMPASS TDM Link Network


### Adjustments to TDM Volumes
TDMs in general often underestimate travel on local roads and a typical correction for this problem is to scale the local roadway volumes to match HPMS data within the T3 processing. However, the COMPASS TDM is cons idered a more conservative source than ITD HPMS data; VMT totals from COMPASS were higher than ITD estimates. COMPASS is a trusted source that provides their VMT for incl usion in the National Em ission Inventory (NEI) for Ada and Canyon counties. Per agreement with DEQ, COMPASS VMT was used directly from the TDM without any scaling.

MOBILE6 Inputs

Seasonal fuel properties were provided by DEQ with differe nces for winter, spring, summer and fall. Winter fuel properties were used in the CONCEPT modeling for the February episode modeling. All four seasons were modeled in the Elmore County analysis.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-12 Local registration data were available for Ada and Canyon counties from a recent VIN decoder study (Sierra, 2006). The local distribu tions for light duty vehicl es were used in the
MOBILE6 runs within CONCEPT-MV. For heavy duty vehicles, national default age distribution patterns were assumed because much of heavy duty VMT is from interstate travel. No local registration data were available for Elmore County, so the national default distribution provided with MOBILE6 was used. Tables 4-8, 4-9, and 4-10 descri be the MOBILE6 inputs used in the base year 2008 modeling for anti-t ampering parameters, inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs and all othe r inputs, respectively.

Table 4-8. 2008 MOBILE6 I nputs by County: Anti-Tampering Program Parameters Anti-Tampering Program Parameters Ada County Canyon County Elmore County Program Start Year 1984 - - First Vehicle Model Year Applied 1981 - - Last Vehicle Model Year Applied 2050 - -

Vehicle Types Applied LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, LDGT3, LDGT4, HDGV2B, HDGV3, HDGV4, HDGV5, HDGV6, HDGV7, HDGV8A, HDGV8B, HDGB - - Inspection Frequency Annual - - Compliance Rate 98% - -
Inspection Conducted air pump, catalyst, fuel inlet restrictor, EGR, and the gas cap - -2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-13 Table 4-9. 2008 MOBILE 6 Inputs by County: I/M Program Parameters I/M Program Type I/M Program Parameters Ada County Canyon County Elmore County Start Year 1984 - - End Year 2050 - - Frequency Annual - - First Vehicle Model Year Applied 1965 - -
Last Vehicle Model Year Applied 1995 - -

Vehicle Types Applied LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, LDGT3, LDGT4, HDGV2B, HDGV3, HDGV4, HDGV5, HDGV6, HDGV7, HDGV8A, HDGV8B, HDGB - -

Stringency (pre-1981 only) 27 - - Compliance Rate 98% - - Pre-1981: 1% Waiver Rate (expressed as a percentage of the vehicles that fail the I/M program) 1981 and later 1: 1% - - Exhaust Test Only Program – Two speed test (idle and 2500 RPM)

Grace Period (the age at which vehicle first become subject to I/M testing) 1 - -

Start Year 2000 - - End Year 2050 - - Frequency Annual - - First Vehicle Model Year Applied 1996 - -
Last Vehicle Model Year Applied 2050 - -

Vehicle Types Applied LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, LDGT3, LDGT4, HDGV2B, HDGV3, HDGV4, HDGV5, HDGV6, HDGV7, HDGV8A, HDGV8B, HDGB - -

Stringency (expected exhaust inspection failure rate for pre-1981 model year vehicles) 27 - -

Compliance Rate 98% - - Pre-1981: 0% Waiver Rate (expressed as a percentage of the vehicles that fail the I/M program) 1981 and later 1: 1% - - Exhaust Test Only Program – OBD I/M

Grace Period (the age at which vehicle first become subject to I/M testing) 1 - -2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-14 Table 4-10. 2008 MOBILE6 Inputs by County: Other Other Parameters Ada County Canyon County Elmore County

Temperature Varied by each hour each grid cell Varied by each hour each grid cell Min/Max (°F) Winter: 22.0/40.9 Spring: 35.1/63.2 Summer: 53.5/89.1

Fall: 35.8/66.1

Absolute Humidity Varied by each hour each grid cell Varied by each hour each grid cell (grains/lb) Winter: 20.0 Spring: 28.21 Summer: 45.64

Fall: 30.36

Fleet Mix ITD Traffic Count (Varied by month, day of week, hour) ITD Traffic Count (Varied by month, day of week, hour) VMT FRACTIONS provided within M6 input files from DEQ

Facility Speed Varied by TDM network link Varied by TDM network link (mph) Freeway: 54.1 Arterial: 34.1

Local: 19.6

Registration Age Distribution Light Duty from Sierra Research report, Motorcycles and Heavy Duty use M6 National Defaults Light Duty from Sierra Research report, Motorcycles and Heavy Duty use M6 National Defaults All vehicles use M6 National Defaults

Fuel Program 3 = Conventional Gasoline West 3 = Conventional Gasoline West 3 = Conventional Gasoline West June – September: 8.6 June – September: 8.6 Other Months: 15 Other Months: 15 Fuel Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Winter: 15.0 Spring: 13.5 Summer: 9.0

Fall: 11.5 Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content 15 ppm 15 ppm 15 ppm Alcohol blend such as Ethanol blended market Share (0.00 – 1.00) 0.68 0.68 0
Average oxygen content of alcohol blend fuels (percent weight, expressed as a decimal fraction) 0.03448 0.03448 0

RVP Waiver granted to allow “splash” blending of alcohol-based oxygenates Yes Yes No

Ether blend market share (such as MTBE, ETBE, TAME blended) 0 0 1
Average oxygen content of ether blend fuels (percent weight, expressed as a decimal fraction) 0 0 0.000893 (0.5% by volume)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-15 CONCEPT-MV specifications – Ada and Canyon County Below are the details of the CONCEPT-MV mo deling setup and results of the February episode.

Region Definition

The CONCEPT modeling region wa s defined in meters as:

• grid name: o3tv4km

• origin: (258000., -666000.)

• cell resolution: 4,000

• Number of cells in X direction: 63

• Number of cells in Y direction: 56

Episode Days

The modeling episode days that were modeled by ENVIRON and DEQ were:

• ENVIRON: February 1-15, 2008 (demonstration episode)

• DEQ: January 1-31, 2008 (also for 2015 and 2023) April 1-30, 2008 (also for 2015 and 2023) July 1-31, 2008 (also for 2015 and 2023) October 1-31, 2008 (also for 2015 and 2023)

The episodes modeled by DEQ are full months. Each episode day was run in a separate CONCEPT MV run, a total of 123 runs for the base year, and 369 runs total for 2008, 2015 and 2023 together.

Day Specific Meteorology

The hourly gridded modeled meteorological da taset used in the modeling was generated by DEQ from archived University of Washingt on (UW) MM5 and WRF model forecast runs. In 2008, UW switched their forecasting system fr om MM5 to WRF on April 15. UW provided a program to convert WRF outputs back to MM5 da ta format. Therefore, one portion of DEQ's2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-16 2008 MM5 data set is from MM5 model run (i.e., from January 1 to April 14) and the other portion is from WRF model runs (i.e., from April 15 to December 31).

Results for February 2008 demonstration runs

The emissions results for the February 1- 15, 2008 demonstration episode are briefly described in the following text and figures . DEQ generated the annual emissions and O 3 

### and
PM 2.5 

### daily emissions, and those calculations and results are summarized in later sections.

Emissions varied by day within the 15-day February episode due to meteorological differences between days and differences in VM T activity by vehicle cl ass and day of week. Figures 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 show em issions by episode day for TOG, NO x 

### and PM 2.5 

### , respectively. Figure 4-10 shows the average mi nimum and maximum temperature across grid cells in the link network. Figures 4-11 and 4-12 show the hourly VMT activity by episode day, while Figures 4-
13 and 4-14 show overall VMT with fleet mix for one weekday and weekend day, respectively. Figure 4-15 shows the spatial distri bution of the gridded emissions.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2008 episode dayEmissions (tons) MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-7. TOG Emissi ons by Day Showing Vehi cle Class Contributions2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-17 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2008 episode dayEmissions (tons) MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-8. NO x 

### Emissions by Day Showing Vehicle Class Contributions

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2008 episode dayEmissions (tons) MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-9. PM 2.5 

### Emissions by Day Showing Vehicle Class Contributions2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5002012008 Fri02022008 Sat02032008 Sun02042008 Mon02052008 Tue02062008 Wed02072008 Thu02082008 Fri02092008 Sat02102008 Sun02112008 Mon02122008 Tue02132008 Wed02142008 Thu02152008 FriTemperature (F)

Min Temp Max Temp



### Figure 4-10. Daily Minimum and Maximu m Temperatures (Degrees Fahrenheit) Averaged Across Grid Cells Containing Roadway Links

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Hour (LST)VMT 2008-02-01 Fri 2008-02-02 Sat 2008-02-03 Sun 2008-02-04 Mon 2008-02-05 Tue 2008-02-06 Wed 2008-02-07 Thu 2008-02-08 Fri 2008-02-09 Sat 2008-02-10 Sun 2008-02-11 Mon 2008-02-12 Tue 2008-02-13 Wed 2008-02-14 Thu 2008-02-15 Fri



### Figure 4-11. Light Duty Gasoline Vehi cles (LDGV) Hourly VMT Profiles by Episode Date2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-19 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Hour (LST)VMT 2008-02-01 Fri 2008-02-02 Sat 2008-02-03 Sun 2008-02-04 Mon 2008-02-05 Tue 2008-02-06 Wed 2008-02-07 Thu 2008-02-08 Fri 2008-02-09 Sat 2008-02-10 Sun 2008-02-11 Mon 2008-02-12 Tue 2008-02-13 Wed 2008-02-14 Thu 2008-02-15 Fri



### Figure 4-12. Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicl es (HDDV) Hourly VMT Profiles by Episode Date

0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour (LST)VMT MC LV LT LG L2 L1 HG HD



### Figure 4-13. VMT Mix by Hour for a W eekday Episode Day (W ednesday 2/13/2008)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-20 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour (LST)VMT MC LV LT LG L2 L1 HG HD



### Figure 4-14. VMT Mix by Hour for a Weekend Episode Day (Saturday 2/9/2008)

Figure 4-15. Spatial Dist ribution at 4km Resolution of the BOISE Network Emissions, Showing Nitric Oxide (NO)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-21 The two dominant sources of TOG in th e Boise network are the LDGV and LDGT1 vehicle classes. The daily TOG emissions show n in Figure 4-7 follow VMT patterns by day of week and they are also highly sensitive to day- specific temperatures (shown in Figure 4-10) and relative humidity.

HDDV is a significant contributor to NO x 

### and the highest contributor to PM 2.5 

### vehicle emissions in the Boise network. Although HDD V makes up a low percentage of the VMT, HDDV vehicles have significantly higher emission rates of both NO x 

### and PM 2.5 

### . Figures 4-13 and 4-14 show the small proportion of VMT that HDDV comprises in the Boise network. The other significant contributors to PM and NO x 

### emissions are LDGV, LDGT1, and LDGT2. Unlike HDDV, these light gasoline vehicle classe s are lower emitters on a per mile basis, but make up a large proportion of the VMT.

Figure 4-9 shows a repetitive pattern in th e overall emissions by day of week (e.g., Tuesdays [February 5 and February 12] have the same PM 2.5 

### emissions, etc.) not seen in TOG or
NO x 

### charts (Figures 4-7 and 4-8). This is because, unlike TOG and NO x 

### , PM 2.5 

### has no temperature dependency in the MOBILE6 model. PM 2.5 

### emissions depend onl y on fuel property inputs (specifically, fuel sulfur) and VMT. The enti re February episode used a single winter fuel so the day-to-day changes in PM 2.5 

### emissions are only due to the VMT variation between days of
the week.

4.1 Emission Calculati on Methodologies – Annual 

### DEQ ran CONCEPT-MV for four months to re present the four seas ons shown in Table 4- 11. For each month (i.e., January, April, July, and October 2008), DEQ determined the average emissions per day. DEQ then scaled the emissions per day by the total numb er of days in each season represented by the month. The sum of each season total emissions yielded annual
emissions.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-22 Table 4-11. Representative Month for Each Season

Month Season Representative Month December January February Winter January

March April May Spring April

June July August Summer July
September October November Fall October



### Annual emissions for Elmore County for the 2008 base year were estimated using
emission factors from the MOBILE6 model and VMT provided by DEQ. MOBILE6 was run for calendar year 2008 for three road types (i.e., freeway , arterial, and local) and four seasons (i.e., winter, spring, summer, and fall) for a total of 12 scenarios. VMT was provided by three road types (i.e., interstate, arterial, and “other”) and at annual resolution. Annual VMT was subdivided into seasons by using monthly temporal profiles deve loped for use in CONCEPT for Ada and Canyon counties. The monthly fractions from these temporal profiles summed to one over the 12 months and reflected actual change s in VMT by month based on continuous traffic recorder counts in the Boise metropolitan area. Months were assigned to MOBILE6 season as
shown in Table 4-11 above. Annual emissions for Elmore County were calc ulated as the sum of
emissions over the four seasons.

4.2 Emission Calculation Methodol ogies – Ozone and PM Season 

### For Ada and Canyon counties, the average O 3 

### season daily emissions were computed by dividing the modeled summer seas on total emissions for each county by the number of days in summer. Similarly, average PM 2.5 

### season daily emissions were es timated by dividing the winter season total emissions by the number of days in winter.

For Elmore County, the average season daily emissions were estimating by computing the season daily VMT for O 3 

### and PM 2.5 

### seasons and applying them to the MOBILE6 emission
factors. Division of the VMT from annual to season was described above.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-23 4.3 Emission Results by Source Category 

### Table 4-12 presents 2008 annual and average s eason day emissions for each county. July average emissions were used to best repres ent peak ozone season on-road motor vehicle emissions; similarly, January average emissions were used to best represent PM season emissions. Figures 4-16 through 4-24 show the percentage of Table 4-12 emissions that come from each of the eight MOBILE vehicle classes.
Table 4-12. 2008 On-road Emissions Summary (Tons/Year and Tons/Day) Averaging Period County NO X SO 2 VOC CO PM 10 PM 2.5 NH 3 Ada 5,114.3 27.2 4,022.0 45,574.2 125.2 75.6 311.6 Canyon 3,138.5 12.7 3,093.9 33,553.8 60.4 37.0 143.5 Annual Elmore 576.6 3.1 529.8 5,460.8 14.7 9.3 30.7 Ada 13.4 0.1 10.8 80.8 0.4 0.2 0.9 Canyon 8.3 0.0 8.4 61.8 0.2 0.1 0.4 Average Ozone Season Day Elmore 1.5 0.0 1.5 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Ada 13.3 0.1 6.6 146.1 0.3 0.2 0.8 Canyon 8.2 0.0 5.3 103.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 Average PM Season Day Elmore 1.6 0.0 1.1 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CO NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 PMC SO2 VOC MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-16. Vehicle Class Percent C ontributions to 2008 Ada County Annual Emissions2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-24 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CO NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 PMC SO2 VOC MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-17. Vehicle Class Percent Cont ributions to 2008 Canyon County Annual Emissions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CO NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 PMC SO2 VOC MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-18. Vehicle Class Percent Cont ributions to 2008 Elmore County Annual Emissions2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-25 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CO NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 PMC SO2 VOC MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-19. Vehicle Class Percent C ontributions to 2008 Ada County Average Ozone Season Day Emissions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CO NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 PMC SO2 VOC MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-20. Vehicle Class Percent C ontributions to 2008 Canyon County Average Ozone Season Day Emissions2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-26 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CO NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 PMC SO2 VOC MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-21. Vehicle Class Percent Cont ributions to 2008 Elmore County Average Ozone Season Day Emissions

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CO NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 PMC SO2 VOC MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-22. Vehicle Class Percent C ontributions to 2008 Ada County Average PM Season Day Emissions2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-27 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CO NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 PMC SO2 VOC MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-23. Vehicle Class Percent C ontributions to 2008 Canyon County Average PM Season Day Emissions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CO NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 PMC SO2 VOC MC LDGV LDGT2 LDGT1 LDDV LDDT HDGV HDDV



### Figure 4-24. Vehicle Class Percent Cont ributions to 2008 Elmore County Average PM Season Day Emissions2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 4-28 4.4 QA/QC Procedures 

### DEQ implemented ENVIRON’s quality assuran ce (QA) tool to generate a series of detailed graphs showing different aspects the CONCEPT-MV results for seven consecutive days in each of four months and years modeled. ENVIRON reviewed all 12 CONCEPT-MV QA spreadsheets by checking that emissions comparisons by day of week and hour of day track with temperature and VMT temporal changes by day of week, and that all emissions were in alignment with expectations based on hundreds of other CONCEPT-MV simulations performed and reviewed by ENVIRON. ENVIRON also revi ewed all DEQ run scripts and log files. Finally, ENVIRON generated an additional QA comparison of emissions between the four months and three years with deta il by emissions mode as part of Task 8. The results of ENVIRON’s review of DEQ CONCEPT-MV work are detailed in a separate technical memorandum (DenBleyker et al., 2010), provided in Appendix E.

For the Elmore County analysis, ENVIR ON staff performed QA on all emissions estimates by a thorough review of the emissions results for annual, average ozone season day, and average PM season day.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-1 5.0 2008 NONROAD MOBILE SOU RCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY 

### Nonroad mobile sources encompass a wide vari ety of equipment types that either move under their own power or are capable of being moved from site to site. Nonroad mobile equipment sources, not licensed or certified as hi ghway vehicles, are defined as those that move or are moved within a 12 month period and are covered under the U.S. EPA's emissions regulations as nonroad mobile sources. There are three types of nonroad mobile sources: nonroad equipment, locomotives, and aircraft

5.1 Emission Calculati on Methodologies – Annual 

### The methodologies used to calculate annual nonroad mobile source emissions for the 2008 base year are presented in this section. Methods pertaining to nonroad equipment, aircraft,
and locomotives are discussed.
5.1.1 Nonroad Equipment 

### The largest group of nonroad mobile sources are nonroad equipment that are estimated with the NONROAD2008 model (U.S. EPA, 2009b). The NONROAD model estimates emissions from nonroad equipment in the categori es shown below; Treasure Valley emissions from all listed categories but airport ground s upport equipment were estimated using the
NONROAD model.

• Agricultural equipment (e.g., tractors, combines, balers, etc.)

• Airport ground support (e.g., terminal tractors, etc.)

• Construction equipment (e.g., graders, backhoes, etc.)

• Industrial and commercial equipment (e.g., forklifts, sweepers, etc.)

• Recreational vehicles (e.g., all-terrain vehicles, off-road motorcycles, etc.)

• Residential and commercial lawn and ga rden equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, leaf blowers, snow blowers, etc.)

• Logging equipment (e.g., shredders, large chain saws, etc.)

• Recreational equipment (e.g., off-road motorbikes, snowmobiles, etc.)

• Recreational marine vessels (e.g., power boats, etc.).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-2 Data Collection
Key inputs for determining nonroad equipm ent emissions using the NONROAD model are equipment population and activity data, a nd allocation factors. Nonroad equipment population by county is estimated in the model by geographically allo cating national engine population through the use of econometric indicators, such as construction valuation. U.S. EPA encourages state and local agencies to develop local data from surveys, but such work is expensive and difficult to carry out, and only a few agencies in the country have done so. However, some local information for Idaho popula tions was available and these data were used to update the NONROAD model da ta as described below.

Pleasure Craft and Recreati onal Equipment Population Pleasure craft and recreational equipment popula tion data were collec ted from the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR, 2009a ; IDPR, 2009b). The state registration data were assumed to be equal to the state total pl easure craft and recreational equipment population. Although county-level registration da ta were available, county-lev el data were not used for county allocation purposes. Regist ration is not considered to be a suitable surrogate for pleasure craft or recreational equipment activity because these types of equipment are often used in counties other than where they are register ed. The current U.S. EPA NONROAD allocation method uses water surface area for pleasure craf t and the number of RV parks and recreational camps (NAICS code 72121X) from County Business Patterns because they are considered to be
better indications of actua l usage in each area.

Table 5-1 shows a comparison of NONROAD model default and Pa rks and Recreation derived by-county population estimates for 2008.

Table 5-1. 2008 Pleasure Craft and Recreational Equipment Populations
NONROAD Default Revised Equipment Type Ada Canyon Elmore Ada Canyon Elmore Pleasure Craft Inboards 94 242 396 100 256 420 Outboards 379 976 1599 412 1060 1737 Personal watercraft 51 132 216 56 143 235 Recreational Equipment All terrain vehicles 12539 1567 3135 10113 1264 2528 Motorcycles: off-road 3033 379 758 3093 387 7732008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-3 One potential source of double-counting coul d not be eliminated in the recreational marine data. The Idaho Department of Parks a nd Recreation does not make a distinction in its boat registrations for boats that are completely non-motorized (i.e., sailboats with no on-board engines). Although these boats do not contribute to emissions, there was no way to determine the fraction of the registered boats that fit this category. It was assumed that these nonmotorized sailboats comprise a negligible po rtion of the recreational marine population.

Agricultural Equipment Population

Agricultural equipment population estimates obtained from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2009) were used to modify th e NONROAD default population files. Table
5-2 shows the NONROAD model default and revise d agricultural equipment populations. Given the large differences in agri cultural tractor popula tion estimates between the NONROAD model
and the Census of Agriculture , it is important to note that the Census of Agriculture statistics may not be fully compatible with the NONROAD mo del activity estimates (hours per year). NONROAD equipment population estimates may consid er only those pieces of equipment that are active, while the Census of Agriculture counts all equipment type s including those pieces of equipment that are rarely used. In the NONROAD model, agricultural equipment population estimates are derived by allocating the nationwid e population to the state level according to the fraction of harvested cropland within each state; statewide population is then allocated to the county level using the same metric . The advantage of using the Census of Agriculture is that it contains actual population estimates for specific t ypes of agricultural equi pment in each county, as opposed to the NONROAD model, which relies on the scaling of nationwide data to the county level.

Table 5-2. NONROAD Mode l Default and Revised Agricultural Equipment Populations
NONROAD Default Revised Equipment Type Ada Canyon Elmore Ada Canyon Elmore Agricultural Equipment 2-Wheel tractors 1 4 2 14 23 4 Agricultural tractors 320 971 482 1921 4335 878 Combines 65 196 97 59 201 342008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-4 Agricultural Equipment Temporal Profile Areas of harvested crop acreage and crop budgets were obtained from the National Agricultural Statistics Serv ice (NASS) (NASS, 2009a; NASS, 2009b). This information was used to develop the monthly agricultural equipm ent usage profile shown in Figure 5-1. Similar to the default profile, the local profile shows high activity for agricultural equipment in the summer, and it also incorporates higher activity in spring and fall months due to planting and harvesting operations which occur during these seasons.

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Jan Feb Ma r A p r Ma y Jun Jul Au g Se p Oct Nov Dec Local NR default



### Figure 5-1. Local Off-Road Agricultur al Equipment Monthly Temporal Profile


### Construction Equipment Temporal Profile
Telephone interviews were conducted with muni cipal government staff located within the inventory domain with knowledge of various ty pes of construction (McC ain, 2010; Winterfeld, 2010; Walter, 2010; Chase, 2010; Girard, 2010). Based on employee input, local construction equipment monthly temporal profil es were estimated as shown in Figure 5-2. Similar to the default profile, the local prof ile shows high activity for construction equipment in the summer, and it incorporates higher activity in the late spring months relative to the default profile.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-5

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ada Canyon Elmore NONROAD Default



### Figure 5-2. Local Construction E quipment Monthly Temporal Profile



### Lawn and Garden Equipment Temporal Profiles Lawn and garden equipment temporal pr ofiles were developed using a methodology similar to what was applied to develop lawn a nd garden equipment temporal profiles for the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (E CR, 2005). Lawn and garden equipment was divided into four usage associa tions: lawn-related, soil-related, leaf-related, and wood-related, the details of these usage associations are shown in Table 5-3.

Staff from the City of Boise Park and Recreational Service Department (Woodward, 2010; Teddicken, 2010), Ada County Highway Distri ct (Mills, 2010) and the City of Nampa Parks (Moran 2010) were contacted regarding monthl y temporal profiles for the usage of each of these types of equipment. Based upon these local data, local lawn and garden equipment seasonal usage profiles were estimated as s hown in Figures 5-3 a nd 5-4. The NONROAD default temporal profile is a single profile applie d to all types of lawn and garden equipment and shows the highest activity in th e summer and relatively lower activity in the spring and fall and very little activity in the winter. Local data indicated that lawn-related equipment usage was highest in the summer, as expected , with activity in the spring sli ghtly higher than activity in the autumn and very low activity in the winter. Fo r soil-related equipment, the highest activity was2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-6 associated with the spring and fall due to activities such as planting and plant removal which occur during these seasons. Wood-related equipmen t activity was estimated to be the highest in the spring due to wood cutting activity that occurs during this season.

Table 5-3. Lawn and Garden E quipment Temporal Profile Groupings Equipment Type Usage Association Front mowers Lawn & garden tractors Lawn mowers Other lawn & garden equipment Rear engine riding mowers Trimmers/edgers/brush cutters Lawn

Leafblowers/vacuums Leaf Commercial turf equipment Rotary tillers < 6 HP Soil
Chain saws < 6 HP Chippers/stump grinders Shredders < 6 HP Wood splitters Wood

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

0.3 0.35

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec NONROAD Default Lawn-related Soil-related Leaf-related



### Figure 5-3. Local Lawn-, Soil-, and L eaf-Related Lawn and Garden Equipment Monthly Temporal Profiles2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-7 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1 0.12 0.14

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec NONROAD Default Wood-related



### Figure 5-4. Local Wood-Related Lawn an d Garden Equipment Monthly Temporal Profile


### Emission Calculation Methodology

In order to incorporate seasonal changes in climate and fuels, annual emissions were estimated by running the NONROAD model for each of the four seasons, then summing the seasonal emissions to generate annual emissions . Seasonal average maximum, minimum, and mean temperatures were based on period of reco rd monthly averages fr om the Western Regional Climate Center for the following stations: Bo ise WSFO Airport (Ada County), Nampa Sugar Factory (Canyon County), and Mountain Home (E lmore County) (WRCC, 2009). Gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) consistent with on-road MOBILE6 inputs by county and season are shown in Table 5-4. Gasoline was assumed to have a fuel sulfur content of 30 parts per million, consistent with on-road gasoline, while diesel fuel was assumed to have a fuel sulfur content of 500 parts per million per the federal Tier 4 nonroad diesel rule.

Table 5-4. 2008 Gasolin e RVP (psi) by Season Season Ada County Canyon County Elmore County Winter 15 15 15 Spring 15 15 13.5 Summer 8.6 8.6 9 Autumn 8.6 8.6 11.52008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-8 Annual base year 2008 nonroad equipment emi ssions are shown in Table 5-5 and Table 5-6 by county and equipment type, respectively. A majority of the nonroad equipment emissions for all pollutants were emitted in Ada County. Like most nonroad emission inventories, the primary source of VOC and CO emissions was la wn and garden equipment which is primarily made up of gasoline fueled equipment. The highest contributors to NO x 

### , PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , SO 2 

### , and
NH 3 

### emissions were agricultural and construction equipment, which are primarily diesel-fueled equipment.
Table 5-5. 2008 Annual Nonroad Equipment Emissions by County County VOC CO NO x PM 10 PM 2.5 SO 2 NH 3 Annual Total (tons/year) Ada 1,946 23,923 2,402 236 226 66 2.5 Canyon 656 7,345 1,515 147 142 44 1.4 Elmore 316 1,566 328 35 34 9 0.3 Total 2,918 32,835 4,245 418 402 119 4.2



### Table 5-6. 2008 Annual N onroad Equipment Emissions by Equipment Type (Ada, Canyon, and Elmore Counties Combined) Category VOC CO NO x PM 10 PM 2.5 SO 2 NH 3 Annual Total (tons/year) Agricultural Equipment 146 1,040 1,254 130 126 38 1.0 Commercial Equipment 343 6,766 240 21 20 5 0.4 Construction and Mining Equipment 284 2,326 1,919 171 166 64 1.8 Industrial Equipment 141 2,336 552 21 20 8 0.2 Lawn and Garden Equipment 1,162 17,215 214 52 48 3 0.7 Logging Equipment 4 38 7 1 1 0 0.0 Pleasure Craft 261 829 35 5 4 0 0.1 Railroad Equipment 1 12 5 1 1 0 0.0 Recreational Equipment 576 2,273 19 17 16 0 0.1 Underground Mining Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Total 2,918 32,835 4,245 418 402 119 4.2



### 5.1.2 Aircraft 

### Base year 2008 emissions from aircraft and associated equipment (i.e., auxiliary power units [APU] and airport ground support equipmen t [GSE], for 2008 were obtained from work performed to develop U.S. EPA’s 2008 National Emissions Inventory (N EI2008). Activity data for aircraft emissions are landing-takeoff cycles (LTOs), and emission factors are primarily from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-9 The FAA EDMS model combines specified airc raft and activity levels with default
emissions factors in order to es timate annual inventories for a speci fic airport. Aircraft activity levels in EDMS are expressed in terms of LTOs , which consist of the four aircraft operating modes: taxi and queue, take-off, climb-out, and la nding. Default values for the amount of time a specific aircraft spends in each mode, or th e time-in-modes (TIMs), are coded into EDMS.

Aircraft emissions were estimated for four aircraft categories:

• Air carriers (i.e., larger turbine-powered comm ercial aircraft with at least 60 seats or 18,000 lbs payload capacity);

• Air taxis (i.e., commercial turbine or piston-powered aircraft with less than 60 seats or 18,000 lbs payload capacity);

• General aviation aircraft (i.e., small pist on-powered, non-commercial aircraft); and

• Military aircraft.
Airport GSE includes equipment such as fuel trucks, cabin service truck, baggage belt loaders, and pushback tugs and tr actors. Auxiliary power units ar e used to power ventilation, cooling, and heating systems when an aircraft’s engine is off and to provide power to start the main aircraft engines.

Necessary LTO activity and emissions data in database format, as well as aircraft emissions documentation (ERG, 2010) were obtai ned from U.S. EPA’s NEI2008 website (U.S. EPA, 2010b).

The Boise airport was the only airport in th e study region for which EDMS was run with airport specific activity data. For all other airp orts, LTO data were applied to average LTO timein-mode and emission factors. Additional calc ulations were performed to estimate ammonia emissions, which were not included in the NEI2008 data. For ammonia, air carriers and military aircraft were assumed to be dominated by turbin e-powered aircraft runn ing lean, thus producing a negligible amount of ammonia. For general av iation and air taxi piston engine aircraft LTOs, ammonia emissions were estimated using a fleet- average fuel consumption rate from the EDMS data for piston engines, operati onal mode-specific fuel flow ra tes weighted by the typical time spent in each mode, average hours of operation es timated from FAA data, and a grams per gallon emission factor for non-catalyst light-duty gasoline engines.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-10 Airport GSE and APU emissions were es timated for the NEI2008 by using EDMS activity defaults associated with commercial aircraft LTOs and time-in-mode. Airport GSE
emission factors in EDMS are derived from EPA’s NONROAD2005 model. The main change to NONROAD2008 emission rates was incorporati ng recreational marine diesel and spark ignition engine standards; airport ground e quipment emission rates did not undergo major changes. The NONROAD model estimates c ounty level 2008 airport GSE populations by growing historic national population to 2008, and allocating national population according to
2002 National Emission I nventory (NEI2002) NO x 

### emissions. The NEI2008 airport GSE
emission estimates were used because these em issions were based on actual 2008 commercial
aircraft data rather than estim ates based on growth projections and allocations used in the
NONROAD model.

Aircraft associated emissions (including airc raft, APUs, and airport GSE) are presented by airport in Table 5-7 and graphically by emissi on source in Figure 5-5. Consistent with LTO activity distribution, Treasure Valley 2008 aircra ft associated emissions were dominated by a few major airports: Boise Air Te rminal/Gowen Field, Caldwell Industrial, and Nampa Muni. Together, these airports accounted for 80 percent or more of th e aircraft emissions for all pollutants, except for NH 3 

### . NO x 

### and SO 2 

### emissions are dominated by commercial aircraft, while VOC, CO, PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### , and NH 3 

### emissions are primarily from general aviation aircraft.

5.1.3 Locomotives 

### Locomotive emissions are a significant source of NO x 

### and PM emissions. The overwhelming majority of locomoti ve activity in the United States is from a handful of Class 1 freight railways, and only one of these, Union Paci fic, operates in the Trea sure Valley study region.

Railroads operate two types of locomotives – line-haul or switching. Line-haul locomotives pull trains over the main line rail system primarily between yards, but may also serve individual customers. Switching locomotives assemble and disassemble trains, and serve individual customers usually with small trains or individual cars. The li ne-haul locomotives are usually not based at any individu al rail yard, and so can operate over a wide region, even across the entire country. Switching locomotives are ba sed at individual rail ya rds for a longer period (i.e., 6 months or longer) and therefor e operate close to that rail yard.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-11 Table 5-7. 2008 Aircraft Associated Emissions by Airport (Tons/Year)

Facility Name VOC NO x CO PM 10 PM 2.5 SO 2 NH 3 Ada County Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field 64.573 208.339 856.022 12.532 9.991 21.498 0.0111 Boise Plaza 0.080 0. 005 0.847 0. 017 0.012 0. 001 0.0000 Green Acres 1.486 0.086 15.810 0.311 0.215 0.013 0.0006 Larkin 1.142 0.066 12.151 0.239 0.165 0.010 0.0005 Nampa Valley 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000 Peaceful Cove 1.371 0.079 14.590 0.287 0.198 0.01 2 0.0006 St. Alphonsus 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000 St. Luke’s Boise Medical Center 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000 Young 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000 Ada County Total 68.97 208.59 902.81 13.45 10.63 21.54 0.01 Canyon County Caldwell Industrial 39.367 2.351 433.518 8.590 5.927 0.352 0.0170 Hubler Field 2.908 0.167 30.951 0.610 0.421 0.026 0.0012 Mercy 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000 Nampa Municipal 30.940 1.785 329.965 6.502 4.487 0.274 0.0132 Parma 0.960 0.055 10.212 0.201 0.139 0.009 0.0004 Sky Ranch North 1.075 0.062 11.436 0.225 0.155 0.010 0.0005 Sky Ranch South 1.075 0.062 11.436 0.225 0.155 0.010 0.0005 Snake River Skydiving 1.075 0.062 11.436 0.225 0.155 0.010 0.0005 Symms 0.960 0.055 10.217 0.201 0.139 0.009 0.0004 Whelan’s 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000 Canyon County Total 78.52 4.61 850.87 16.81 11.60 0.70 0.03 Elmore County Atlanta 0.254 0.015 2.703 0.053 0.037 0.002 0.0001 Coyote Run 0.850 0.049 9.049 0.178 0.123 0.008 0.0004 Dorothy Roeber Memorial 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000 Elmore Medical Center 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000 Glenns Ferry Municipal 0.113 0.007 1.201 0.024 0.016 0.001 0.0000 Graham USFS 0.254 0.015 2.703 0.053 0.037 0.002 0.0001 Health Center 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000 Mountain Home AFB 3.601 1.464 38.188 0.757 0.526 0.112 0.0015 Mountain Home Municipal 5.613 0.373 68.615 1.370 0.946 0.054 0.0024 P and R Field 1.944 0.112 20.688 0.408 0.281 0.017 0.0008 Pine 0.395 0.023 4.205 0.083 0.057 0.004 0.0002 Red Baron Airpark 1.996 0.115 21.245 0.419 0.289 0.018 0.0009 Smith Prairie 0.339 0.020 3.604 0.071 0.049 0.003 0.0001 South Fork Ranch 3.544 0.204 37.715 0.743 0.513 0.031 0.0015 Weatherby USFS 0.212 0.012 2.253 0.044 0.031 0.002 0.0001 Elmore County Total 19.35 2.42 214.71 4.25 2.94 0.26 0.01 Treasure Valley Total 166.84 215.62 1968.38 34.52 25.17 22.49 0.062008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-12 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

VOC CO NOX PM10-PRI PM25-PRI SO2 NH3Fraction of Ttoal Emission(tons/yr) APU
Airport GSE
Military Aircraft

General Aviation

Air Taxi

Commercial Aircraft



### Figure 5-5. 2008 Aircraft Associ ated Emissions Contributions


### Data for the Idaho Treasure Valley study region was gathered from the railroads operating within the region and public sources. The line-haul activity data were obtained through the Federal Railroad Admi nistration (FRA) with the permi ssion of the Class 1 railroad (Union Pacific) in the region. Smaller railroads received a da ta request for 2008 line-haul and switching locomotive activity estimates. Switchi ng data was gathered by requesting for the typical shift schedules within each rail yard. The activity data gathered is presented in the sections below along with the procedures used to estimate emissions for 2008 and future years.

Line-haul

The activity data used for the line haul emi ssion calculations were gathered from the FRA and through data requests. The primary activit y data collected under this program are gross tonnage (combines the weight of the locomotives, cars, and freight) that are combined with the rail link length to estimate gr oss ton-miles of freight moveme nts (Wright, 2010). Permission was
obtained from the Class 1 railroad Union Pacific to release the ra ilroad specific activity data for 2008 within the study domain. Pub lic databases of ra il activity for the Na tional Transportation Atlas Database only provide link-level mainline activity in activity ra nges (BTS, 2009), but the FRA data gathered specific activity for the purpose of estimating emission inventories. The FRA2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-13 data was developed as a result of the request of the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee Rail Subgroup, a group of state air qual ity agencies, to provide accurate rail activity
estimates.

The FRA dataset attributes are described in Table 5-8. The FRA dataset provided
information about rail links and nodes in the form of ArcGIS sh apefiles that provide attribute
information and location for all rail links at a 1:100,000 scale and was designed for use in regional network analysis applica tions. Rail links were spatially defined polylines that contain a large amount of attributes describi ng a link. The link data relevant to the project included the rail line spatial descriptions, as well as the specific ac tivity. The node descriptions were latitude and longitude point estimates with actual sinuous link length between nodes. The rail owner field defined the primary owner and othe r railroads that operate on the link. The link status included what type of track (i.e., main line, siding, or yard trackage), as well as whether the link is in operation or abandoned. The FRA dataset is more precise than the National Transportation Atlas Data public databases that only provide ranges of gross ton activ ity rather than the specific values used in this report.

Table 5-8. FRA Rail Link Definitions Data Field Description FRA Link ID Numeric identifier Link Node Descriptions Spatial description Length Actual length of link State County Rail Owner Primary and secondary Link Status Operational, main line, etc. Freight Density Specific annual gross tonnage



### Rail ownership was described within the FRA shapefiles in three separate fields. The primary owner was assumed to be the first, and most populated, rail owner provided in the dataset. Link status provided a code value describing whether the rail link was abandoned, an active mainline, or an active non-mainline. Upon review of the active mainline and nonmainline links, it was determined that active main line links were representative of line-haul
tracks and non-mainline links were representative of switch or sidi ng tracks. In addition to the link route data, the FRA link nodes file spa tially described the beginning and end point2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-14 coordinates of every link. The detailed FRA freight tonna ge data were cross-referenced with the mainline link route data. Figure 5-6 shows the network densities with in the study domain.

Figure 5-6. FRA Line-Haul Freight Density



### The FRA data did not include the Idaho Northern Pacific Railroad (INPR) shortline activity that occurs between Boise and Nampa. INPR activ ity data were obtained through a data request to the company (Olmanson, 2010). The data received from INPR is provided in Table 5-9 below.

Table 5-9. Idaho Northern P acific Railroad Activity Data INPR Data Request Locomotive model GP30s Train count 1 train Locomotives per train 2 locomotives Weekly activity 5 days/week Daily activity 9 hours/day Fuel consumption a 226 gal/day Annual fuel consumption 44,070 gal/year

a Fuel consumption based on 24 hours of operation per day2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-15 Line-haul

The 2008 line-haul emissions were estimated using the methodology described in the U.S. EPA final emission standards (U.S. EPA, 2009c). This method co nverted rail gross tonmiles to fuel consumption using railroad freight efficiency to estimate fuel consumption for each rail link. The U.S. EPA guidan ce provided fleet averaged emission factors in terms of grams per gallon. This calculation is as follows:

Where:
E = emissions (grams); FT = freight tonnage (tons); M = rail link mileage (miles); FE = freight efficiency (gallons/ton-mile); and EF = emission factor (grams/gallons)

The U.S. EPA final emission standards included an analysis of the expected benefit of
normal fleet turnover and the additional benefit of the U.S. EPA rule. The emission standards included both new engine and existing equipment re trofit standards. Existing Tier 0, 1, and 2 engines will be subject to retrofit at the time of rebuild; so the engines will be rebuilt gradually throughout their remaining useful life. The em ission standards and implementation dates are provided in Tables 5-10 and 5-11 for line-haul and switching locomotives; the emission standard values depend primarily upon the duty cycl e (i.e., a schedule of time in modes).

The U.S. EPA final emission standards forecasted average emission factors for hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO x 

### ), and particulate matter (PM) in terms of grams per gallon for the calenda r years from 2006 to 2040. These U.S. EPA forecasts included the impact of new engine emi ssions standards and the expected rates of new locomotive purchases and olde r locomotive retirements. E F FE M F T E × × × =2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-16

Table 5-10. Locomotive Emission Standard s for Line-haul (Duty Cycle) Engines

Emission Standard Applicable Year HC (g/hp-hr) CO (g/hp-hr) NO x (g/hp-hr) PM (g/hp-hr) Uncontrolled Emissions Pre-1973 0.48 1.28 13.0 0.32 Tier 0 – original 1973-2001 1.00 5.0 9.5 0.60 Tier 0 – final a 2008/2010 1.00 5.0 8.0 0.22 Tier 1 – original 2002-2004 0.55 2.2 7.4 0.45 Tier 1 – final a 2008/2010 0.55 5.0 7.4 0.22 Tier 2 – original 2005 0.30 1.5 5.5 0.20 Tier 2 – final a 2010/2013 0.30 1.5 5.5 0.10 Tier 3 2012-2014 0.30 1.5 5.5 0.10 Tier 4 b 2015 0.14 1.5 1.3 0.03

a Retrofit standards at the time of rebuild and phased in as retrofit kit availability. b The Tier 4 NO x standard can be a 1.4 NO x + HC standard.



### Table 5-11. Locomotive Emission Standard s for Switching (Duty Cycle) Engines

Emission Standard Applicable Year HC (g/hp-hr) CO (g/hp-hr) NO x (g/hp-hr) PM (g/hp-hr) Uncontrolled Emissions Pre-1973 1.01 1.83 17.4 0.44 Tier 0 – original 1973-2001 2.10 8.0 14.00 0.72 Tier 0 – final a 2008/2010 2.10 8.0 11.80 0.26 Tier 1 – original 2002-2004 1.20 2.5 11.00 0.54 Tier 1 – final a 2008/2010 1.20 2.5 11.00 0.26 Tier 2 – original 2005 0.60 2.4 8.10 0.24 Tier 2 – final a 2010/2013 0.60 2.4 8.10 0.13 Tier 3 2012-2014 0.60 2.4 5.00 0.10 Tier 4 b 2015 0.14 2.4 1.30 0.03

a These are retrofit standards at the time of rebuild and phased in as retrofit kit availability allows. b The Tier 4 NO x standard can be a 1.3 NO x + HC standard.



### The U.S. EPA forecast emission factors were scaled from the 1999 uncontrolled emission factors (see Table 5-12) on a yearly basis (U.S. EPA, 1997b). The uncontrolled emission factors (g/hp-hr) are shown above in Table 5-10 and the 2008, 2015, and 2023 emission factors (g/gal) are provided in Table 5-13. The forecast emission factors were converted to grams per gallon of fuel using an average of 20.8 horsepower-hours per gallon of fuel for the larger Class 1 railroads and 18.2 horsepower-hours per gallon of fuel for other smaller Class 2/3 railroads as described in the U.S. EPA standards (U.S. EPA, 2009c). The CO emission rates were not predicted to change with the emission controls, so the CO emission rates remain 26.6 grams per gallon for Class 1 and 23.3 grams per gallon for smaller ra ilroads for all calendar years. The SO 2 

### emission rates were determined by converting the fuel sulfur wh ere the fuel sulfur leve l was assumed to be 3512008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-17 ppm for 2008 based on the U.S. EPA standards (U.S. EPA, 2009c) and 15 ppm for 2015 and 2023 based on the implementation schedule for locomotive fuel regulations.

Table 5-12. Locomotive Emission Factor s for Calendar Years 1999 and Earlier

Locomotive Type HC (g/hp-hr) CO (g/hp-hr) NO x (g/hp-hr) PM (g/hp-hr) Fuel Consumption (hp-hr/gallon) Line-Haul a 0.48 1.28 13.0 0.32 20.8

a Line-haul locomotives over the line-haul duty-cycle.



### Table 5-13. Average Line-Hau l Locomotive Emission Factors
Class 1 Class 2/3 Line-Haul

Year HC (g/gal) NO x (g/gal) PM (g/gal) HC (g/gal) NO x (g/gal) PM (g/gal) 2008 9.0 169 5.1 11.7 242 5.7 2015 5.7 129 3.4 11.7 240 5.5 2023 3.0 84 1.9 11.7 223 5.2



### In order to derive emission factors in te rms of the gross tonnage activity, conversion factors from grams per gallon to grams per gross tonnage were estimated. Fuel usage and gross tonnage by railroad for the entire system-wid e activity were obtained from the AAR (AAR, 2009). Table 5-14 presents the average system-wid e fuel efficiency as well as the individual system-wide fuel efficiency for the Class 1 ra ilroad operating in the study region. Combining the
emission factors in Table 5-13 with the fuel effi ciency estimates in Table 5-14, emission factors in units of grams per gross ton-mile (GTM) were developed as shown in Table 5-15.
Table 5-14. Fuel Efficiency by Railroad

Railroad Fuel Gal/ (GTM) Average Class 1 0.001020 UP 0.000971



### Table 5-15. Class 1 Railroa d Emission Factors for 2008

Year Railroad HC (g/GTM) CO (g/GTM) NO x (g/GTM) PM (g/GTM) 2008 Average 0.0092 0.027 0.172 0.0052 2008 UP 0.0087 0.026 0.164 0.0050



### The emissions factors from Table 5-15 were ap plied to the FRA activity data by link and summed by county; the line-haul emissions results are shown in Table 5-16.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-18 Table 5-16. 2008 Line-haul Loc omotive Emissions (Tons/Year) Railroad County HC VOC CO NO x PM 10 SO 2 NH 3 UP Ada 14.68 15.46 43.43 275.70 8.32 3.06 0.19 Canyon 17.91 18.86 52.97 336.24 10.15 3.74 0.23 Elmore 31.11 32.76 92.03 584.18 17.63 6.49 0.40 Total 74.30 78.23 219.79 1395.13 42.10 15.50 0.96 Ada 0.41 0.43 0.82 8.52 0.20 0.004 0.07 INPR Shortline Canyon 0.16 0.16 0.31 3.24 0.08 0.002 0.03 Total 0.57 0.60 1.13 11.76 0.28 0.01 0.09



### Switching Switching locomotives are used for a variety of tasks. The primary task for switchers is
to break and assemble trains and shuttle rail cars around a rail yard; however, switchers also perform short haul duty that in cludes whole trains, sets of car s, and repositioning equipment along the mainline rail lines. The switching loco motives that reposition or short haul freight along the mainline were captured under the line-ha ul gross tonnage, so on ly the in-yard activity was considered for switching locomotive emissi ons estimates to avoid double counting the activity.

Shift schedules or other estimates of th e hours of operation for switching locomotives were requested in order to identify the total engi ne hours of operation at e ach yard. In general, typical shifts were eight or tw elve hours using one or two loco motives in tandem. The number of hours for each shift was assumed to be the engine operating time; however, this could be an overestimate if the engines have idle reduction de vices or operators are en couraged to shut off the engines during inactive periods of the shift.

At any given time, the roster of switching locomotives assigned to a given yard was usually available and was collected as part of the information request. The roster of these locomotives could change from week to week, but in general, a sample of the locomotive roster at any time in 2008 could be considered a relativ ely constant fleet mix. The reported switching engines ranged from 1,200 to 3,800 rated horse power. The switching locomotive models were all either Tier 0 or precontrolle d with no Tier 1 or 2 models. Th e data in Table 5-17 represented the switching activity data for the Nampa Yard obtained from the railroad survey.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-19 Table 5-17. Switching Locomotive Ac tivity Data for the Nampa Yard

Number Days per Week Days per Year Hours per Day Hours per Year Switcher No. 1 5 260 4.5 1170 Switcher No. 2 5 260 7.5 1950 Switcher No. 3 5 260 8.0 2080 Switcher No. 4 1 52 7.5 390 Switcher No. 5 5 260 7.5 1950


### Base emission factors and expected forecas ted emission rates for switching locomotives were provided in U.S. EPA documentation (U.S. EPA, 2008) and are shown in Table 5-18.

Table 5-18. Switching Loc omotive Emission Factors

Year HC (g/gal) CO (g/gal) NO x (g/gal) PM (g/gal) 2008 14.5 27.8 243 5.5 2015 12.6 27.8 215 4.8 2023 9.5 27.8 172 3.7



### A daily fuel consumption estimate of 226 gallo ns of fuel per day was provided by other U.S. EPA locomotive guidance documentation (U.S. EPA, 1992). The provided fuel consumption estimate assumes continuous 24 h our activity resulting in a per hour fuel consumption of 9.42 gallons. Annual fuel c onsumption can be estimated using the following equation:

Where:
FC = fuel consumption (gallons/year); A = activity (hours/year); and C = fuel consumption per hour (9.42 gallons/hour).

The emission factors provided in Table 5-18 were combined with the engine-hours in Table 5-17 and 9.42 gallons per hour average fu el consumption rate to estimate per yard
emissions as shown in Table 5-19. C A FC × =2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-20 Table 5-19. Estimated Switch ing Locomotive Emissions in 2008

Year Fuel Consumption (gal) HC (tons) VOC (tons) CO (tons) NO X (tons) PM 10 (tons) SO 2 (tons) NH 3 (tons) 2008 71,002 0.92 0.96 1.82 18.94 0.45 0.01 0.15



### PM 2.5 

### emission estimates were estimated based on PM 10 

### emission estimates. The percentage of PM 10 

### emissions expected to be PM 2.5 

### is assumed to be 97% for locomotives (U.S. EPA, 2009c)

In general, the county assignment for the rail yard emissions was straightforward because the switching locomotive activity was specific to a particular ya rd. However, Nampa operations could span up to two counties since most of the Nampa tracks are in Canyon County where the emissions were allocated, but the trac ks may also reach into Ada County.
The 2008 annual emissions by source cat egory are provided in Table 5-20.
Table 5-20. 2008 Annual Locomotive Emissions by Source Category

SCC SCC Description County FIPS NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy)

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Class I operations Ada 16001 275.70 3.06 15.46 43.43 8.32 8.07 0.19

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Class I operations Canyon 16027 336.24 3.74 18.86 52.97 10.15 9.84 0.23

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Class I operations Elmore 16039 584.18 6.49 32.76 92.03 17.63 17.10 0.40

2285002007 Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Class II/III operations Ada 16001 8.52 0.00 0.43 0.82 0.20 0.19 0.07

2285002007 Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Class II/III operations Canyon 16027 3.24 0.00 0.16 0.31 0.08 0.07 0.03

2285002010 Diesel Yard Operations Canyon 16027 18.94 0.01 0.96 1.82 0.45 0.43 0.152008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-21 5.2 Emission Calculation Methodol ogies – Ozone and PM Season


### After the annual nonroad m obile source emissions were estimated using the methodologies described in Section 2.4.1, th e daily ozone season and PM season emission estimates were developed. The ozone season ex tends from April 1 through October 31 (i.e., 214 days), while the PM season is from November 1 through February 29 (2008 is a leap year) (i.e., 121 days).
5.2.1 Nonroad Equipment 

### Ozone and PM season daily emission estimates for nonroad equipment were based on
NONROAD model runs for the summ er and winter season, respectiv ely. Fuel properties for the
ozone and PM 2.5 

### season were set to summer and winter season values, respectively, as described
in Section 2.4.1.1. Climate inputs were derived based on oz one and PM season averages as obtained from the WRCC (WRCC, 2009).

Seasonal base year 2008 nonroad equipment emissions are shown in Table 5-21 and Table 5-22 by county and equipment type, resp ectively. Since most equipment (except snowmobiles and snowblowers) were used more frequently in the summer compared to the winter, ozone season emissions are greater th an PM season emissions in all counties.
Table 5-21. 2008 Seasonal Nonroad Equipment Emissions by County County VOC CO NO x PM 10 PM 2.5 SO 2 NH 3 Ozone Season (tons/day) Ada 6.97 82.83 8.70 0.87 0.84 0.24 0.009 Canyon 2.51 26.38 5.84 0.58 0.56 0.17 0.005 Elmore 1.56 7.18 1.35 0.15 0.14 0.04 0.001 Total 11.03 116.40 15.89 1.59 1.53 0.45 0.016 PM Season (tons/day) Ada 4.24 60.18 4.21 0.36 0.35 0.10 0.005 Canyon 1.20 16.85 1.88 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.002 Elmore 0.34 2.36 0.32 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.000 Total 5.78 79.39 6.42 0.56 0.54 0.16 0.0072008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-22 Table 5-22. 2008 Seasonal Nonroad Equi pment Emissions by Equipment Type (Ada, Canyon, and Elmore Counties Combined) Category VOC CO NO x PM 10 PM 2.5 SO 2 NH 3 Ozone Season (tons/day) Agricultural equipment 0.59 4.26 5.12 0.53 0.52 0.15 0.004 Commercial equipment 0.93 18.69 0.64 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.001 Construction and mining equipment 1.07 8.86 7.27 0.65 0.63 0.24 0.007 Industrial equipment 0.46 7.64 1.80 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.001 Lawn and garden equipment 3.79 60.76 0.73 0.18 0.16 0.01 0.002 Logging equipment 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Pleasure craft 1.52 5.16 0.22 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.000 Railroad equipment 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Recreational equipment 2.65 10.89 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.001 Underground mining equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Total 11.03 116.40 15.89 1.59 1.53 0.45 0.016 PM Season (tons/day) Agricultural equipment 0.10 0.69 0.84 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.001 Commercial equipment 0.90 18.30 0.70 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.001 Construction and mining equipment 0.43 3.48 2.92 0.26 0.25 0.10 0.003 Industrial equipment 0.32 5.20 1.24 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.001 Lawn and garden equipment 3.09 48.33 0.64 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.002 Logging equipment 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Pleasure craft 0.15 0.44 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Railroad equipment 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Recreational equipment 0.78 2.81 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.000 Underground mining equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Total 5.78 79.39 6.42 0.56 0.54 0.16 0.007



### 5.2.2 Aircraft 

### To estimate seasonal emission inventories, th e monthly distribution of activity for the Boise airport in the Treasure Valley study region was obtaine d from the FAA’s Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) (FAA, 2010). The ATADS is the official source for historical monthly or annual air traffic sta tistics for airports with FAA-opera ted or FAA-contracted traffic control towers. The average seasonal activity frac tions were calculated by aircraft type from the ATADS dataset. The seasonal activity fractions (s hown in Table 5-23) were then applied to the Treasure Valley annual emission by aircra ft type to derive the ozone and PM season emissions.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-23

Table 5-23. Fraction of Ai rcraft Activity Occurring in the Ozone and PM Seasons Type Ozone Season PM Season Commercial aircraft 59% 32% Ground support equipment 59% 32% Auxiliary power units 59% 32% Air taxi aircraft 62% 28% General aviation aircraft 66% 26% Military aircraft 61% 30%



### 5.2.3 Locomotives 

### The daily emissions for locomotives are reported as the equivalent of the annual emissions on a daily scale. The railroads do not report temporal ac tivity and typical of locomotive emission inventories, emissions are a ssumed to be constant year-round. The daily emissions were determined by dividing th e annual emissions by 365 days per year.

The 2008 ozone and PM season daily emissions by source category are provided in Table
5-24.

Table 5-24. 2008 Ozone and PM Season Da ily Locomotive Emission Estimates by Source Category

SCC SCC Description County FIPS NO x (tpd) SO 2 (tpd) VOC (tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd)

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Class I operations Ada 16001 0.755 0.008 0.042 0.119 0.023 0.022 0.0005

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Class I operations Canyon 16027 0.921 0.010 0.052 0.145 0.028 0.027 0.0006

2285002006 Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Class I operations Elmore 16039 1.600 0.018 0.090 0.252 0.048 0.047 0.0011

2285002007 Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Class II/III operations Ada 16001 0.023 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.0002

2285002007 Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Class II/III operations Canyon 16027 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.0001

2285002010 Diesel Yard Operations Canyon 16027 0.052 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.00042008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 5-24 5.3 QA/QC procedures 

### In order to ensure the highest quality emissi ons estimates, a number of different QA/QC steps were implemented during the developm ent of the nonroad mobile source emissions inventory. These are outlined below:

• Nonroad Equipment

− NONROAD model inputs, outputs and messa ge files were checked by the data generator and reviewed by QA/QC staff.

− QA/QC staff reviewed local data coll ected and evaluated against national defaults.

− Base year emission inventories were co mpared to U.S.EPA NEI inventories.

• Aircraft

− Aircraft compilation spreadsheets were reviewed by QA/QC staff.

− For airports in the FAA TAF databa se, NEI2008 LTO activity was checked against FAA TAF activity.

• Locomotives

− Locomotive spreadsheets were reviewed by the data generator and reviewed by QA/QC staff to assure that calculat ion inputs and equations were correct.

− Senior QA/QC staff approved emission estimation methodologies and reviewed the reference activity data for validity.

− Source identification and data collect ion were approved by the DEQ staff.

− Senior QA/QC staff confirme d thorough pollutant coverage.

− QA/QC staff reviewed and approved the em ission factors and activity data used within the emission calculations.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 6-1 6.0 2008 BIOGENIC SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY 

### Under Task 8 of the contract, the ERG/E NVIRON team provided review of DEQ’s 2008 biogenic emissions inventory. This review was summarized in a technical memorandum submitted to DEQ (Mansell and Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009); this technical memo is provided in Appendix F. The technical memo examined the available biogenic emi ssion inventory modeling systems, as well as the land cover and vegeta tion data required for implementation of these
models. The review also focused on a co mparison between DEQ’s biogenics inventory developed using the Biogenic Emission Inventory System (BEIS) and an alternative inventory developed by ENVIRON using the Model of Em issions of Gases and Aerosol from Nature (MEGAN).
6.1 Emissions Calculation Methodologies – Annual 

### Input from DEQ modeling sta ff indicate that the BEIS em ission estimates should be incorporated into the draft fina l report and its emission inventor y (Hardy, 2010). Therefore, the annual biogenic emission summaries for BEIS fr om Table 2 of the memo were used (Mansell and Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009).

6.2 Emissions Calculation Met hodologies – Ozone and PM Season 

### Monthly biogenic emission summaries for BEIS from Table 2 of the memo were used to develop ozone and PM season daily emissions (Mansell and Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009). The monthly emissions from April to October we re summed and then divided by 214 (i.e., the number of days in the ozone season) to derive ozone season daily emissions. Likewise, the monthly emissions from November to February were summed and then divided by 121 (i.e., the number of days in the PM season) to derive PM season daily emissions.

6.3 Emission Results 

### The emissions presented in the biogenics technical memorandum were developed for nitric oxide (NO), CO, VOC, and isoprene. These emissions are shown in Table 6-1.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 6-2 Table 6-1. Annual, Ozone Season, and PM Season Biogenic Emissions

Ada Canyon Elmore Total Annual – NO (tpy) 202.3 283.9 465.2 951.3 Annual – CO (tpy) 2,246.5 1,650.2 6,425.0 10,321.8 Annual – VOC (tpy) 12,802.5 8,902.4 30,982.3 52,687.1 Annual – Isoprene (tpy) 741.2 139.1 2,073.0 2,953.4 Ozone Season – NO (tpd) 0.7 1.0 1.7 3.4 Ozone Season – CO (tpd) 9.4 6.9 26.7 43.0 Ozone Season – VOC (tpd) 55.6 38.5 132.4 226.5 Ozone Season – Isoprene (tpd) 3.4 0.6 9.6 13.6 PM Season – NO (tpd) 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.4 PM Season – CO (tpd) 1.5 1.1 4.7 7.3 PM Season – VOC (tpd) 5.8 4.2 17.3 27.2 PM Season – Isoprene (tpd) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2



### For purposes of the overall summary tables (Table s 7-5 through 7-16), NO was considered to be equivalent to NO x 

### while isoprene was not include d since it is a VOC species.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-1 7.0 2015 AND 2023 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORIES 

### The development of the 2008 base year emissi ons inventory was described in Sections 2.0 through 6.0. This was followed by the develo pment of projected emissions inventories for the future years of 2015 and 2023. In addition, on-road motor vehicle emissions were also projected for the future year of 2030 in Ada and Canyon counties. The methodologies used to develop these projections are described in this se ction. In general, th e projection methodologies identified in the IPP/QAP were used; however , some minor adjustments were made based upon projections information availabi lity and are identified herein.
7.1 Development of 2015 and 2023 Projection Factors 7.1.1 Point Sources 

### In an effort to ascertain the future plans fo r expansion, etc., (on which to base growth factors) for the point source facilities located in the Treasure Valley, a total of 18 permitted point source facilities were contacted by telephone in May 2010. The facili ty contacts were informally surveyed regarding overall short- and long-term growth and expansion plans. The 18 permitted point source facilities constituted the 10 larg est VOC emitting facilities, the 3 largest NH 3 

### emitting facilities, and the 5 largest emitting faciliti es for each of the other pollutants; in some cases, a particular facility was a significant emitt er of multiple pollutants. Of the 18 facilities contacted, a total of 14 contacts responded to the request for info rmation. The facilities that responded included the followi ng (listed alphabetically):

• Boise Packaging and Newsprint

• C & B Quality Trailer Works

• Fiber Composites LLC

• Micron Technology

• MotivePower

• Mountain Home Air Force Base

• Northwest Pipeline

• Pacific Press Publishing Association2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-2 • Plum Creek Northwest Lumber

• Saint Alphonsus Region al Medical Center

• Sinclair Boise Products Terminal

• Sorrento Lactalis

• TASCO – Nampa

• Tesoro Refining and Marketing
Based on these contacts’ responses, the overa ll short-term outlook (i.e., out to 2015) for these facilities is essentially “maintenance of the current status quo”; while the long-term outlook (i.e., out to 2023) is basically “unforeseeable”, bu t some minimal growth is expected. The recent economic recession apparently has dampened most e xpectations for growth in the near-term with most facilities moving into a survival postu re until the recession has passed. Given these anecdotal responses, a 2015 growth factor of 1.0000 (i.e., no growth) and a 2023 growth factor of 1.1000 (i.e., minimal 10 percent growth betw een the years 2015 and 2023) were assigned to all point sources. The only exception to this general growth factor assignment was that Sorrento Lactalis is currently expanding their facility pr ocessing capacity from 4 m illion gallons of milk per day to 5 million gallons of milk per day. This expansion commenced after the 2008 annual
emissions submittal and so it is not reflected in the base year 2008 inventory (York, 2010). Thus, a growth factor of 1.2500 reflecting expa nded facility capacity was assigned to both 2015 and 2023 for the Sorrento Lactalis facility.

7.1.2 Area Sources 

### The 2015 and 2023 area source projec tions were developed using a variety of sources of projections data. Thes e are described below.

7.1.2.1 Fuel Combustion



### All fuel combustion area source categories (i.e., distillate, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas [LPG], kerosene, and wood for th e industrial, commercial/ institutional, and residential sectors) were estimated using projections data from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) published by the Energy Information Admi nistration (EIA) (EIA, 2010). Regional consumption projections for the Mountain Census Division (i.e., Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-3 Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) were used to develop growth factors for
2015 and 2023.

7.1.2.2 Population


### Population projections were used to develop projec tion factors for a wide range of area source categories where population is an appropr iate surrogate for growth. These categories include the following:

• Commercial cooking (i.e., charbroiling and frying)

• Architectural surface coating

• Graphic arts

• Consumer solvents

• Open burning (i.e., yard wa ste and household waste)

• Wastewater treatment

• Structure fires

• Vehicle fires

Population projections for Ada and Ca nyon counties were obtained from the Community Planning Association of Southw est Idaho (COMPASS) (COMPASS, 2010). However, county-level population projections were not available for Elmo re County; therefore, the overall state-level population projections for Idaho were used as a surrogate for Elmore County (U.S. Census, 2005b). The population project ions for 2015 were used directly, while the population projection for 2023 was derived from a linear interpolation of the 2020 and 2025 population projections.

7.1.2.3 Industrial Output Projections


### Industrial output projections for 2008, 2015, and 2023 (in terms of constant 2000 year dollars) were used to project emissions for a number of industrial area sources, including:

• Industrial surface coating (all subcategories)

• Degreasing (all subcategories)2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-4 • Autobody refinishing

• Dry cleaning

• Construction

• Bakeries

• Industrial refrigera tion/cold storage
Appropriate output proj ections were selected at the 4-digit NAICS level from data obtained from Economy.com (Ec onomy.com, 2010). The growth factors were developed by ratioing the future year output for a particular NAICS code by the 2008 year output for the same
NAICS code.

7.1.2.4 Long-Term Agricultural Averages


### Unlike many other area source categories, agricultural sources are thought to be somewhat cyclical in nature. This is due to li mited arable land, cyclical commodity prices, and a
number of other factors. As a result, long-term averages of county-level ag ricultural acreage were used to develop appropriate projection fact ors. Specifically, the to tal average acreage of significant Idaho field crops (i.e., alfalfa, barley , corn for grain, corn for silage, potatoes, sugarbeets, and wheat) from 1988 to 2007 was calculate d. Data were obtained from the National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS) (NASS, 2010). The projecti on factor is the ratio of this total average acreage divided by the 2008 acreage for these same crops . The resultant factors are 1.1548 for Ada County, 1.0562 for Canyon County, and 0.8255 for Elmore County.

7.1.2.5 Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)


### As is typically done, future year vehicl e miles travelled (VMT) projections were developed for estimating projected on-road motor vehicle emissions (see Section 3.1.3). These future year VMT projections were also used to develop growth factors for the source categories associated with gasoline marketing (i.e., Stage I, Stage II, breathing and emptying losses, and tank truck transport). As described in Section 7.1.1, the effects of Idaho Rule 592 were also incorporated with future year area source Stage I emissions.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-5 7.1.2.6 No Growth


### For a few area source categories, no growth (i.e., a growth factor of 1.0000) was assigned. In these cases, either no growth was anticipated to occu r in the future or no appropriate growth surrogate could be reasonably determined. Th ese categories included the following:

• Traffic markings

• Asphalt application

• Irrigation ditch burning

• Beef cattle feedlots

7.1.2.7 Ammonia Sources


### With the exception of ammonia from industr ial refrigeration/cold storage, ammonia emissions were estimated using an ammonia model as described in the previous progress reports. The projected ammonia emissions were also mode led using the same model. Finally, a few area source categories emitting ammonia were assigned no growth (i.e., a growth factor of 1.0000). The following assumptions were made for the various modeled ammonia emission source categories:

• Population projection factor s described above (Section 7.1.2.2) were used for domestic ammonia emissions;

• Long-term agricultural average projection f actors described above (Section 7.1.2.4) were used for fertilizer emissions; and

• No growth was assumed for livestock (i.e ., due to apparent cyclical production trends), wild animals, and soils

7.1.2.8 Road Dust


### Future year emissions for paved road dust were estimated using the same methodology as used for the 2008 base year (see Section 2.3) along with estimates of 2015 and 2023 VMT. Elmore County 2015 and 2023 VMT estimates were based on data developed for the on-road
vehicle emission estimates as described above . Ada and Canyon County VMT estimates were taken from COMPASS transportation dema nd model (TDM) output for 2015 and 2025.
COMPASS 2015 VMT estimates were used direc tly while 2023 VMT was estimated by linearly2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-6 interpolating between the 2015 and 2025 data provid ed by COMPASS. No change in paved road
dust emission rates was estimated based on th e assumption of unchanged future maintenance practices.

Future year emissions for unpaved road dus t were estimated using the same methodology as the base year. In Ada Count y, a reduction in VMT of 1.95 pe rcent per year was assumed per the Ada County conformity documentation (COM PASS, 2005). For all other areas, VMT was assumed unchanged from 2008 based on conversa tions with local highway districts and municipalities which indicated that even mini mal projected conversion of unpaved to paved roads in future years would be dependent on f unding levels. No change in unpaved road dust emission rates was estimated based on the assumption of unchanged future maintenance practices.

7.1.3 On-Road Motor Vehicles 

### Ada and Canyon county emissions in future years 2015, 2023, and 2030 were estimated
within CONCEPT-MV. COMP ASS provided DEQ and ENVIR ON with TDM output from 2015 and 2025. DEQ ran CONCEPT-MV using the TDM for 2008, 2015, and 2030 directly for those calendar years. To generate the 2023 da taset, DEQ developed growth factors by county and roadway type by interpolating between 2015 and 2025 COMPASS data. The growth function of the T3 tool was used to genera te 2023 dataset for CONCEPT. Some of the MOBILE6 input parameters were updated in 201 5, 2023, and 2030 (i.e., limited to changes in anti-tampering parameters and inspection and ma intenance [I/M] parameters). Anti-tampering and I/M programs were not in place for Canyon County in 2008, but were added for 2015, 2023, and 2030 and the parameters are si milar to the 2008 Ada County programs described in Tables 4- 8 and 4-9, except for the program change to bien nial testing and testing of light-duty vehicles only. Tables 7-1 and 7-2 show the future year updated parameters for anti-tampering and I/M, respectively. Alcohol blend E10 market share also changed from 68% in 2008 to 100% in future years. There were no other changes in MOBILE6 inputs for the CONCEPT-MV work.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-7 Table 7-1. 2015, 2023, a nd 2030 MOBILE6 Inputs by Co unty: Anti-Tampering Program Parameters Anti-Tampering Program Parameters Ada County Canyon County Elmore County Program Start Year 2010 2010 - First Vehicle Model Year Applied Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008 -

Last Vehicle Model Year Applied Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008 -

Vehicle Types Applied Same as Ada 2008 LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2 LDGT3, LDGT4 -
Inspection Frequency Biennial Biennial - Compliance Rate Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008 - Inspection Conducted Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008 -2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-8 Table 7-2. 2015, 2023, a nd 2030 MOBILE6 Inputs by County: I/M Program Parameters
I/M Program

Type I/M Program Parameters Ada County Canyon County Elmore County Start Year 2010 2010 - End Year 2050 2050 - Frequency Biennial Biennial - First Vehicle Model Year Applied 1981 1981 -

Last Vehicle Model Year Applied 1995 1995 -

Vehicle Types Applied Same as Ada 2008 LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, LDGT3, LDGT4 -
Stringency (pre-1981 only) Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008 - Compliance Rate Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008 -

Same as Ada 2008 Waiver Rate (expressed as a percentage of the vehicles that fail the I/M program) Same as Ada 2008 - Exhaust Test Only Program – Two speed

test (idle and 2500

RPM)

Grace Period (the age at which vehicle first become subject to I/M testing) 4 5 -

Start Year 2010 2010 - End Year 2050 2050 - Frequency Biennial Biennial - First Vehicle Model Year Applied Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008 -

Last Vehicle Model Year Applied 2050 2050 -

Vehicle Types Applied Same as Ada 2008 LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, LDGT3, LDGT4 -
Stringency (expected exhaust inspection failure rate for pre-1981 model year vehicles) Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008 -

Compliance Rate Same as Ada 2008 Same as Ada 2008 -

Same as Ada 2008 Waiver Rate (expressed as a percentage of the vehicles that fail the I/M program) Same as Ada 2008 - Exhaust Test Only Program – OBD I/M

Grace Period (the age at which vehicle first become subject to I/M testing) 4 5 -



### Elmore County emissions in future years 2015 and 2023 were estimated by multiplying emission factors specific to 2015 and 2023 with projected VMT from 2008 to the future years.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-9 Elmore County emissions were not estimat ed for 2030. Emission factors for 2015 and 2023 were generated by running MOBILE6 for those calendar years, which accounts for federally mandated gasoline sulfur reductions by calendar year and captures emission rate reductions due to increasingly stringent vehicle emission standa rds. The MOBILE6 national default registration
distribution was used in all th ree years 2008, 2015 and 2023. Per DEQ, fuel parameters and vehicle inspection and maintenance programs do not change from 2008 in Elmore County. The MOBILE6 national default registration distribu tion was used in all three years 2008, 2015 and 2023. In addition, MOBILE6 accounts for federally mandated gasoline sulfur reductions by year
and contains estimates of emission rate reductions due to increasingly st ringent vehicle emission
standards.

2008 Elmore County VMT was projected to 2015 and 2023 using scaling factors based on the COMPASS TDM outputs for 2008, 2015 a nd 2025. The COMPASS TDM includes linklevel volumes and distances (thus VMT) by urba n and rural roadway types that were readily classifiable into the three road types of the or iginal 2008 Elmore County to tal VMT: “interstate,” “arterial,” and “other” for roadways that were no t interstate or arterial. VMT estimates for 2023 were calculated by linearly interpolating VMT between 2015 and 2025 datasets. The final projection factors for rural interstates, rural arte rials and rural “other” roadways were developed by scaling 2015/2008 and 2023/2008. The projected VM T and future year emission factor sets were used to estimate future year emissions usi ng the same approach as the base year modeling.

7.1.4 Nonroad Mobile Sources 

### The 2015 and 2023 nonroad mobile source projecti ons were developed using a variety of sources of projections data. These are described below.

7.1.4.1 Nonroad Equipment


### The NONROAD model incorporates the effect s of all “on the books” regulations. The model also contains growth factors for all equi pment types, which have been derived by U.S. EPA from a proprietary database of e quipment sales for several years.

The NONROAD model was run for 2015 and 2023 analogous to what was done for 2008. Climate, local population, and tempor al profiles used in the base ye ar inputs were similarly used in the development of future year emissions. Fuel properties remained unchanged from base2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-10 year estimates, except for the nonroad diesel su lfur level which was set to 15 ppm for 2015 and 2023 as required by the federal Tier 4 nonroad diesel rule.

7.1.4.2 Aircraft


### Aircraft emissions were proj ected to future years from the 2008 emissions, by airport and aircraft type, using LTO forecasts available from the FAA. Aircraft and APU emission factors were assumed to be unchanged over time. The In ternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has promulgated NO x 

### and CO emission standards for comm ercial aircraft (exempting general aviation and military engines from the rule) (IC AO, 1998); the majority of engines are already meeting this standard. U.S. EPA officially pr omulgated the ICAO standard s for air carriers in a
final rule in November 2005.

The historic and projected LTO data by airport are available online from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Te rminal Area Forecast (TAF) database for all aircraft categories for which emissions were estimated (FAA, 2008). Projected LTO data for years 2015, 2023, and historic data for 2008 were used to devel op future year growth f actors for all aircraft types by airport. Growth factor s were calculated as the ratio of the sum of LTOs by airport and aircraft type in each future year to the sum of LTOs by airport and aircraft type in 2008. For airports that were included in the 2008 analys is, but are not in the F AA TAF database, growth
factors were calculated as the ratio of the sum of LTOs by aircraft type in each future year over the entire Treasure Valley study region to the su m of LTOs by aircraft type in 2008 over the entire Treasure Valley study region. These future year growth factors we re then applied to 2008 emission estimates by airport and airc raft type to develop future ye ar emission inventories. Base year LTOs and future year growth factors are shown in Table 7-3.

Auxiliary power unit activity growth was a ssumed equivalent to commercial aircraft activity growth estimates. Airport GSE engi nes are subject to U. S. EPA nonroad engine standards. Fleet turnover to newer, engines meeting more stringent standards over time will decrease fleetwide airport GSE emission rates ov er time. Therefore, airport GSE projection factors must incorporate estimates of both activity growth and fl eetwide emission rate decreases due to fleet turnover. Airpor t GSE fleetwide emission rate de creases were calculated based on the NONROAD model estimates of emission changes by fuel type in airport GSE emissions due2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-11 to fleet turnover. To incorporate future year ac tivity growth in airport GS E, commercial aircraft growth rates were applied.

Table 7-3. Base Year Aircraft LTO Ac tivity Data and Future Year Projection Factors

Airport Commercial Aircraft Air Taxi Aircraft General Aviation Aircraft Military Aircraft 2008 LTOs Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field 20,636 12,804 36,557 6,158 Caldwell Industrial 0 2,000 67,486 0 Nampa Municipal 0 0 54,813 50 Mountain Home Municipal 0 254 9,657 500 Other airports not in TAF database a 14 0 46,578 0 2015/2008 LTOs Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field 105% 67% 95% 104% Caldwell Industrial - 100% 118% 100% Nampa Municipal - - 123% 100% Mountain Home Municipal - 100% 114% 100% Other airports not in TAF database a 105% - 113% 104% 2023/2008 LTOs Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field 130% 88% 116% 104% Caldwell Industrial - 100% 141% 100% Nampa Municipal - - 157% 100% Mountain Home Municipal - 100% 131% 100% Other airports not in TAF database a 130% - 138% 104%

a Emissions projected for these air ports based on estimated projections of total activity at the four airports for which data was available from FAA’s TAF database 

### 7.1.4.3 Locomotives


### Future year locomotive emission estimates were based on projections of activity growth and emission reductions. The activity growth was forecasted on the basis fuel consumption. The emission reduction forecasts account primarily for the fleet turnover and the lower emission standards, which were based on data available in EPA documents (U.S. EPA, 1997a; U.S. EPA, 1997b; U.S. EPA, 2008).

A fuel consumption trend was estimated usi ng a least squares regression analysis of annual fuel consumption obtained from the Associ ation of American Railroads (AAR) for six years between 1999 and 2008 (AAR, 2009). Within th e study domain the only Class 1 railroad operating was Union Pacific (UP). To accurate ly forecast activity, UP nationwide fuel2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-12 consumption was analyzed (see Table 7-4). The UP data were also used to forecast the Idaho Northern Pacific Railroad and switching locomotiv e emissions; it is expected that the short-line and switching activity will have similar growth to the estimates for the mainline railroad (i.e., UP) that operates in the study domain. Based on the least squares linear regression analysis, a growth rate of 4,264,472 gallons of fuel per year was estimated.

Table 7-4. Union Pacific Historic Fuel Consumption
Year Fuel (gallons) 1999 1,252,111,733 2002 1,325,049,398 2005 1,362,933,944 2006 1,382,778,469 2007 1,338,300,581 2008 1,240,874,008 

### The growth rate was applie d to the 2008 fuel consumption to generate 2015 and 2023 estimates of 1,270,725,311 gallons and 1,304,841, 085 gallons, respectively. The 2015 and 2023 fuel consumption estimates represent a 2.40% and 5.16% increase from 2008, respectively.

The emission reduction estimates were based on the U.S. EPA line-haul and switching
locomotive forecasted emission reductions relati ve to the locomotive fleets (U.S. EPA, 1997a; U.S. EPA, 1997b; U.S. EPA, 2008). Based on the U.S. EPA reports estimates of future year average emissions by the fleet type, representa tive emissions reductions from 2008 to 2015 and
2008 to 2023 were extracted.
7.1.5 Biogenic Sources 

### Although it is expected that there will be yea r-to-year variability in biogenic emissions, it is not possible to predict this variability. Therefore, the 2008 biogenic emission estimates were
also used for the 2015 and 2023 emission inventories.
7.2 2015, 2023, and 2030 Inventory Summaries



### Using all of the projection factors describe d in Section 7.1, th e 2015 and 2023 projected
emissions inventories were deve loped. In addition, the on -road motor vehicle emission inventories for Ada and Canyon counties were de veloped for 2030. County-level summaries of these inventories by source type are provided in this section. For ease of comparison, the 2008 county-level summaries are also presented. The annual summaries are presented in Tables 7-52008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-13 (2008), 7-6 (2015), 7-7 (2023), and 7-8 (2030). The ozone season summaries are provided in Tables 7-9 (2008), 7-10 (2015), 7-11 (2023), and 7-12 (2030) while the PM season summaries are shown in Tables 7-13 (2008), 7-14 (2015), 7-15 (2023), and 7-16 (2030).
Table 7-5. 2008 County-Level Annual Em issions Summarized by Source Type

County Source Type NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) Ada Point 355.6 65.7 268.1 198.5 169.1 142.6 46.0 Area 920.7 26.9 12,962.8 7,715.1 38,723.5 4,643.9 3,995.3 On-Road 5,114.3 27.2 4,022.0 45,574.2 125.2 75.6 311.6 Nonroad 2,894.6 90.4 2,031.2 24,870.5 257.8 244.8 2.8 Biogenic 202.3 0.0 12,802.5 2,246.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 9,487.6 210.2 32,086.6 80,604.9 39,275.6 5,106.8 4,355.7 Canyon Point 1,356.5 2,007.3 303.4 1,044.7 495.9 277.8 420.6 Area 545.8 19.1 7,507.9 7,221.7 13,715.9 2,450.2 7,726.9 On-Road 3,138.5 12.7 3,093.9 33,553.8 60.4 37.0 143.5 Nonroad 1,878.3 47.9 754.1 8,251.3 174.7 164.0 1.8 Biogenic 283.9 0.0 8,902.4 1,650.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 7,203.0 2,087.0 20,561.6 51,721.7 14,446.9 2,929.0 8,292.8 Elmore Point 360.3 2.5 26.6 105.3 135.9 58.7 0.0 Area 80.5 5.8 1,730.0 1,595.8 22,491.9 2,806.1 4,812.3 On-Road 576.6 3.1 529.8 5,460.8 14.7 9.3 30.7 Nonroad 914.8 16.1 368.6 1,873.0 56.8 53.6 0.7 Biogenic 465.2 0.0 30,982.3 6,425.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 2,397.3 27.5 33,637.3 15,460.0 22,699.2 2,927.7 4,843.7 Total Point 2,072.4 2,075.4 598.1 1,348.5 800.9 479.0 466.6 Area 1,547.1 51.8 22,200.7 16,532.7 74,931.3 9,900.2 16,534.5 On-Road 8,829.4 43.0 7,645.7 84,588.8 200.3 121.9 485.8 Nonroad 5,687.6 154.5 3,153.8 34,994.8 489.3 462.4 5.4 Biogenic 951.4 0.0 52,687.2 10,321.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 19,087.8 2,324.8 86,285.5 147,786.6 76,421.8 10,963.5 17,492.22008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-14 Table 7-6. 2015 County-Level Annual Em issions Summarized by Source Type

County Source Type NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) Ada Point 355.6 65.7 268.1 198.5 169.1 142.6 46.0 Area 900.0 23.6 14,551.2 6,885.8 46,687.8 5,109.4 4,143.2 On-Road 3,069.7 35.1 2,821.8 40,996.1 122.5 61.9 402.7 Nonroad 1,979.8 28.2 1,480.7 21,192.5 196.9 185.8 3.2 Biogenic 202.3 0.0 12,802.5 2,246.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 6,507.4 152.6 31,924.3 71,519.5 47,176.3 5,499.7 4,595.0 Canyon Point 1,365.9 2,007.3 303.9 1,054.8 500.3 282.1 420.6 Area 509.7 16.7 7,690.9 6,310.3 18,855.7 2,616.2 7,907.8 On-Road 2,047.2 17.7 2,206.5 26,166.7 62.3 31.6 202.1 Nonroad 1,351.8 6.6 546.1 7,047.7 126.9 116.8 2.0 Biogenic 283.9 0.0 8,902.4 1,650.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 5,558.4 2,048.3 19,649.8 42,229.7 19,545.2 3,046.7 8,532.6 Elmore Point 360.3 2.5 26.6 105.3 135.9 58.7 0.0 Area 74.0 5.3 1,781.0 1,412.5 22,923.7 2,876.3 4,636.3 On-Road 425.7 4.6 458.9 6,040.8 15.8 8.3 46.9 Nonroad 701.7 7.3 260.1 1,723.9 39.7 37.0 0.8 Biogenic 465.2 0.0 30,982.3 6,425.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 2,026.8 19.7 33,508.9 15,707.5 23,115.1 2,980.2 4,684.0 Total Point 2,081.8 2,075.5 598.6 1,358.6 805.3 483.3 466.6 Area 1,483.7 45.6 24,023.1 14,608.6 88,467.1 10,601.9 16,687.3 On-Road 5,542.6 57.4 5,487.2 73,203.6 200.6 101.8 651.7 Nonroad 4,033.2 42.1 2,286.8 29,964.1 363.6 339.6 6.0 Biogenic 951.4 0.0 52,687.2 10,321.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 14,092.7 2,220.6 85,082.9 129,456.6 89,836.6 11,526.6 17,811.62008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-15 Table 7-7. 2023 County-Level Annual Em issions Summarized by Source Type

County Source Type NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) Ada Point 391.2 72.3 294.9 218.4 186.0 156.8 50.6 Area 951.9 23.8 18,062.8 7,146.3 58,495.6 5,966.6 4,207.4 On-Road 1,724.8 43.2 1,972.9 41,804.2 137.8 64.3 496.3 Nonroad 1,355.0 33.8 1,407.9 22,622.6 135.8 125.9 3.6 Biogenic 202.3 0.0 12,802.5 2,246.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 4,625.1 173.1 34,541.0 74,038.0 58,955.2 6,313.6 4,757.9 Canyon Point 1,497.7 2,208.0 334.0 1,155.2 548.1 308.1 462.7 Area 519.3 16.9 8,820.6 6,469.1 28,232.7 3,199.1 7,930.7 On-Road 1,216.9 23.5 1,464.4 26,854.2 74.9 35.0 268.4 Nonroad 860.7 6.9 504.2 7,402.5 83.6 73.5 2.3 Biogenic 283.9 0.0 8,902.4 1,650.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 4,378.6 2,255.4 20,025.7 43,531.2 28,939.4 3,615.7 8,664.0 Elmore Point 396.3 2.7 29.3 115.8 149.5 64.5 0.0 Area 75.2 5.4 1,900.3 1,459.2 23,710.4 3,066.6 4,639.0 On-Road 340.6 6.5 422.6 7,416.2 19.8 9.4 66.0 Nonroad 457.5 7.6 191.7 1,714.4 25.0 22.5 0.8 Biogenic 465.2 0.0 30,982.3 6,425.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 1,734.8 22.2 33,526.2 17,130.6 23,904.7 3,163.0 4,705.9 Total Point 2,285.3 2,283.0 658.2 1,489.4 883.6 529.5 513.2 Area 1,546.4 46.1 28,783.7 15,074.6 110,438.6 12,232.2 16,777.1 On-Road 3,282.3 73.2 3,859.9 76,074.6 232.5 108.7 830.7 Nonroad 2,673.1 48.3 2,103.8 31,739.4 244.5 222.0 6.8 Biogenic 951.4 0.0 52,687.2 10,321.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 10,738.4 2,450.7 88,092.8 134,699.8 111,799.2 13,092.4 18,127.8


### Table 7-8. 2030 County-Level Annual On -Road Emissions for Ada and Canyon Counties

County Source Type NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) Ada On-Road 1,468.4 50.9 2,170.8 46,795.6 159.7 73.3 584.8 Canyon On-Road 1,006.7 28.9 1,643.3 30,471.3 90.8 41.7 331.52008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-16

Table 7-9. 2008 County-Level Ozone Se ason Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source Type NO x (tpd) SO 2 (tpd) VOC (tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) Ada Point 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.1 Area 1.4 4.6 33.7 4.8 102.4 9.9 12.7 On-Road 13.4 0.1 10.8 80.8 0.4 0.2 0.9 Nonroad 10.1 0.3 7.2 85.6 0.9 0.9 0.0 Biogenic 0.7 0.0 55.6 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 26.5 5.2 108.1 181.2 104.2 11.4 13.8 Canyon Point 3.5 5.2 0.8 2.1 1.3 0.7 1.1 Area 0.9 1.3 18.4 3.8 36.5 4.1 23.8 On-Road 8.3 0.0 8.4 61.8 0.2 0.1 0.4 Nonroad 6.8 0.2 2.8 29.2 0.7 0.6 0.0 Biogenic 1.0 0.0 38.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 20.6 6.7 69.0 103.8 38.6 5.6 25.3 Elmore Point 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 Area 0.1 0.8 4.5 1.4 73.5 8.3 15.2 On-Road 1.5 0.0 1.5 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Nonroad 3.0 0.1 1.7 8.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 Biogenic 1.7 0.0 132.4 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 7.3 0.8 140.2 47.5 74.1 8.7 15.3 Total Point 5.5 5.4 1.6 3.0 2.2 1.3 1.2 Area 2.4 6.7 56.6 10.1 212.4 22.3 51.8 On-Road 23.2 0.1 20.7 153.6 0.6 0.3 1.4 Nonroad 19.8 0.6 11.7 122.8 1.8 1.7 0.0 Biogenic 3.4 0.0 226.5 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 54.3 12.7 317.2 332.5 216.9 25.6 54.42008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-17 Table 7-10. 2015 County-Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source Type NO x (tpd) SO 2 (tpd) VOC (tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) Ada Point 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.1 Area 1.3 3.8 38.4 4.7 123.4 11.5 13.1 On-Road 8.1 0.1 7.7 67.6 0.4 0.2 1.1 Nonroad 6.8 0.1 5.2 72.6 0.7 0.7 0.0 Biogenic 0.7 0.0 55.6 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 17.9 4.2 107.6 155.0 124.9 12.8 14.4 Canyon Point 3.5 5.2 0.8 2.1 1.3 0.7 1.1 Area 0.9 1.1 19.3 3.5 51.6 5.0 24.3 On-Road 5.4 0.1 6.2 44.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 Nonroad 4.9 0.0 2.0 24.6 0.5 0.4 0.0 Biogenic 1.0 0.0 38.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 15.7 6.4 66.8 81.7 53.5 6.3 26.0 Elmore Point 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 Area 0.1 0.6 4.7 1.3 74.1 8.4 14.8 On-Road 1.1 0.0 1.3 11.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 Nonroad 2.3 0.0 1.1 7.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 Biogenic 1.7 0.0 132.4 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 6.2 0.7 139.7 47.5 74.6 8.7 14.9 Total Point 5.5 5.4 1.6 3.0 2.2 1.3 1.2 Area 2.3 5.6 62.4 9.5 249.0 24.9 52.2 On-Road 14.6 0.2 15.2 124.1 0.6 0.3 1.9 Nonroad 14.0 0.1 8.3 104.6 1.3 1.2 0.0 Biogenic 3.4 0.0 226.5 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 39.9 11.2 314.0 284.2 253.1 27.8 55.32008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-18 Table 7-11. 2023 County-Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source Type NO x (tpd) SO 2 (tpd) VOC (tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) Ada Point 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.1 Area 1.4 3.6 48.0 5.1 154.1 13.7 13.3 On-Road 4.7 0.1 5.3 66.1 0.4 0.2 1.4 Nonroad 4.5 0.1 4.8 77.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 Biogenic 0.7 0.0 55.6 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 12.3 4.0 114.5 158.2 155.5 14.8 14.8 Canyon Point 3.9 5.7 0.9 2.3 1.5 0.8 1.2 Area 0.9 1.0 22.3 3.6 78.6 6.6 24.4 On-Road 3.3 0.1 4.0 43.4 0.2 0.1 0.8 Nonroad 3.1 0.0 1.7 25.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 Biogenic 1.0 0.0 38.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 12.1 6.8 67.5 81.7 80.6 7.8 26.3 Elmore Point 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 Area 0.1 0.6 5.0 1.4 74.5 8.6 14.8 On-Road 0.9 0.0 1.2 14.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 Nonroad 1.5 0.0 0.8 7.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Biogenic 1.7 0.0 132.4 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 5.3 0.7 139.5 50.1 75.1 8.9 15.0 Total Point 6.0 5.9 1.8 3.3 2.4 1.4 1.3 Area 2.4 5.2 75.3 10.1 307.3 29.0 52.4 On-Road 8.8 0.2 10.5 124.0 0.7 0.3 2.4 Nonroad 9.1 0.1 7.3 109.6 0.9 0.8 0.0 Biogenic 3.4 0.0 226.5 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 29.8 11.4 321.4 289.9 311.2 31.5 56.1 

### Table 7-12. 2030 County-Level Ozone Season On-Road Emissions for Ada and Canyon Counties

County Source Type NO x (tpd) SO 2 (tpd) VOC (tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) Ada On-Road 4.3 0.1 6.7 148.2 0.5 0.2 1.7 Canyon On-Road 2.9 0.1 5.1 95.5 0.3 0.1 1.02008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-19 Table 7-13. 2008 County-Level PM Seas on Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source Type NO x (tpd) SO 2 (tpd) VOC (tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) Ada Point 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 Area 4.4 0.1 39.1 49.7 124.5 18.3 8.5 On-Road 13.3 0.1 6.6 146.1 0.3 0.2 0.8 Nonroad 5.6 0.2 4.4 62.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 Biogenic 0.3 0.0 5.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 24.5 0.6 56.7 260.3 125.7 19.3 9.4 Canyon Point 4.4 6.5 0.9 4.8 1.5 0.8 1.3 Area 2.4 0.1 24.4 46.2 42.4 11.2 17.7 On-Road 8.2 0.0 5.3 103.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 Nonroad 2.9 0.1 1.4 18.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 Biogenic 0.4 0.0 4.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 18.3 6.7 36.1 174.5 44.3 12.3 19.3 Elmore Point 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 Area 0.4 0.0 5.1 9.0 47.2 7.1 10.5 On-Road 1.6 0.0 1.1 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Nonroad 1.9 0.0 0.5 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Biogenic 0.7 0.0 17.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 5.5 0.1 24.1 34.3 47.7 7.3 10.6 Total Point 6.4 6.7 1.6 5.5 2.3 1.4 1.5 Area 7.1 0.3 68.6 104.9 214.2 36.6 36.7 On-Road 23.1 0.1 13.0 266.9 0.4 0.3 1.2 Nonroad 10.4 0.3 6.3 84.5 0.7 0.7 0.0 Biogenic 1.4 0.0 27.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 48.4 7.4 116.9 469.1 217.6 39.0 39.42008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-20 Table 7-14. 2015 County-Level PM Seas on Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source Type NO x (tpd) SO 2 (tpd) VOC (tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) Ada Point 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 Area 4.3 0.1 42.8 43.5 151.4 19.2 8.9 On-Road 8.0 0.1 4.4 134.9 0.3 0.2 1.0 Nonroad 3.8 0.1 3.3 54.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 Biogenic 0.3 0.0 5.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 17.4 0.5 57.0 234.9 152.4 20.1 10.0 Canyon Point 4.4 6.5 0.9 4.8 1.5 0.8 1.3 Area 2.3 0.1 24.2 40.0 56.1 10.9 18.2 On-Road 5.4 0.0 3.3 85.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 Nonroad 2.0 0.0 1.1 16.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 Biogenic 0.4 0.0 4.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 14.6 6.7 33.6 147.6 57.9 12.0 20.0 Elmore Point 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 Area 0.3 0.0 5.2 7.9 48.5 7.2 10.0 On-Road 1.2 0.0 0.9 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 Nonroad 1.5 0.0 0.4 2.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 Biogenic 0.7 0.0 17.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 4.6 0.1 23.9 34.5 49.0 7.4 10.1 Total Point 6.4 6.7 1.6 5.5 2.3 1.4 1.5 Area 6.8 0.2 72.2 91.4 256.0 37.4 37.1 On-Road 14.6 0.1 8.6 238.8 0.5 0.3 1.6 Nonroad 7.3 0.1 4.8 74.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 Biogenic 1.4 0.0 27.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 36.6 7.2 114.5 417.0 259.3 39.5 40.22008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 7-21 Table 7-15. 2023 County-Level PM Seas on Emissions Summarized by Source Type

County Source Type NO x (tpd) SO 2 (tpd) VOC (tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) Ada Point 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 Area 4.5 0.1 52.6 44.8 191.8 22.1 9.1 On-Road 4.4 0.1 3.2 139.6 0.3 0.2 1.2 Nonroad 2.8 0.1 3.3 59.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 Biogenic 0.3 0.0 5.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 13.2 0.6 65.6 245.6 192.8 22.9 10.5 Canyon Point 4.9 7.2 0.9 5.3 1.6 0.9 1.5 Area 2.3 0.1 27.4 41.0 81.2 12.6 18.3 On-Road 3.2 0.1 2.3 89.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 Nonroad 1.3 0.0 1.1 18.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Biogenic 0.4 0.0 4.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 12.1 7.3 35.9 154.5 83.1 13.7 20.4 Elmore Point 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 Area 0.3 0.0 5.5 8.1 51.4 7.9 10.0 On-Road 0.9 0.0 0.9 23.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 Nonroad 1.0 0.0 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Biogenic 0.7 0.0 17.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 4.0 0.1 24.1 39.2 51.9 8.1 10.2 Total Point 7.0 7.4 1.8 6.0 2.5 1.5 1.6 Area 7.2 0.3 85.5 93.9 324.3 42.6 37.4 On-Road 8.6 0.2 6.3 251.7 0.6 0.3 2.0 Nonroad 5.1 0.1 4.7 80.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 Biogenic 1.4 0.0 27.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 29.3 8.0 125.6 439.3 327.9 44.8 41.0 

### Table 7-16. 2030 County-Level PM S eason On-Road Emissions for Ada and Canyon Counties

County Source Type NO x (tpd) SO 2 (tpd) VOC (tpd) CO (tpd) PM 10 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) Ada On-Road 3.8 0.1 3.3 157.2 0.4 0.2 1.4 Canyon On-Road 2.6 0.1 2.3 101.9 0.2 0.1 0.82008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 8-1 8.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY DATA FORMATTING


### As indicated in the discussion of contract sc ope in Section 1.2, a ll contract tasks have been completed. The emissions results presented in this final report have been generated using either calculational spreadsheets or computer models.

In order to facilitate their use in air quality models, the relevant emissions data were exported to ASCII comma-delimited (.csv) files for re-formatting as input files to the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissi ons (SMOKE) model. Relevant parameters included pollutant emissions (i.e., annual, ozone season daily, and PM season daily), pollutant codes, SCCs, and county FIPS codes. For stationary point sources , information related to stack parameters and operating schedules were also needed. Where a pplicable, local temporal and speciation profiles were also provided in spreadsheet format. Comput er scripts developed with Perl were then used
to re-format emissions data for SMOKE. Th ese script procedures were implemented by ENVIRON, who routinely performs these procedures and has deve loped a robust set of scripts, including limited internal data consistency checks, to accomplish this task.

Besides the final emissions inventory report, all inventory data (i.e., supporting data, spreadsheets, SMOKE-ready files, and all other ancillary information needed to duplicate the emissions inventory) have also been submitted to DEQ. The level of detail provided by the ERG/ENVIRON team ensures a transparent and defe nsible inventory that DEQ will be able to understand and replicate.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 9-1 9.0 REFERENCES 

### AAR, 2009. Analysis of Class 1 Railroad, 2008 . Association of American Railroads. Alfaro, S.C. and Gomes, L., 2001. “Modeli ng mineral aerosol produc tion by wind erosion: emission intensities and aerosol size distributions in source areas.” J. Geophys. Res. 106 (16): 18075-18084. Alfaro, S.C., Rajot, J.L., and Nickling, W.G ., 2004. “Estimation of PM20 emissions by wind erosion: main sources of uncertainties.” Geomorphology 59: 63-74.
Amick, 2010. Personal communication between D oug Amick (Greenleaf Deparment of Public Services) and John Grant (ENVIRON). April.
Anderson, 2010. Personal communication be tween John Anderson (Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District) and Marty Wolf (ERG). January 26.
Aurora, 2010. State of Idaho Department of Environm ental Quality’s Residential Wood Combustion Inventory Survey: Treasure Valley Airshed. August 2008 to July 2009 . Final Report. Aurora Research Group, Sacramento, CA. January.
Baker, 2010. Personal communication between Carl a Baker (City of Caldwell) and John Grant (ENVIRON). April.
Barnard, 2003. Personal communication between Bill Barnard (MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Gainesville, FL) and Gerry Mansell (ENVIRON). April.
Barr, 2010. Personal communi cation between Don Barr (City of Nampa Public Works Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23.
Battye, W., V.P. Aneja, and P.A. Roelle, 2003. “Evaluation and improvement of ammonia emission inventories.” Atmospheric Environment 37: 3873-3883.
Bequeath, 2010. Personal communication betwee n Casey Bequeath (Nampa Highway District) and John Grant (ENVIRON). April.
Boise, 2010. Boise City Code. Internet addr ess: http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/ City_Clerk/CityCode/
Bowman, 2010a. Personal communication betw een Von Bowman (Notus-Parma Highway District No. 2) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.
Bowman, 2010b. Personal communication be tween Von Bowman (Notus-Parma Highway District No. 2) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 24.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 9-2 BTS, 2009. National Transportation Atlas Database . Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Research and Innovative Technology Administrati on. Internet Address: http://www.bts.gov/ publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/
Caldwell, 2010. Personal communication betwee n City of Caldwell Streets Department and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 24.
CARB, 1997. “Section 7.11 – Supplemental Docu mentation for Windblown Dust – Agricultural Lands.” Area Source Methods . California Air Resources Boar d, Emission Inventory Analysis Section, Sacramento, CA. April.
CARB, 2003a. “Section 7.4 – Agri cultural Land Preparation.” Area Source Methods

. California Air Resources Board, Emission Invent ory Analysis Section, Sacramento, CA. January.
CARB, 2003b. “Section 7.5 – Agri cultural Harvest Operations.” Area Source Methods

. California Air Resources Board, Emission Invent ory Analysis Section, Sacramento, CA. January.
CARB, 2004. “Section 7.6 – Livestock Husbandry.” Area Source Methods . California Air Resources Board, Emission Inventory Anal ysis Section, Sacramento, CA. May.
Chase, 2010. Personal communication between Doug Chase (Idaho Transportation Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.
Chatenet, B., Marticorena, B., Gomes, L., and Bergametti, G., 1996. “Assessing the microped size distributions of desert soils erodible by wind.” Sedimentology 43: 901-911.
Chinkin, L.R., P.A. Ryan, and D.L. Coe, 2003. Recommended Improvements to the CMU Ammonia Emission Inventory Model for Use by LADCO . Prepared for Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium.
Chitjian, M., J. Koizumi, C.W. Botsford, G. Mansell, and E. Winegar, 2000. 1997 Gridded Ammonia Emissions Inventory Update for the South Coast Air Basin . Final Report. Prepared for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Chitjian, M. and G. Mansell, 2003a. An Improved Ammonia Inventory for the WRAP Domain – Literature Review . Prepared for the WRAP Emissions Forum. October.
Chitjian, M. and G. Mansell, 2003b. An Improved Ammonia Inventory for the WRAP Domain – Technical Description of the Modeling System . Prepared for the WRAP Emissions Forum. November.
COMPASS, 2005. Particulate Matter Air Quality Conformity Dem onstration of the FY 2006- 2010 Northern Ada County TIP . Report No. 11-2005. Commun ity Planning Association of Southwest Idaho. September.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 9-3 COMPASS, 2010. Ada and Canyon county population forecasts for 2015, 2020, and 2025. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS).
DenBleyker, A., A. Pollack, J. Grant, and M. Jimenez, 2010. Peer Review of CONCEPT-MV Work . Technical memorandum prepared for Ch ristopher Ramsdell, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. May 21.
DEQ, 2006. 2005 Mobile Sources Emissions Inventory Report . Internal Technical Memorandum prepared for Christopher Rams dell by Jen Cole. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. October.
Economy.com, 2010. 4-digit NAICS-level Industr ial Output Projections in Constant 2000 Dollars. Moody’s Economy.com, West Chester, PA. May.
ECR, 2005. Improving Model Inventory Data: Temporal Profiles, Final Technical Report

. February.
EEA, 2002. Joint EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook, Third Edition. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
EIA, 2010. Annual Energy Outlook 2010 . DOE/EIA-0383(2010). Energy Information Administration. April.
EIIP, 1997a. Volume VI, Chapter 2 – Planning and Documentation . Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). January.
EIIP, 1997b. Volume III, Chapter 14 – Traffic Marking . Final. Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). May.
EIIP, 1999. Volume III, Area Source Method Abstract – Bakeries . Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). June 21
EIIP, 2000. Volume III, Area Source Method Abstract – Vehicle Fires . Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). May 15.
EIIP, 2001a. Volume III, Chapter 17 – Asphalt Paving . Revised Final. Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). January.
EIIP, 2001b. Volume III, Chapter 11 - Gasoline Marketing (Stage I and Stage II) . Revised Final. Emission Inventory Impr ovement Program (EIIP). January.
EIIP, 2001c. Volume III, Chapter 18 – Structure Fires . Revised Final. Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). January.
EIIP, 2003. Volume IX (Fugitive Dust from Beef Cattle Feedlots) . Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). January.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 9-4 EIIP, 2004. Estimating Ammonia Emissions from Anthropogenic Nonagricultural Sources

. Draft final report. Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). April.
ENVIRON and ERG, 2002. Development of Base and Future Year Emissions Inventories for the Northern Ada County PM10 SIP Maintenance Plan . Prepared for the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality by ENVIRON Internatio nal Corporation, Novato, CA and Eastern Research Group, Inc., Sacramento, CA. September 25.
ENVIRON et al., 2004. Determining Fugitive Dust Emissions from Wind Erosion . Prepared for the Western Governors’ Associ ation by ENVIRON Internationa l Corporation, Novato, CA; Eastern Research Group, Inc., Sacramento, CA; and Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV.
ERG and ENVIRON, 2009. 2008, 2015, and 2023 Emissions Inven tories for the Treasure Valley Airshed – Inventory Preparation Plan and Quality Assurance Plan . Prepared for the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality by Eastern Research Group, Inc., Sacramento, CA and ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA. July 15.
ERG, 2010. Documentation for Aircraft Component of the National Emissions Inventory Methodology . Eastern Research Group. April.
Etymezian, V., H. Kuhns, J. Gillies, M. Green , J. Chow, S. Kohl, and J. Watson, 2002. Treasure Valley Road Dust Study . Final Report. Prepared for Id aho Department of Environmental Quality by Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV.
FAA, 2008. Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Internet address: http://aspm.faa.gov/main/taf.asp
FAA, 2010. Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) . Federal Aviation Ad ministration (FAA). Internet address: http://www. apo.data.faa.gov/main/atads.asp
FRA, 2009. Locomotive Activity Dataset. Federal Railroad Administration.

Fugit, 2010. Electronic automatic traffic r ecorder data provided by Scott Fugit (Idaho Transportation Department). January

Gill, 2010. Personal communicati on between Dave G ill (Atlanta Highway District) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.
Gilliland, A.K., R.L. Dennis, S.J. Roselle, and T.E. Pierce, 2003. “Seasonal NH 3 

### emissions for the eastern United States based on ammonium wet concentrations a nd inverse modeling”. Atmospheric Environment 43: 5197-5206.
Girard, 2010. Personal communicat ion between Rich Girard (Ada County Highway District) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 9-5 Gluch, 2010. Personal communicati on between Jim Gluch (Glenns Ferry Highway District) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.
Grant, 2010. MOBILE6 input files provided by John Grant, ENVIRON. January 18.
Green, 2010. Personal communicati on between Brad Green (City of Middleton Public Works Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23.
Hardy, 2010. Personal communicat ion between Rick Hardy (Idaho DEQ) and Alison Pollack (ENVIRON). May 25.
Harvel, 2010. Personal communication between Ri ck Harvel (City of Mountain Home Public Works Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 20.
Houck, J.E. and B.N. Eagle, 2006. Control Analysis and Documentation for Residential Wood Combustion in the MANE-VU Region . Technical Memorandum 4 (Final Report) prepared for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Manage ment Association, Inc. by OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., Beaverton, OR. December 19.
Hunter, 2009. Personal communication between Dan Hunter (Canyon County) and Gopi Manne (ERG). November.
Hutchinson, 2010. Personal co mmunication between Ted Hutchinson (Ada County Solid Waste Management Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). January.
ICAO, 1998. Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection Fourth Meeting Report

. International Civil Aviation Organization, Doc 9720, CAEP/4, Montreal, 6-8 April.
IDPR, 2009a. Idaho Primary Boat Registration Designation Statistics 2004-2008 . Provided by the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation.
IDPR, 2009b. Idaho OHV Registrations by Residence . Provided by the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation.
IDWR, 2006. Canyon County, Idaho Irri gation Districts (map) . Idaho Department of Water Resources. October 30. Inte rnet address: http://www. idwr.idaho.gov/WaterManagement/ WaterRelatedDistricts/PDFs/MAP %20FOR%20CANYON%20COUNTY.pdf
IDWR, 2007. Irrigation Organizations with Serv ice Areas in Ada County (map) . Idaho Department of Water Resources. April 11. In ternet address: http ://www.idwr.idaho.gov/ WaterManagement/WaterRelatedDist ricts/PDFs/IrrMapAdaCounty.pdf
IPM Center, 2010. Idaho crop profiles. Nati onal Information System for the Regional IPM Centers, Raleigh, North Carolina. Internet a ddress: http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/ CP_form.cfm2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 9-6 Karnowski, 2009. Summary reports from the Id aho Fire Incident Reporting System (IFIRS) provided by Cheryl Karnowski (Idaho St ate Fire Marshal). November 19.
Kennedy, 2010. Personal communication betwee n Frank Kennedy (Nampa Highway District No. 1) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23.
Lane, 2010. Personal communication between Craig Lane (Wilder Deparment of Public Works) and John Grant (ENVIRON). April.
Mansell, G.E., 2003a. Revised Windblown Fugitive Du st Emission Estimation Methodology

. Technical memorandum prepared for Michael Uh l, Department of Air Quality Management, Clark County, NV. October 6.
Mansell, G.E., 2003b. Summary of WRAP Fugitive Dust Methodology Assumptions Model Sensitivity . Technical memorandum prepared for Michael Uhl, Department of Air Quality Management, Clark County, NV. November 14.
Mansell, G.E., 2005. Final Report Volume I: An Improved Ammonia Inventory for the WRAP Domain . Prepared for the Western Regional Ai r Partnership by ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA.
Mansell, G.E., R. Morris and M. Omary, 2004. Recommendations and Model Performance Evaluation for the Phase II Windblow n Fugitive Dust Emission Project . Technical memorandum prepared for the WRAP Dust Emission Joint Forum. July.
Mansell, G. and T. Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009. Review of DEQ Biogenic Emission Inventory for the Treasure Valley . Revised technical memorandum prepared for Christopher Ramsdell and Rick Hardy, Idaho Department of En vironmental Quality. December 31.
Marticorena, B., Bergametti, G ., Gillette, D., and Belnap, J. 1997. “Factors controlling threshold friction velocity in semiarid and arid areas of the United States.” J. Geophysics Research 102 (D19): 23277-23287.
McCain, 2010. Personal communication betwee n Mike McCain (City of Mountain Home, Public Works Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.
Midwest, 2006. Midwest RPO Candidate Contro l Measures – Asphalt Paving . Interim White Paper. Midwest Regional Pl anning Organization. March 10. Internet address: http://www.greenpatch.com/pdf/Midwest_OTC_VOC_laws.pdf
Mills, 2010. Personal communica tion between Jon Mills (Ada County Highway District) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.
Moran, 2010. Personal communication between Earl Moran (City of Nampa Parks and Recreation Department) and La n Ma (ENVIRON). January.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 9-7 Morrison, 2010a. Personal communication between Jim Morrison (Idaho Transportation Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 20.
Morrison, 2010b. Personal communication between Jim Morrison (Idaho Transportation Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). January 27.
MRI, 2005. Analysis of the Fine Fracti on of Particulate Matter in Fugitive Dust. Draft Project Report . Prepared for the Western Regional Air Pa rtnership by Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. August 17.
NASS, 2007. Cropland Data Layer . U.S. Department of Agri culture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Internet address: http://www.nass.usda.gov /research/Cropland/SARS1a.htm.
NASS, 2009a. NASS website, Natio nal Agricultural Statistics Se rvice, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Internet addre ss: http://www.nass.usda.gov/
NASS, 2009b. Idaho Crop Progress and Condition Reports, Issue ID-CW1408 (Week Ending April 6, 2008) through Issu e ID-CW4308 (Week Ending Oct ober 26, 2008). National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture. Internet address: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/I daho/Publications/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/ index.asp
NASS, 2010. Quick Stats for Ada, Canyon, and El more Counties, Idaho. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Internet address: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Stati stics_by_State/Idaho/index.asp
Newlun, 2010. Personal communication be tween Gail Newlun (Idaho Transportation Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). January 27.
Nobel, 2010. Personal communication between Randy Nobel (Ada County Highway District) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23.
Norris, 2010a. Personal communicat ion between David Norris (Gol den Gate Highway District No. 3) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.
Norris, 2010b. Personal communication between David Norris (Golden Gate Highway District No. 3) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23.
Olmanson, 2010. Personal communication betw een Ken Olmanson (Idaho Northern Pacific Railroad) and Tim Sturtz (ENVIRON). January.
Pace, T.G., 2003. A Conceptual Model to Adjust Fugitive Dust Emissions to Account for Near Source Particle Removal in Grid Model Applications . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 22.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 9-8 Pace, T.G., 2005. Methodology to Estimate the Transportable Fraction (TF) of Fugitive Dust Emissions for Regional and Ur ban Scale Air Quality Analyses . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 2.
Pettit, 2009. County-level extracts from the Southwest Burn Management Area Report provided by Jonathan Pettit, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. November 19.
Potter, C., C. Krauter, and S. Klooster, 2001. Statewide Inventory Estimates of Ammonia Emissions from Native Soils and Chemical Fertilizers in California

. Prepared for the California Air Resources Board. June
Radek, 2009. Personal communication between Kyle Radek (City of Meridian, Buildings Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). November.
Richard, 2010a. Personal communication betw een Timothy Richard (C anyon Highway District No. 4) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.
Richard, 2010b. Personal communication betw een Timothy Richard (C anyon Highway District No. 4) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 20.
Richard, 2010c. Personal communication betw een Timothy Richard (C anyon Highway District No. 4) and Gopi Manne (ERG). January 27.
Russell, A.G. and G.R. Cass, 1986. “Verificatio n of a Mathematical Model for Aerosol Nitrate and Nitric Acid Formation and Its Use for Control Measure Evaluation.” Atmospheric Environment 20: 2011-2025.

Sierra, 2006. Development of Fleet Characteristics Da ta for the Idaho On-Road Motor Vehicle Fleet . Sierra Research, Inc. January.

Stanford, K., R. Silasi, T.A. McAllister, and K. S. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, 2009. “Behavior of feedlot cattle affects voluntary oral and phys ical interactions with manila ropes.” Journal of Animal Science 87: 296-303. Sterling, 2010. City/county codes (Caldwell, Eagle, Garden City, Greenleaf, Kuna, Meridian, Middleton, Mountain Home, Nampa, Parma, St ar, Wilder, Ada County, and Canyon County), Sterling Codifiers, Coeur d’Alene, ID. Intern et address: http://www. sterlingcodifiers.com/
Strachan, 2009. Personal communication betw een Sara Strachan (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality) and Gerard Mansell (ENVIRON). September.
Strader, R., N. Anderson, and C. Davidson, 2004. CMU Ammonia Model . Version 3.6. Internet address: http://www.cmu.edu/ammonia/July 7.
Teddicken, 2010. Personal communication betw een Ed Teddicken (City of Boise Parks and Recreation Department) and La n Ma (ENVIRON). January.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 9-9 Tindall, 2010a. Personal communication betwee n Wayne Tindall (Mountain Home Highway District) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.
Tindall, 2010b. Personal communication betw een Wayne Tindall (Moun tain Home Highway District) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 24.
U.S. Census, 2005a. 2002 Economic Census (Sector 72: Accommodation and Food Services: Subject Series – Misc. Subjects: Principal Menu Type or Speci alty for the United States and States: 2002) . U.S. Census Bureau. December 7.
U.S. Census, 2005b. Interim Projections of the Total Population for the United States and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2030 (Table A1) . U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. April 21.
U.S. Census, 2009a. 2007 County Business Patterns . U.S. Census Bureau. July. Internet address: http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html
U.S. Census, 2009b. Annual Estimates of the Resident Popul ation for Incorporated Places in Idaho, Listed Alphabetically: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 . SUB-EST2008-04-16. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. July 1.
U.S. Census, 2009c. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 . U.S. Census Bureau. Internet address: http://www.census.gov/popest/c ounties/asrh/CC-EST2008-alldata.html
U.S. Census, 2010. Building permit database . Internet address: http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/ bldgprmt.shtml
USDA, 1994. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Data Base, Data use information , Miscellaneous Publication Number 1492. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National So il Service Center. Internet addr ess: http://www.essc.psu.edu/ soil_info/. December.
USDA, 1997. Usual Planting and Harvesting Da tes for U.S. Field Crops , Agricultural Handbook Number 628. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USDA, 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture, Idaho Stat e and County Data (Volume 1 Geographic Area Series, Part 12) , AC-07-A-12. U.S. Department of Ag riculture. February 4. Internet address: http://www.agcensus.usda .gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/ Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Idaho/index.asp
USDA, 2010. Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Inte rnet address: http: //soils.usda.gov/survey/ geography/ssurgo/2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 9-10 U.S. EPA, 1992. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation – Vol. IV: Mobile Sources

. EPA420-R-92-009. December.
U.S. EPA, 1997a. Locomotive Emission Standards, Re gulatory Support Document (RSD) , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, O ffice of Mobile Sources, April.
U.S. EPA, 1997b. Emission Factors (EF) for Locomotives . EPA420-F-97-051. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December.
U.S. EPA, 2002a. Review of Emission Factors and Me thodologies to Estimate Ammonia Emissions from Anim al Waste Handling . EPA-600/R-02-017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Labor atory, Research Triangle Park, NC. April.
U.S. EPA, 2002b. Emissions Modeling Clearinghous e Temporal Allocation Files . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 29. Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ emch/temporal/index.html
U.S. EPA, 2006. Documentation for the Fi nal 2002 Nonpoint Sector (FEB 06 version) National Emission Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan dards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July.
U.S. EPA, 2007. Development Work for Improved Hea vy-Duty Vehicle Modeling Capability Data Mining – FHWA Datasets. EPA/600/R-07/096. U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency. July.
U.S. EPA, 2008. Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA): Contro l of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder. EPA420-R-08-001. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. March.
U.S. EPA, 2009a. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Re cycling, and Disposal in the United States – Detailed Tables and Figures for 2008 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. November.

U.S. EPA, 2009b. NONROAD2008 model. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Intern et address: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ nonrdmdl.htm#model

U.S. EPA, 2009c. Emission Factors for Locomotives . EPA-420-F-09-025. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. April.
U.S. EPA, 2010a. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Fact ors – Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42), Fifth Edition (and subsequent updates) . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories Final, August 31, 2010 

### 9-11 U.S. EPA, 2010b. U.S. EPA’s NEI2008 . Internet address: ht tp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/ 2008inventory.html).

U.S. EPA, 2010c. Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 2010 (MOVES2010) model. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Trans portation and Air Quality. Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm

USGS, 2010. National Hydrography Dataset . U.S. Geological Service. Internet address: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html
Waldinger, 2009. Personal communication between Mary Ann Walldinger (COMPASS) and Alison Pollack (ENVIRON). August.
Waldinger 2010. Personal communication be tween Mary Ann Walld inger (COMPASS) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January.
Walter, 2010. Personal communication between Craig Walter (City of Boise, Public Works Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.
Walters, 2010. State-level gasoline statistics provided by Dar Walters, Idaho Tax Commission.
Webb, 2009. Personal communication between Steve Webb (City of Boise, Buildings Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). November.
Winterfield, 2009. Personal communication be tween Steve Webb (Elmore County, Growth and Development Department) and G opi Manne (ERG). November.
Winterfeld, 2010. Personal communication betw een Bob Winterfeld (Elmore County, Growth and Development Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January.
Woodward, 2010. Personal comm unication between Mike Woodward (City of Boise Parks and Recreation Department) and La n Ma (ENVIRON). January.

WRCC. 2009. Idaho Climate Summaries: Period of Record General Climate Summaries

. Western Regional Climate Ce nter, Desert Research In stitute. December.
Wright, 2010. Personal communication betw een Raquel Wright (Federal Railroad Administration) and Tim St urtz (ENVIRON). January.
York, 2010. Personal communication between Wendy York (Sorrento Lactal is) and Marty Wolf (ERG). May 5.
Zhang, 2009. Personal communication regard ing MM5 modeling from Wei Zhang (Idaho Department of Environmen tal Quality). August 8.

## APPENDIX A

LISTING OF PBR AND UN PERMITTED FACILITIES

### A-1 10% Ethanol All Star Freight Besco Htg & A/C 27th Street Automotive LLC Allied Seed Cooperative Inc. Best Western Vista Inn 3 Horse Ranch Vineyards, LLC Alpha I Al ternative School Beto's Mexican Food 44 Quick Stop Als Car Care BFI 7 Eleven # 22165 Aluma Glass Industries Inc. BFI of Idaho Inc. Nampa 7-Eleven #19591 Alura Lawn BHS Marketing - Nampa 7-Eleven Incorporated American Biodyn amics Big River Trading Company 7-Eleven Store #12973 American Homestar West Incorporated Big Smoke 7-K Motel American Linen Birch Elementary School 983 West State American National Red Cross Bis Manufacturing A & G Upholstery American Trailer Mfg Black Canyon Irrigation District A Campos Market LLC American W oodworking Black Dog Fabrications A P & D Group - Energy Amity Elem entary School Black Stone Construction A Shade Better Painting Amoco Oil Company Blackers Furniture (Formerly Known As) A&B Custom Mfg.,Inc. Anai's Janitorial & C hemical Supply Blackstone Security Group, LLC A. Beth Isreal (Asbestos) Anderson Auto Care Center Blue Water Dories A+ Aragon Landscaping Anderson Foundry Bluegrass Bakery AAA Collision Repair Anodizers Inc. B-Mor Inc. AAA Painting ANR Freight Bob Nicholes Oil Company AAA-1 Enterprises Anser Charter School Bobs Auto Body AAMCO Transmissions Applied Materials Bobs Body Shop Able Cleanup Technologies Inc. Arch Chemicals Inc. Bogus Basin Recreational Association Acclaim Technology Architectural Glass and Glazing Boise Ada Di sposal Co., Inc. Accord Technology LLC Army Barracks (Former) As bestos Boise Airport Snow Removal Equip Bldg Accura Bullets LLC Arnold Machinery Co Boise Boise Army Navy Ace Quality Floor Covering Arnold Ma chinery Co Meridian Boise Asphalt ACECO Precision Manufacturing Inc. Artech Boise Body Shop Supply ACECO Semiconductor Artistic Fire and Glass, Inc. Boise Cascade Aviation Action Trailer Ascent Media Systems & Te chnology Services Boise Cascade Aviation Ada County Risk Mgmt Asgrow Seed Company Nampa Boise Cascade Corp Boise Ada County Ems Building Associated Dairies Boise City Equipment Svc Shop Ada County Fairgrounds Associated Food Stores Boise City Independent School Ada County Highway Department (All Districts) Associated Foods Warehouse Boise Collision Ctr Ada County Juvenile Center Atlanta Gold Co rp of America (Atlanta ,ID) Boise Concrete Ada County Public Safety Building ATT Boise Idma L52067 Boise Deseret Industries Ada Electric Co., Inc. Atta Boi Concrete LLC. Boise Evening School Ada Prof-Tech Center Auld Investment Properties Boise Family YMCA Ada Towing Vacant Austin Mfg. Services Boise Fire Dept Maintenance Adams Elementary School Auto Body Center Incorporated Boise Glass Blowing Center, LLC Adams Paint Auto Body Specialists Inc. Boise Hydraulics Addies Restaurant Auto Service Garage Boise Independent Sd Ads Partnership Davis Packing Automated O ffice Systems Boise Independent Sd Boise Hs Advanced Auto Cosmedics Automotive Collisi on Tech Inc. Boise Mobile Equipment Advanced Bio-Energy Systems LLC Av id Aircraft Inc. Boise Muffler Advanced Casting Technology Avid Avia tion Boise Parks & Recreation Dept Advanced Environmental Tech Serv ices Avis Rent A Car Boise Pr oduct Terminal Big West Oil Co Advanced Thermographic Imaging B & A Au tomotive Boise Ranch Golf Course Aegis Technologies B & D Automotive Boise School District Facility Yard Agri-Lines Irrigation Inc. B & K F abricators Boise Senior High School Agripro Biosciences Inc. B and J Farm Bo ise State University (Boiler Plant) AH Schade Inc. Gem Stop Co 12th Ave Back Fourty Farms Boise Towne Square Mall AH Schade Inc. Gem Stop Co 2Nd St Backyard Bakery, LLC Boise Valley Feeders LLC AH Schade Inc. Gem Stop Co 323 Cb Bagel Bakery Boise Valley Fence Company AH Schade Inc. Gem Stop Co 612 Nb Bar Lazy J Ranch Boise Valley Jr Academy Sda AH Schade Inc. Gem Stop Co Broadway Barber Ponds-Barber Sewer District Bon Marche AH Schade Inc. Gem Stop Co Curtis Basf Wyandotte Corp Mill Bon Marche Boise AH Schade Inc. Gem Stop Co Guss Gas&Grub Bass Auto Body Bon Marche Nampa Airport Chevron Service Batt Tr ucking Booth Memorial School Alameda Chemical & Scientific Inc. Battery Exchange (The) Borah Building Albertsons – Multiple Stations Baxter Found ry & Machine Works Borah Senior High School Albertsons Printing and Supply BC Oil LLC. Boss Technologies Alchem Laboratories BCT Inc. Bown Crossing LLC Alexander Clark Graphics Beacon Light Chevron Bradley Custom Cabinets Alexander-Clark Inc. Beacon Light Products Inc. Brandt Agency All Freight Transportation Inc. Beatty Brice Construction All Hours Pumping Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals, Inc. Brown Bus Co.

### A-2 Bull Transportation Bed Rock Stone Works Bruce and Rod's Tire Factory Burks Tractor Co LLC Benjamin's Rural Disposal Bucks' Barnyard Burks Tractor Co LLC Beranna Dairy Buck's Tractor Works Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP Bernie Lacey Autobody & Paint Budget Inn C & B Quality Trailer Works Inc. Cheywidden Tr ucking & Excavating Cree kside Tile & Stone, LLC C A C Machineworks Chief Joseph Elementary Sc hool Creekstone and Assoc.Construction L.L.C. C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (1677700335) Ch inden Chevron Crimson Point 3 (Quilceda) C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (1677700418) Choutchourrou's Dairy Croman Corporation C.L. "Butch" Otter Christine Donnell School of Arts Crop Production Services Inc. C.M. Company Chuck Degroot Crossroads Middle School Caldwell ID 232 Cimm Technologies LLC Crown Lift Trucks Caldwell Auto Supply Co., Inc. Circle K 6627 Overland Cummins Intermountain Inc. Boise Caldwell Chevron City of Boise (Geothermal) Currentechnologies Caldwell Sd 132 City of Kuna Curt & Hal Incorporated Caldwell Senior High School City of Kuna Curtis Meadow Apartments Caldwell Transportation Company City of Melba Custom Concrete & Labor CAM Machine, LLC City of Star Horse Arena Custom Direct Metal Buildings, LLC Camas Gravel Company Clarence Vander St elt and Sons Custom Wood Interiors LLC Campbell Tractor Nampa Clark's Concrete Const Cynthia Mann Elementary School Canyon Auto Sales Classic Stone Supply, LLC D & B Supply Canyon Creek Woodworking Clear Choice Water Treatment D & B Supply Canyon Pool and Spa Clearwater Bldg (Frm Ch2M Hill) D & B Supply Canyon Springs Alt High School Clements Excavation and Concrete LLC D & L Marine Capital Exxon Clover Club Borden Pa ckaging D & R Antifreeze Recycling Capital Senior High School Cl overdale Funeral Home & Memorial Park D and D Farms Capitol Auto Body Inc. CM Company Inc. Dairy #1 and Dairy #2 Capitol Copy & Print Coast 2 Coast LLC Dairy Health Inc. Capitol Lithography & Printing Coat ings Plus Dale's Auto Care Capitol Polysteel LLC Cole Elementary School Dale's Service Co Cardinal Health 200 Inc. Cole V illage Chevron Dan Van Grouw Dairy Caribbean Tan College Blvd Body Shop Dan Wiebold Ford Carlisle Spring Brake Products Collister El ementary School Dan Wiebold Ford Detail Bldg Carousel and Syringa Farms Colliste r Exxon Dan's Ferry Service Carquest Automotive Finishes Garden City Color Craft Painting Inc. Darigold-Boise Carquest Automotive Finishes Nam pa Coltstone LLC David Marsh Farmer Carr's Home Lumber Company Incorporated Columbia High School David S Weiss Co., Inc. Castle Wood Products Columbia Paint & Coatings Co Boise David W Gunder Catchray Technologies Inc. Columbia Pain t & Coatings Co Caldwell Davison Air Svc Caxton Printers Ltd Combined District s Crushing Fund DEBCO Construction CDI - Proposed Parking Lot Comfort Suites Motel Deco Rock of Idaho Cecil D Andrus Elementary School Commercial F uel Recycling LLC Deerflat Sand & Gravel Cenex Land Olakes Community Acti vities Center Degroot Dairy Cenex Lol Express Center Nampa Community Health Clinics Inc. Dehryl A Dennis Prof-Tech Center Centennial Elementary School Compass Public C harter School Dennis Dillon Auto Park Center Centennial High School Compton Transfer & Storage Dennis Dillon Truck & Used Car Centerpoint Alternative High Computrol Inc. Dent Pro Central Canyon Elementary School Con Way Freight Western Dentpro Central Elementary School Concrete Cu tting Services, Inc. Dentpro Inc. Central Idaho Building Supply Concrete Evolutions Desert Express Inc. Central Paving Company (1677700024) Concrete Innovations Desert Sage Elementary School Central Paving Company (1677700093) Concrete Placing Co., Inc. Designs By Human Central Paving Company (1677700243) Concrete Placing Company Inc. Diamond A Facility Chad Lowry Cattle Company Concrete Surface Solutions Diamond Signs Chaparral Elementary School Conectl Test Corp Diamond Street Recycling LLC Chaparral Research and Development Consolidated Concrete Co Diamond Z Manufacturing Charles H Lilly Co Container Systems Co rp Dillon Auto Recycling Incorporated Charlie’s Auto Painting Containers West Inc. Dinamo Checkmate Industries Inc. Contract Decorators of Idaho Diocese of Boise Chem Freight Inc. Cope Automotive Inc. Discovery Elementary School Chemical Coating Applicators L.L.C. Corner Ma rket Disruptive Technologi es Manufacturing, LLC Chevrolet of Boise Cornerstone Development Diversity Machining LLC Chevrolet of Caldwell Cornerstone Furniture L.L.C. Dora Bull Chevron Chemical Nampa Cossa Double D Service Center Chevron Pipeline Co, Lang Costco Wholesale 16 Double Oo Dairy Chevron Texaco Costco Wholesale 734 Double R Trailers Chevron USA Inc. Boise Bulk Plant Costco Wholesale 761 Double Xl Ranch

### A-3 Chevron USA Inc. Mtn Home Bulk Plnt Country Club Pro perty Owners Inc. Doufas Painting Contractors Meridian Chevron USA Inc. Ss 92226 Country Corner Store Doufas Painting Contractors Mh Chevron USA Inc. Ss 92348 Coutry Club 3 Doug Gross Farms Incorporated Chevron USA Inc. Ss 94698 Cox Autobody Inc. Downtown Chevron Durham Transportation Csc21 Cpm Precision Machine, Inc. Dream Bakery and Cafe Eagle Academy CR Wood Products Dreamscape Ranch & Llamas Eagle Elementary School Crane West Inc. Dry Creek Development Eagle Fish Hatchery Creative Te chnologies, LLC Dry Lakes Dairy Eagle High School Feed Service Inc. Caldwell Gem Stop #9 Eagle Hills Elementary School Fibergl ass Systems Inc. Gempler Trucking Eagle Masonry and Stone, Inc. Fiberguide Ind Inc. General Electric of Boise Eagle Middle School Finl ey Tank Trucking Inc. Gene's Automotive Eagle Precast - Caldwell Facility Firestone Tire & Rubber Broadway 4878 Gillingham-Wood Gravel Pit Eagle Road Chevron Firestone Tire & Rubber Fairview 4849 Glenn Dick Equipment Co Eagle-Star Technology Corridor Firestone Tire & Rubber Nampa Glenns Ferry City Of Earnst Bldg First Choice Collision Repai r Inc. Glenns Ferry Elementary School East Canyon Elementary School First Choice Curb ing and Concrete LLC Gl enns Ferry High School East Elementary School Fiscal Funding Co., Inc. Vacant Bldg Glenns Ferry Highway Dist East Junior High School Flying J Fuel Stop – Multiple Stations Glenns Ferry Middle School East Valley Middle School Fmc Corp Agricu ltural Chemical Group Glenns Ferry Sd 192 Eby Brothers Inc. Food Glenwood Station #37 Ecco Foothills Chevron Global Travel Office Bldg Ecological Auto Technologies, Inc. Fo rmal and Bridal Ctr Goicoechea Jerry Econo Lube N Tune 305 Former Great Western Chemical Gold Shield Interiors Inc. Econo Lube N Tune 310 Fort Boise Cattle Co Golden Eagle Mine, LLC Econo Lube N Tune 326 Fort Boise Mid High (Alt ) School Golden West Advertising Inc. Econo Wash Fran Warner Dba Fran Warner Trucking Goodman Oil Ed Johnson Farms Inc. Frank Field - Fo rmer Frank Airfield Goodson's LLC Ed Van Grouw Dairy Franklin Auto Body Goofy Lock Stock & Barrel Edmark Chevrolet Franklin Building Supply Grace Assisted Living Expansion Edmark Gmc Pontiac Buick Franklin Chevron Grandview Farms Edmark Gmc Pontiac Buick Body Shop Franklin Elem entary School Great Harvest/Wood Family Bread Co. El Beto's Mexican Food LLC Franklin Gem Stop #021 Great Wall Stone Co. (The) Electronic Controls Co Fremont H Teed Elementary School Green Arrow Inc. Elite Concrete Innovations LLC Fresca Mexican Foodds Greenhurst Elementary School Elite Custom Concrete & Curbing LLC Freund/Spencer (Nampa, Id) Greenhurst Nursery and Garden Center Emerald Tile, Stone and Stucco Friesian Valley Dairy Greenleaf Friends Academy Empire Transport Inc. Overland From The Garden Greenleaf Mini Aussies Entera Technology, LLC Frontier Elemen tary School Greenlight Technologies Environmental Mgt Solutions Inc. Gc1 Frontie r Feeds Inc. Greenspeed Pest & Lawn Mgt 34th Environmental Mgt Solutions Inc. Gc2 Fruehauf Division Greenspeed Pest & Lawn Mgtgarnet Environmental Mgt Solutions Inc. M1 Fuel Energizer, LLC Guerdon Industries Environmental Mgt Solutions Inc. M2 Fuel Flex International, LLC H.B. Mabee Company Envirosafe Svcs of America Fuel Injection Service Co., Inc. Haasch Whitesel Trust Episcopal Diocese Office Fuel Sy nergies, Inc. Hacker Middle School ESI Fulfers Environmental Svc Hackler Gus ESP Inc. Fusion Packaging Solutions Hahnman Inc. Dba Idaho Auto Sales Everett Johnson Trucking G & B Redi-M ix Nampa Hailstone Furriers, LLC Evergreen Environmental Group Inc. Galaxy Airbru sh Manufacturing Company Hammett Valley Market Ewing Animal Hospital Galen Blanc Auto Body Hammock Mgmt Inc. Ewing Concrete Galey Construction Hampton Inn & Suites Express Printing Garden City Communi ty Charter School Hansen Rice Inc. Exxon Garfield Elementary School Hansen-Rice Inc. Eyton Steel Products, Inc. Garret Park Chevron Happy Day Ford Fahrlander's Custom Tile and Stone, Inc. Garrity Blvd Body Shop Harbor Oil Inc. Fairly Reliable Bobs Gary Van Vliet Hard Rock Concrete Fairmont Junior High School Gary Zurn Property Harolds Auto Body Faith-Full Farms Gas N Dash Harper Stone Inc. Falcon Ridge Public Charter School Gas Star Harris Moran Seed Company Nampa Family Medical Group Gate City Steel Key Bank Harrison Technologies, LLC Far West Landscape and Garden Cntr Gayle Manufacturing Co Hawley's Automotive Farm & City Gem Meat Packing Company Hawthorne Elementary School Farm Bed Manufacturing Inc. Gem State Academy Haztox Inc. Farm Fresh Turkeys Gem State Alloys Inc. Haztox/Mile High Academy Farm Store Gem State Broadcasting Hd Supply Utilities Ltd Hg 3306 Farmers Warehouse Gem State Concrete Coatings Hd Supply Water Works Ltd Ww 3060

### A-4 Fearless Farris Stinker Nampa 48 Gem State Mfg Inc. Caldwell Hdr Food Services, Inc. Fearless Farris Stinker Station Gem State Mfg Inc. Nampa Heath Electronics Mfg Fearless Farris Stinker Station Ge m State Oil Recovery Heimbuck Bldg FedEx Freight West Gem State Pest Control Century Way Helicopter Maintenance Inc. FedEx Freight West Gem State Pest Control Fairview Hennessey Transport Federal Express Corp Boiair Gem State Woodworks Hickman Farms Federal Way Gem Stop Hidden Springs Charter School Federal Way Development Gem St op #014 Highlands Elementary School Hillside Nursery Gem Stop #016 Hillcity Technology, Llp Hillview Development Corp. Gem Stop #017 Hillcrest Elementary School Hip Red Recycling & Demo Gem Stop #8 Hillcrest Shopping Bldg Hitech Ind Idaho Helicopters Inc. Hillside Jr. High School Hobson Fabricating Corp Idaho Linen J R Simplot Soilbuilders Wilder Hobson Fabricating Inc. Idaho Maximum Secu rity Prison J R Simplot Transportation Hoffman Auto Body Idaho National Guard Bl dg 66J J. H. Wise Sons Company LLC Hogeys Antique and Restoration Idaho Peterbilt Inc. Jabil Circuit Incorporated Holly Corp Idaho Pipeline Corp Jabil Circuit Incorporated Boise Holmes Elementary School Idaho Power Co Boise Jacks Body Shop Home Club No 50 Idaho Power Co Bo ise Amity Jackson Elementary School Home Depot 1801 Idaho Power Co Boise Franklin Rd Jackson Food Stores – Multiple Stations Home Depot 1804 Idaho Power Co Investment Recovery Ctr Jackson Livestock Home Depot 1806 Idaho Registration Se rvice Co Jadamill Tool Corporation Home Depot 1809 Idaho Ronald McDonald House Jake's Funkey Fresh Eggs Home Depot 8941 Idaho Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. Jaks Stripping & Refinishing Center Homeland Realty Idaho Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. Jak's Stripping/Ref Hopper Electric Service Idaho Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. James H Jones Horizon Air Industries Inc. Boi Idaho Scrap & Salvage Jaymark Cabinets Inc. Horizon Elementary School Idaho St Dept of Corrections Jbs Body & Fender Horse World Inc. Idaho State School & Hosp ital Jb's Custom Woodworking, Inc. House of Stone, LLC (The) Idaho States man (The) Jefferson Elementary School Houser Autobody Idaho Tank & Cu lvert Inc. Jefferson Middle School Houser Autobody Inc. Idaho Technolog y Solutions Jefferson West Apartments Howards Archery Shoppe Idaho Truck Spec ialties Jeffs Stone & Tile Works Howe Bros Body & Paint Idaho Truck Specialties LLC Dba Cobalt Jemmett Consulting and Research Farm Hpc Scientific LLC Idaho Virtual Academ y Jenkins Fabrication & Mill Works Hrw Manufacturing Idaho Virtual High Charter School Jerrys Repair Service Hubbard Elementary School Idaho Waste Streams Jiffy Lube Hunter Elementary School Idaho Youth Ranch JJ Woodworking Huskey Auto Electric Inc. Ida-Tran Freight Systems John Bolt Hutchison Realty Idea Inc. John D eere Tractor (Campbell Tractor Bldg) HVAC Controls Ideal of Idaho Inc. John H Harland Co Hydrotech Fuel Solutions, LLC ID -Fish & Game Johnson Fiberglass I-84 Uni-Merc IDX Pathology Joplin Elementary School ICCO Caldwell IHD Joslyn & Morris Inc. ICCO Eagle Image National Inc. J's Cleaners ICCO Middelton Imperial Truck Painting Jule Evans ICCO Mountain Home Independent Auto Body Inc. Just 4 Fun Stables ID Adm Eight Street Parking Lot Independent Sc hool District of Boise Justo's Grocery ID Agri Caldwell Indian Creek Demo Pr oject Juvenile Corrections - Nampa ID Agri Plant In Lab Indian Creek Elementary School K C Supply Co ID Bsu Nampa Industrial Administration Building K J Land and Livestock ID College of Idaho Inc. Industrial Coatings K M Trucking ID Dfg Boise 44th St Industrial Hygien e Resources Kadels Idaho Collision Repair ID Dhw Bureau of Labs Industrial Indemnity Kam Technologies ID Dhw State School & Hospital Industrial Indemnity Insurance Co Kangas Fabrication ID Dle Bur of Narcotics Clinton St Industr ial Minerals Piocess Consulting Kaps Warehouse ID Fg Nampa Fisheries Research Industrial Solutions Inc. Kathy's Specialty Foods, LLC ID Idaho State Police Reg 3 Forensic Lab Industrial Ventilation Inc. Nampa Kelly Moore Paint Co., Inc. Boise Broadway ID Ishs Inspire Virtual Charter School Kelly Moore Paint Co., Inc. Boise State ID Trans Dept Bur of Aeronautics Insulstone, Inc. Kelly Moore Paint Co., Inc. Caldwell ID Trans Dept Chinden Intermountain Gas Gen Office Kelly Moore Paint Co., Inc. Eagle ID Trans Dept Fletcher Foster Site Intermountain Hospital Kelly Moore Paint Co., Inc. Meridian ID Trans Dept Materials Lab Intermountain Plastics Kelly Moore Paint Co., Inc. Nampa ID Ui Caine Vtrc Intermountain Steel, Inc. Ketterling Terry L. ID Ui Parma Interstate Brands Corp Eddys Bakery Keystone Enterprises, LLC Idaho Army Natl Guard Inventive Pr oducts Meridian McMillan-Linder Ward

### A-5 Idaho Arts Charter School Iowa Beef Processors Incorporated Meridian Medical Arts Charter School Idaho Asphalt Supply Incorporated Iowa Elementary School Meridian Middle School Idaho Business and Technology Expo Irena's European Fine Foods LLC Meridian Night School (Alt) Idaho Center of Adv Technology Center Isom Structural Metals, Inc. Meridian Promenada Idaho Chemical Industries Incorporated Ltd - Caldwell MTCE Yard Meridian School Bus Idaho Circuit Technology J & R Industrial Tr uck Refinisher Meridian School District Idaho Commission For The Blind J Bar Enterprises Merry X-Ray Idaho Concrete Co Caldwell J R Simplot Co Aquaculture Business Unit Metalcraft Inc. E 45th Idaho Concrete Nampa J R Simplot Co Pht Bldg Michaels Automotive Service Idaho Correctional Industries J R Simplot Co Valley Storage Michaels of Oregon Idaho Custom Iron Works J R Simplot Dairy Products Inc. Micro 100 Tool Corp Idaho Delivery & Assembly J R Simplot Meat Products LLC Micron Communications Inc. KG Grocery J R Simplot Soilbuil ders Micron Systems Integration Kiddie Kandids J R Simplot Soilbuil ders Boise Micron Technology Fab D Kimco Design & Manufacturing J R Simplot So ilbuilders Caldwell Micron Technology Inc. King of Glory Luthern Church Lowell Scott Middle School Micron Technology Inc. Sig King's Corner Lowen Corp Micron Technology Memory Appl. Group Kinro Lowes Hiw Nampa 1785 Middleton Heights Elementary School Kirk Huff Trucking LPL Transport ation Inc. Middleton High School Kit Home Builders West Lt Lube & Oil Middleton Middle School Kit Manufacturing Co Lube Jockey Inc. Middleton Mill Creek Elementary School Kmart 3189 Lynn Industrial Coatings Inc. Middleton Mill Ditch Co Kmart 3298 Lynn Plasma Inc. Middleton Transition School Kmart 7668 M & J Investments Milestone Construction & Maintenance LLC Knife River (Masco Inc.) M & M Enterprises E 37th Mills Mountain View Ranch, LLC Knife River (Nampa) M & M Enterprises State Conoco Minit Lube 1017 Koch Materials Company M & T Inc. Minit Lube 1505 Koelsch Elementary School M & W Markets Minit Lube 1508 Kozgro Inc. Maaco Auto Painting Fairview Minit Lube 1509 Kr Recycling Maaco Auto Painting Federal Way Mirastar #6 Kuna High School Maaco Auto Pa inting Irving Miron Auto Body Kuna Jt Sd 3 Maces Auto Body Missman Electric Co., Inc. Kuna Middle School Machinery Connection Mitchell Chevron Kupper Etechnology Services LLC Macs Radiator & Repair Inc. Mitigation Technology Partners Kurpjuweit Fred J Madison Early Chil dhood School MK Corporate Flight Div L & G Trucking Madison Elementar y School Monroe Elementary School L & L Furniture Inc. Maple Grov e Elementary School Mooriah Dairy L & L Trucking Inc. Maranatha Christian School Morehouse Property Mgmt L B Trucks & Equipment Maravia Corporation Morford Farms L J Machining Service Maravia Corporat ion Motivepower Truck & Engine Annex L. C. Realization Corp. Marian Prit chett Memorial School Motor West Lake City Intl Truck Amity Mariposa Labs Mountain Cove (Alt.) High School Lake City Intl Truck Fairview Market Link Mines, LLC Mountain Home Ford Lake Hazel Elementary School Markham Painting Inc. Micron Site Mountain Home Ford Lin Mer Inc. Lake Hazel Middle School Martindales Custom Truck Mountain Home Highway District Lake Lowell Market Mary McPherson Elementar y School Mountain Home Junior High School Land O'Lakes Farmland Feed Mason Creek Dairy Inc. Mountain Home Oil Inc. Land Pro Development Master Environmental Inc. Mountain Home School Land View Fertilizer Incorporated Material Test ing & Inspection Inc. Mountain Home Sd 193 Larry Miller Honda Matrix Construction Inc. Mountain Home Sr High School Larry Miller Pontiac Buick Cadillac Maverick Country Store #209 Mountain Home Trucking Inc. LB Equestrian and Tennis Academy Maverick Country St ores Inc. #178 Mountain States Press Inc. Lead Brokers USA Maverik Country Stores Inc. Mountain Top Woodworking Leaning Tree Farms Maverik Country Stores Inc. Mountain View Elementary Sch Leos Towing Maxine Johnson Elementary Scho ol Mountain View Equipment Caldwell Les Bois Junior High School May Trucking Co Nampa Mountain View Equipment Meridian Les Bois Transport MBG Mold Be G one LLC Mountain View High School Lewis and Clark Elementary Center McKinley Elementary School Mousers Auto Body Lewis and Clark Middle School McMillan Elementa ry School MP Mask Technology Center LLC Liberty Charter School McAlvain Cons truction Inc. MT Cove High School Liberty Elementary School McClures Mach ine Shop Mtn Home AFB Primary School Liberty Elementary School McD onald Watkins Murgoitio Dairy Like-Nu Car Wash McKim Residence Nagel Beverage Lincoln Elementary School McMillian Elementary School Nagel Beverage Co Lincoln Elementary School Meadow Gold Dairies Nampa Auto Parts Linder Elementary School Med Plaz a Nampa Chamber of Commerce

### A-6 Lithia Body & Paint of Boise Medes Concre te and Excavation Nampa Christian Schools Inc. Lithia Collision Center Melba Elementary School Nampa Exxon Lithia Ford of Boise Melba High School Nampa Fire Stn Lithia Ford of Boise Melba Joint Sd 136 Priest Electric Lithia Volkswagen Audi of Boise Me lba Middle School Prime Land Development Lithocraft Melba Quick Stop Producers Lumber Lithographics Inc. Melva Engineering Producers Supply Co-Op Little Cattle Co Memphis Cons truction Producers Supply Co-Op Little Country Alpacas Meri dian Academy Prominence Information Technologies, Inc. Little Russia International Foods, LLC Meri dian Auto Sales Prospect Elementary School Lloyd Lumber Co Meridian Charter High School Protective Technologies LLC Local Motion Transportation Meridian Creamery Protran Transmission No 2 Logistic Services %Maknteshim-Agt of Na Me ridian Elementary School Pr otran Transmission No 3 Long Creek Mining LLC Meridian Fenc e Prudential Jensen Real Estate Longfellow Elementary School Meridian Ford Psimeta Technologies, LLC Lowell Elementary School Meridian Ford Sales Inc. Public Works Shop Nampa Highway District Meridian High School Purdy Farm Spill Site Nampa Meridian Irrigation Distri ct Meridian Joint School Dist 2 Purple Sage Elementary School Nampa Paving & Asphalt Co Meridian Joint Sd 2 Q R Ranch Nampa Post Office Pacific Northwest Broadcasting Quali-T Furniture Stripping Nampa Realty Pacific Northwest Chemic al Quality Curbing and Concrete LLC Nampa Sd 131 Pacific Pride Card Loc Quarter Circle Dj Ranch Nampa Senior High School Pacific Recy cling Boise Quinn Robbins Co., Inc. Nampa State Fish Hatchery Pacific Recy cling Nampa Quirt Leatham Trucking Inc. Nampa Teen Parent Alternative High School Pacifi c Steel & Recycling Nampa Qwest Communications Nampa Wellhouse Pacific Steel Fabricators R & M Steel Co Nascar HOF Commemorative Brick Program Pacific Steel Hide s Furs Metal Recycling R & R Hardwood Floors Inc. Gage National Car Rental Pacific Subs and Hanger Bar R & R Hardwood Floors Inc. Lemhi National Coatings Inc. Pam Division of US Oil Co., Inc. R & R Sanitation Inc. E 42Nd National Interagency Fire Center Pandora Press Co R & R Sanitation Inc. Franklin Natural Chemical Technologies Park Pointe Realty R & V Oil Company Incorporated Naugle Hereford Ranch Park Ridge Elementary School R C Bigelow Co Naylor Auto Repair Parklane Management Co R L Drake Co Naylors Chevron Parks Royal Body Works Inc. R Lazy R Farms Ptn N-Bar Ranch Parks Westside Body Works Radiator King Neighborhood Housing Service Parkview Earl y Childhood Center Rambo Crushing Company Neighborhood Housing Service Parma Co Rays Auto Body Repair Inc. Nelson-Deppe Inc. Parma High Sc hool Reagan Elementary School New Frontier Chrysler Parma Post & Pole Red Lobster Nick Larrea Trk Inc. Parma Sd 137 Red Rock Tile & Stone Nick Warrila Pathways Middle School Reed Elementary School Norco Inc. Patty Clinton Hair Salon Reed Grain & Bean North American Recycling Paul's Concrete Remick Trucking Ltd North Elementary School Payless Drug Store Boise Residuals Management Inc. North Jr. High School Payless Drugs Caldwell Residuals Management Inc. North Star Public Charter School PC Recyclers of Idaho Rhino Graphics Northern Iron & Metals Penske Auto Center Boise Rhinographics LLC Northwest Animal Hospital Penske Auto Center Nampa Rhone-Poulenc Ag Idaho Dist Corp Northwest Building Systems Penske Tru ck Leasing Co Lp Ridgecrest Alt High School Northwest Childrens Home (Alt) High School Penske Truck Leasing Co Lp Right Now Inc. Northwest Childrens Home2 Pepper Ridge Elementary School Rim Ranches Inc. Northwest Childrens Home4 Peregrine El ementary School River Chief Marine LLC Northwest Childrens Home6 Peregrine Indu stries Inc. River Moss Technologies, LLC Northwest Development Company Performanc e Design LLC River Rock Sand & Gravel LLC Northwest Mill Creek LLC Perma Green Law n Co River Valley Elementary School Northwest Nazarene University Perma Gr een Lawn Co Riverglen Jr High School Northwest Pipeline; Mountain Home Pest -Go Bye Bye Bug Riverside Auto Body Northwest Pipeline Gp Caldwell Peterson Autoplex Riverside Elementary School Northwest Printing Peterson Dental Laborator y Riverside Funeral Service & Crematory Northwest Technologies Inc. Peterson To wn and Country Riverstone Aviation, LLC Northwest Trailer Service Pete's W oodcraft LLC Roadway Express Inc. Northwest Woodworks Photronics Inc. Roaring Springs Water Park Notus Elementary School Pierce Concrete Supplies, Inc. Robertsons Auto Body Notus Jr-Sr High School Pierce Park El ementary School Robs Rr Hardwood Floors Notus Sd Pilot Travel Center #350 Rock Hard Granite LLC Novartis Seeds Inc. 1300 Chicago Pin Nip Inc. Rockin S Ranch

### A-7 Novartis Seeds Inc. 1403 Chicago Pine Elem -Jr High School Rocky Mountain Bank Note Nuclear Pharmacy of Idaho Incorporated Pioneer Coatings Inc. Rocky Mountain Dredging, LLC Nuclear Technology Solutions, L.L.C. Pioneer Elementary School Rocky Mountain Gravel, LLC Oakley-Moody Service Pioneer Hi Bred Internati onal Rocky Mountain Soil Stabl. & Dust Control Odd Fellows Building Pipe Inc. Ro lling Hills Public Charter School Office Complex Pixtech Inc. Ronald W. Van Auker Inc. Oil Express Plant Health Technol ogies Ron's Lake Shore Service Olin Microelectronic Materials Pl exus Electronic Assembly Corp (Ea-Boi) Sunwest Energy Corp Omnipure Filter Co Ponderosa Elementary School Superior Construction and Excavating Inc. OMS #2 Ponderosa Paint Manufacturing Incorporated Superior Fast Freight One Stone, Inc. Portrait Innovations Superior Truck Svc ORE IDA Food Inc. Prairie Elem-Jr High School Supplement Manufacturing Resource L.L.C. Original Ironworks LLC Precision Automo tive and Transmission Supreme Court Library Overland Auto Body Precision Colli sion Repair Swift & Company Beef Overland Printers Precision F encing Swiss Village Cheese Co Owners Choice Precision Flight Symms Fruit Ranch Owyhee Elementary School Precision F light Inc. Syngenta Seeds Inc. Owyhee Elementary School Precision Pr opeller Svc Inc. Syngenta Seeds Inc. Oxarc Inc. Preco Automotive Electric Syngenta Seeds Inc. Oz-Lo Industrial Preco Electr onics Inc. Syringa Middle School Roosevelt Elementary School Preco Safety Products Syringa Property Mgt Inc. Roosevelt Elementary School Pressure Treated Ti mber Company Systems Auto Body Incorporated Ross Elementary School Price-Less Mini-Mart T & LC Farms LLC Roundtree Chevrolet Inc. Old Snake River Elementary School T and C Custom Metal Fab Roundtree Lincoln Mercury Old Snake River Farms T&T Cattle Roundys Pole Fence Co Snake River Petr oleum LLC T.A. Dibble Excavation Inc. Rubens Body Shop Inc. Snicker doodle Bakery Tablerock Printing Rule Sales & Service Inc. Softspi kes Tablerock Printing Inc. Grove Rustic Wood Creations SOS En vironmental Target Buick Ryder Truck Rental South Junior Hi gh School Target Buick Subaru Saab S & E Auto Parts South Middle School Target Store 0617 S & K Livestock Southside Pallets Target Store 1230 Sacajawea Elementary School Southwest Idaho Juvenile Detention Center Target Store 2206 Safety-Kleen Corp 1-183-08 Ob Southwest Idaho Prof-Tech Center Tech Auto Body Safety-Kleen Systems Inc. Spalding Elem entary School Techni Chem Corporation Sage Valley Intermediate School Spangler Bros Auto Body Repair Technology Solutions Saia Motor Freight Line Inc. Boise Spear Techno logies LLC Tektoniks Corp and Sundance Const Mgmt Sams Club – Multiple Stations Specialty Environmental Svcs Inc. Ten Lane Sam's Scrub Metal Specialty Environment al Svcs Inc. 2 Tenos Auto Detail Shop Samson Truck Line Spencer Industries Inc. Terminix Branch 2489 Sawedoff Woodworking Spyder Technology Teton Valley Ranch LLC Sawtooth Construction SSI Food Servic es LLC Tfi Limited Partnership Sawtooth Forest Industries St Joseph' s Catholic School The Close Pin Shop Sawtooth Middle School St. Lukes Breast Cancer Detection Center The Daniels Company SC Construction (Nampa Facility) St. Mic hael's Cathedral The Home and Garden Store Schober Farms St. Michael's Cathedral The Home Depot SCP Global Technologies Staker & Pars on Companies (1677700373) The Mode Building SCP Global Technologies Sw2 Staker & Parson Co mpanies Boise East The Preferred Company SCP Global Technologies Wstprk Staker & Pa rson Companies Joplin The Strand Bldg Scuglia Fabrication Staker & Parson Co mpany (77700407) Therm Ox Industries Sears No. 4138 Star Elementary School Thermasource Cementing, Inc. Sears No. 8139 St. of ID Admin. Bldg./Len B. Jordan Bldg. Thermo Fluids Inc. Selkirk Metalbestos State Street Ch evron Thermo Fluids Inc. Nampa Selway Fabrication, LLC Statell Ltd Thomas Jefferson Charter School Service City Auto Paint Statewi de Transport Inc. Thomas Nicholson Seubert Excavators Inc. (1677700100) Steed Construction Inc. Thornton Hog Farm Seubert Excavators Inc. (1677700103) Steel Re sources Inc. Thoroughbred Collision Center Seven Mile Lounge Steelblu LLC Tiegs Farms Inc. Seven Oaks Elementary School Steelhead Co llision Center Inc. Tikal Bakery SFP Food Service Stenick Betty Tile & Stone Installations Shadow Hills Elementary School Sterli ng Battery Co Timberline High School Sheppard-Wood Distibutors Inc. 2 Sterling Landscape Co Titus Manufacturing, Inc. Sherman Elementary School Steve Barry Store TLK Dairy Sherwin Williams Co Boise Steve Boschma Dairy TNB Post N Pole Sherwin Williams Co Meridian 8420 Steves Collison Repair TNT Salvage Sherwin Williams Co Nampa Sticks-N-St ones Todd Campbell Construction Inc.

### A-8 Shoakoi Fish Farm Stiener Corp Tom Scott Auto Body Shulerlane Farms Inc. Stillwell 117 Ranch Inc. Tom Scott Mazda SI McStay Corporation Stillwell 117 Ranch In c. (Phillips Bros. Ranch) Tomkat Printing SIARCO Stinker Tomlinson & Assoc Sierra View Refiners Incorporated 105 Stinker Tommy N Thompson (Tnt Insured Towing) Sierra View Refiners Incorporated 107 Stinker Station 45 Toms Auto Body Signs Ink Stone Fly Fishing Products Tops Machine LLC Silgan Containers Corp Nampa Stonebuck, LLC TR Compton Inc. Silver Butte Holsteins Inc. Stonehaven Concepts, Inc. Tracy's Texaco Silver Sage Elementary School Stonehouse Enterprises Trail Blasers Inc. Sim Trans Railshop Stones Inc. Western Cabinet and Millwork Simchem (Mountain Home) Stonewall Masonry LLC Western Construction Simple Life Farm Storage Place (The) Western Construction (Portable Plant) Sims Wood Inc. STP Concrete Co., Inc. Western Construction (Portable Plant) Sioux Veneer Panel Co Straight Edge Lawncare Co. Western Construction (Portable Plant) Six Day Technology, Inc. Stringers Gem Shop Western Dairyman Coop Inc. Skyview High School Summerwind Elementary Sc hool Western Farm Service Glenns Ferry Slaugher Farm House (Former) Sun Ridge Dairy Western Farm Service Parma Smith Detroit Diesel Allison Sun Valley Marble Western Farm Service Star Mill Smith Eagle Chevron Inc. Sundance Dairy Western Idaho Fairgrounds Smith's Chevron Sundance Dodge Larry Miller Col lision Western Idaho Potato Processing Company Smokin Hot Deals Sunny Ridge Elementary School Western Laboratories Smooth Clay Company Sunnyslope Food and Wine Company LLC Western Oil Trailer Home (10 Units) Sunseed Ltd Lp Parma Br anch Western States Equipment Fairview Ave Trans Continental Transport Inc. Sunset Nu rsery Western States Equipment Meridian Transportation SVCS Inc. Sunset Sports Bu ilding Western States Equipment Overland Rd Traveleze Northwest USDA Aphis Ws Boise Western Trailer Co Treasure Canyon Calcium USDA FHA Obendorf Farm Western Trailers Treasure Valley Fertilizer Co., Inc. USDA Forest Servic e, Boise National Forest Western World Inc. S 34th Treasure Valley Green Recycling, LLC USDA Fs Boise Nf Shop/Warehouse Westgate Chevron Treasure Valley Homes Inc. USDA Fs Intermount ain Research Station Westpark Shopping Center Treasure Valley Institute For Children's Arts USDA SCS Westpoint Transportation Inc. Treasure Valley Math/Science Center USDA Wildlif e Serv Parker Kelly 27197 Westside Body Works Treasure Valley Vw Inc. USDOC National Weather Service West Valley Millwork Trebar Kenworth Sales Boise USDOI WPR Arro wrock Dam Bur of Rec Westcom Corporation Tree Top Recycling, Inc. USF Reddaway Inc. WESTCORE Trico Construction Inc. USPS Boise VMF Whale Woolies Trimac Trans Inc. Burns Bros Site Ustick Elementary School White Pine Elementary School Trinity Springs Inc. UW Freight Li ne Inc. Whitecliff Technologies, LLC Trinity Trailer Manufacturing Inc. VA Medica l Center Whiteman Industries Inc. Braniff Tri-Stone Services Vale Wine Com pany Whiteman Industries S Business Truck Equipment Corp Boise Vallad & S ons Trucking Whitney Elementary School Truck Equipment Corp Meridian Valley Air Service Whits Auto Repair Trus Joist Corp Valley Auto Body Whittier Elementary School TW Technology Inc. Valley Crankshaft Wickahoney Cattle Company Twin Dolphin Pool and Spa Valley Plating Inc. Wilbur-Ellis Co Caldwell Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. Valley Truss Co., Inc. Wild West Bakery & Espresso U Haul Valley View Elementary School Wilder Middle/High School U.S. Forest Service Boise Airtanker Base Vallivue High School Wilder Sd 133 Ultra Touch Car Wash Vallivue Mi ddle School Wilderness Ranch Wtp Union Carbide Corp Linde Div Van Bu ren Elementary School Wild-Ida Corp Union Farm & Garden Van Waters & Rogers (#8512270110) William Howard Taft Elementary Union Farm and Garden Van Waters & Rogers Inc. William J. Stone & Associates Union Seed Co Van Waters & Rogers In c. Cole Rd Willis Shaw Express Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. Nampa Vandenberg Dairy Willow Creek Elementary United Metal & Scrap Inc. Vander Stelt Dairy Wilson Co United Oil Product Terminal #99 Vantron Manu facturing, Inc. Wilson Elementary School United Parcel Service Boise Ryan Vassar Tru cking Windermere Real Estate Nampa-Caldwell United Parcel Service Garden City Venetian Tile and Stone Wiregroove Technology, LLC United Parcel Service Mt Home Victor Yamamoto Farms Wooded River Frniture Co. United Parcel Service Nampa Victor ious Faith Church Woods Residence United Radiator Victor's Concrete Wymosa Water Trust United Water Idaho Inc. Victory Charter School Y-3 II Univar USA Inc. N Milwaukee Victory Greens Y-3 II Partnership Unocal Puregro Unit 771330 Vigoro Industries Inc. Y-3 II Ranch Urbane Farms Visions (Alt) High School Y-3 Ranch - Jackpot

### A-9 Uria Auto Body Inc. Visions Auto Body Inc. Yanke Machine Shop Incorporated U AFB Mountain Home Gowen Site Vista Food Yellow Freight Systems Inc. BSE US Army Coe Drms Vista Plaza YMC Incorporated US Army Coe Lucky Peak Dam Vita Mi n Corp YMC Micron Construction Site US Army ID Natl Guard Oms No Sub 2 Von Russ Enterprises Inc. YMCA Boise Aquatic Center US Army Natl Guard Mates Vopak USA Inc. N Benjamin Young Electric Sign Company US Army Reserve Lugenbeel Wal Mart Supercenter 2508 Yourco Transport Inc. US Concrete Wal Mart Supercenter 2780 Zamora and Zamora Partnership US DOI BLM Natl Interagency FC Wal Mart Supercenter 2781 Zamzow's Feed & Seed US DOI BLM Natl Interagency Fc Wal Mart Supercenter 2782 Zemco Builders Willard Hall US DOI BOR Boise Diversion Dam & Power Wal Mart Supercenter 2861 Zeph Creek Elk Hunting Ranch US DOI BOR Central Snake Project Office Wal Ma rt Supercenter 2862 Zero Defects Incorporated US DOI Bureau of Land Mgm. District Office Wal Mart Supercenter 3739 Zieman Manufacturing Co Amity Rd US DOI Geological Survey Ward Walla Walla Shoppi ng Cntr Asso Zieman Manufacturing Co Commerce Ave US DOI, BOR, WPR Anderson Ranch Dam Wallace Bros Sand & Gravel Zilog Inc. Idaho Technology Center US DOJ Dea Boise Office Waremart C onstruction Site Zilog Incorporated US DOJ Dea Drug Lab Boise Maple Grove Wa shington Elementary School Zion Luthern School US DOJ Dea Drug Lab Boise Summerwind Wa shington Elementary School ZJ Recycling US DOJ Dea Drug Lab Nampa Franklin Blvd Water Cooler Building US DOJ Dea Drug Lab Parma Rocky Rd Waynco Construction US DOT FAA Nav Comm Unit Boise Wells Fargo Bank US Ecology Idaho Inc., RTS (SIMCO Rd.) West Canyon Elementary School US GSA Borah Po West Elementary School US GSA Federal Bldg Courthouse, Boise West Junior High School US GSA Fleet Mgmt Center, Boise West Middle School US West (6) West One Bancorp US West (7) West Side Development USA Auto Body Eagle Site West Valley Medical Center

## APPENDIX B

LETTERS TO TIER 1 AND 2 FACILITIES; PBR AND UNPERMITTED FACILITIES

### «Contact_Full_Name» «Date_Sent» Page 2

«Date_Sent»

«Contact_Full_Name» «Facility» «Address» «City» «State» «Zip»
RE: 2008 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventor y Project – Permitted Industrial Sources
Dear «Contact_Last_Name»:
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ; Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG); and ENVIRON are developing a comprehensive air emissions inventory for the Treasure Valley (Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties). This inventor y fulfills the 10-year update requirement of the EPA-approved North Ada County PM 10 

### State Implementation Plan (SIP) and will also allow study of ozone formation and partic ulate concentrations in the valley. The scope of the inventory includes all stationary industria l sources of air pollution that operated during calendar year 2008.
To achieve our inventory objectives, your coopera tion as an operator of a permitted industrial facility is important for accurate collection of data related to your sp ecific emissions source. Per the Clean Air Act (Section 114, 42 USC 7414) and The Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01.122), your part icipation in this project is required.
Our Point Source Survey Tool (POSST) Web applica tion will be used to collect your data. If you already provided a full emissions inventory for calendar year 2008, please di sregard this request. If you did not provide data for calendar year 2008, or only completed the registration of pollutants for Title V fee purposes, please use th e URL, username, and password provided below to access POSST for completion of your full emissions inventory submittal. Each emissions unit listed in your air quality permit must be account ed for in your data submittal made to POSST.
POSST provides specific screen s that you will use to record th e required information; these include facility, stack, emissions unit (point), process, and pollutant. Some of the requested information and calculations will take time to comp lete, so please do not delay in assembling and submitting this information as your data and signature sheets must be received by DEQ no later than December 31, 2009.
A POSST User’s Manual, short viewlets (movies), scroll-over help messages, and telephone or e-mail assistance are available to help you with your data entry and subm ittal. Please read the 1410 North Hilton • Boise, ID 83706 • (208) 373-0502 C. L. “Butch” Otter, Governor Toni Hardesty, Director STATE OF IDAHO 

### DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

### «Contact_Full_Name» «Date_Sent» Page 2

POSST User’s Manual in the Links Box on the Ma in Page before you begin data entry in order to minimize confusion. For further assist ance, contact either of the following:

• Chris Ramsdell at 208-373-0237 or Christopher.Ramsdell@deq.idaho.gov

• Gary Reinbold at 208-373-0253 or Gary.Reinbold@deq.idaho.gov.
Log into POSST at the following Web site to make your emissions data submission: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/TVAQ2008
The following are your unique userna me and password, respectively:

«UserName» «Password»
Upon completion and final submission of all emi ssions data entries to POSST, please print the IDAPA 58.01.01.123 signature page that pops up on screen. Complete and sign this form, as well as attaching copies of all Mate rial Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the materials for which you estimated emissions, and mail them to the following address no later than close of business December 31, 2009 : Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Attn: Chris Ramsdell - Air Quality Division 1410 N. Hilton Boise, ID 83706
Thank you for your assistance in this important air quality project.
Sincerely,

Christopher Ramsdell Emissions Inventory & Air Informati on Management Systems Coordinator
c: Bruce Louks, MMEI Manager

### «Date__Sent»

«Contact_Full_Name» «Facility» «Address» «City» «State» «Zip»
RE: 2008 Treasure Valley Emissions I nventory Project – Unpermitted Sources
Dear «Contact_Last_Name»:
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ; Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG); and ENVIRON are developing a comprehensive air emissions inventory for the Treasure Valley (Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties). This inventor y fulfills the 10-year update requirement of the EPA-approved North Ada County PM 10 

### State Implementation Plan (SIP) and will also allow study of ozone formation and partic ulate concentrations in the valley. The scope of the emissions inventory includes all unpermitted stationary industrial or commercial sources of air pollution that operated during calendar year 2008.

To achieve our emissions invent ory objectives, your cooperation as an owner or operator of a facility is important for accurate collection of data related to your sp ecific emissions source. Per the Clean Air Act (Section 114, 42 USC 7414) and The Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01.122), your part icipation in this project is required.
A DEQ Web application will be used to collect your facility and 2008 emissions information. Some of the requested data and calculations will take time to co mplete, so please do not delay in assembling and submitting this information as your data and signature sheets must be received by DEQ no later than December 31, 2009.
A Web application User’s Manual, scroll-over help messages, a nd telephone or e-mail assistance are available to help you with your data entr y and submittal. Please read the User’s Manual before you start in order to minimize any conf usion. Should further assistance be necessary, please contact either of the following:

• Chris Ramsdell at 208-373-0237 or Christopher.Ramsdell@deq.idaho.gov

• Gary Reinbold at 208-373-0253 or Gary.Reinbold@deq.idaho.gov.

Æ 1410 North Hilton • Boise, ID 83706 • (208) 373-0502 C. L. “Butch” Otter, Governor Toni Hardesty, Director STATE OF IDAHO 

### DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

### «Contact_Full_Name» «Date__Sent» Page 2 Please log into the following Web site to make your emissions data submission: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/TVAQEZ2008/
The following are your unique userna me and password, respectively:

«UserName» «Password»
Upon completion and final submission of all emissi ons data entries to th e DEQ Web site, please print the IDAPA 58.01.01.123 signature page that pops up on screen. Complete, sign, and mail this form to the following address no later than close of business December 31, 2009 : Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Attn: Chris Ramsdell - Air Quality Division 1410 N. Hilton Boise, ID 83706
Thank you for your assistance in this important air quality project.
Sincerely,

Christopher P. Ramsdell Emissions Inventory & Information Management Systems Coordinator
c: Bruce Louks, MMEI Manager

## APPENDIX C
AREA SOURCE SURVEYS (FUE L DEALER AND DISTRIBUTOR SURVEY, DRY CLEANING SUR VEY, WASTEWATER TREATMENT SURVEY, AND LANDFILL SURVEY)

### Fuel Dealers

«Date_Project_Letter_Sent»
«Facility» «Address» «City», «State» «Zip_Code»
RE: Treasure Valley Emissions Inventory Pr oject – Fuel Suppliers & Distributors
To Whom It May Concern:
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality is developing an air emissions inventory of ozone and particulate matter pollutants and th eir precursors for the Treasure Valley (Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties). The scope of this inventory includes all st ationary and mobile sources of air pollution and will consist of emissions released in calendar year 2008.
Per Clean Air Act Section 114, 42 USC 7414 and the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01.122), your participation as a fu el supplier/distributor is required to ensure completion of a comprehensive inventor y of all emission sources related to fuel combustion. A brief questionnaire is enclosed that asks specific questions pertaining to your 2008 industrial, commercial/institutional, and re sidential fuel sales within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. All sales information will remain confidential, as it will only be reported in county-level totals with all supplie r and distributor amounts combined.
Please complete the attached survey and sales tabl e, sign, and return them by mail, e-mail, or fax no later than October 30, 2009 to:
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ATTN: Christopher Ramsdell 1410 N Hilton Boise, ID 83706 E-mail: Christopher.Ramsdell@deq.idaho.gov Fax: 208-373-0340
Thank you for your participation in this important project.
Sincerely,

Christopher Ramsdell Emissions Inventory & Air Informati on Management Systems Coordinator 1410 North Hilton • Boise, ID 83706 • (208) 373-0502 C. L. “Butch” Otter, Governor Toni Hardesty, Director STATE OF IDAHO 

### DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYRETURN THIS PAGE 

### Treasure Valley Fuel Sales Data Collection Survey
Company Name:

Address:

Phone Number: Fax Number:
Contact Name:
1. Does your company sell or distribute fuel (e.g., natural gas, LPG/propane, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, kerosene, reclaimed/recycled oil, etc.; excluding fire wood) in Ada, Canyon, or Elmore counties? ______
If “yes”, proceed to Question #2. If “ no”, please return this page of the surv ey only, with the contact information listed above and your certificat ion at the bottom completed.
2. What fuel types are sold or distributed by your company? Check all that apply:
Natural gas _______ Kerosene _______ LPG/propane _______ Waste/ reclaimed/recycled oil _______ Distillate fuel oil _______ Coal _______ Residual fuel oil _______ Other (___________) _______
3. For each fuel type selected in Question #2, please provide 2008 monthly sales info rmation broken out by county (Ada, Canyon, or Elmore) and sector (industrial, commerci al/ institutional, or residential) in the attached sales table. Sales outside of the three counties should not be included. Again, sales data will remain confidential. If multiple fuel types are sold or distributed, then please make copies of the sales table before completing.
4. For each fuel type selected in Question #3, please pr ovide the following fuel charac teristics (complete all that apply):
Natural gas: Sulfur content _____ LPG/propane: Sulfur content _____ Propane fraction _____ Butane fraction _____ Distillate fuel oil: Sulfur content _____ Grade (1 or 2) _____ Residual fuel oil: Sulfur content _____ Grade (4, 5, or 6) _____ Kerosene: Sulfur content _____ Waste/reclaimed/recycled oil: Sulfur content _____ Coal: Sulfur content _____ Ash content _____
5. Is your company the final point of sale for the fuel types sold or distributed? _____ If “no”, what companies do you supply fuel to for final sale or distribution?

_________________________________________________________________________________ Supply information will remain confidential.
6. Every effort was made to send this survey to all fuel se llers/distributors in Ada, Canyon, or Elmore counties, as well as companies located in surrounding counties that might have customers in these three counties. Attached is a comprehensive list of these companies. Please list any other co mpanies not on this list that should also be surveyed:

7. Certification in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.01.123 – The statements and information contained in our emissions inventory submittal are true, accurate, and complete based on reasonable knowledge and inquiry.
Name of Responsible Official (Please Print): _____________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _____________________RETURN THIS PAGE Fuel Sales Table (make copies for multiple fuels) Company Name: Fuel Type (for this form): Fuel Units (i.e., gallons, tons, cubic feet, etc.):

ADA COUNTY Amount Sold

Period Industrial Commercial and Institutional Residential January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 Total 2008

CANYON COUNTY Amount Sold

Period Industrial Commercial and Institutional Residential January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 Total 2008

ELMORE COUNTY Amount Sold

Period Industrial Commercial and Institutional Residential January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 Total 2008RETURN THIS PAGE County City Facility A & I Distributors American Feeds & Fuels Amerigas Propane, L.P. Baird Oil Boise Petroleum Products Terminal Brico of Idaho Boise Diasource Inc. Gran-Del Petroleum Products Inc. Ada On Site Oil & Lube Intermountain Gas Company Rocky Mtn Filter Supply Inc Small Mine Development Suburban Propane Washington Group International, Inc. Eagle Mineral Extraction Franklin United Oil Garden City Fuel West Co. (also DBA Energy West Inc.) Ameri Gas Storage Meridian MJ's Oil & Gas LLC Baird Oil T.S. Fuel LLC Caldwell United Oil (also DBA Magic Transport) V-1 Propane Canyon A.H. Schade Inc Amerigas Propane, L.P. Baird Oil Commercial Fuel Corp. Nampa Conrad & Bischoff (also DBA Wright Oil & Tire) Ed Staub & Sons Petroleum Inc. Producers Supply Co-Op Inc. Zeo Corp. Melba T.K. Oil Incorporated Glenns Ferry United Oil (als o DBA Franklin United, Inc) Ameri Gas Big Sky Oil Co Elmore Mountain Home D.E. Petroleum Hiler Brothers Service V-1 Propane Mosquito Mining Corporation Boise Garden Valley V-1 Propane-Heritage Gem Emmett Champion Oil Gooding K-Energy Gooding Wendell Valley Co-Ops Wendell Owyhee Calcium Inc. Owyhee Grand View United Oil Fruitland Campo Oil Co. Inc. Payette Binghams Pas N Gas New Plymouth Blue Sky Bio Diesel Olson Oil Co. Spradling's Petroleum Products Buhl United Oil Valley Co-Ops Buhl Wright Fuel/The Coal Company Filer Permagas Ameri Gas Twin Falls B & B Oil Company Black Petroleum Co. Blue Lakes Gas Twin Falls Brico of Idaho Suburban Propane United OilRETURN THIS PAGE 

### «Date_Project_Letter_Sent»
«Facility» «Address» «City», «State» «Zip_Code»
RE: Treasure Valley Emissions I nventory Project – Dry Cleaning
To Whom It May Concern:
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality is developing an air emissions inventory of ozone and particulate matter pollutants and th eir precursors for the Treasure Valley (Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties). The scope of this inventory includes all st ationary and mobile sources of air pollution and will consist of emissions released in calendar year 2008.
Per Clean Air Act Section 114, 42 USC 7414 and the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01.122), your participation is re quired and will ensure completion of a comprehensive inventory of all emission sources. A brief questionnaire is enclosed that asks specific questions pertaining to your 2008 dry cleaning operations within Ada, Canyon, or Elmore counties. The information you provide w ill remain confidential, as it will only be reported in county-level totals generated by combining all dry cleaner data received.
Please complete the attached survey and sales tabl e, sign, and return them by mail, e-mail, or fax no later than November 6, 2009 to:
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ATTN: Christopher Ramsdell 1410 N Hilton Boise, ID 83706 E-mail: Christopher.Ramsdell@deq.idaho.gov Fax: 208-373-0340
Thank you for your participation in this important project.
Sincerely,

Christopher Ramsdell Emissions Inventory & Air Informati on Management Systems Coordinator 1410 North Hilton • Boise, ID 83706 • (208) 373-0502 C. L. “Butch” Otter, Governor Toni Hardesty, Director STATE OF IDAHO 

### DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYRETURN THIS PAGE TO DEQ – Attention: Chris Ramsdell 

### Treasure Valley Dry Cleaner Data Collection Survey
Company Name:

Address:

Phone Number: Fax Number:
Contact Name:
1. Does your company conduct dry cleaning activities on-site? (Yes or No) ______
If “yes”, proceed to Question #2. If “no”, please identify the name and location of the dry cleaning plant that you send your customers’ garments to: ___________________________________________________________ Return this page of the survey only, with the contact information list ed above and your certificati on at the bottom completed.
2. Please check the appropriate line(s) for all dry cleani ng solvents used by your facility and supply the 2008 annual amount of each solvent purchased and s ent off-site for disposal/recycling ( in gallons ):

Solvent Used Purchased Amount Off-Site Amount
Perc (perchloroethylene) _____ __________________ _________________ CFC-113 (trichlorofluoroethane) _____ __________________ _________________ TCA (1,1,1-trichloroethane) _____ __________________ _________________ Stoddard solvent _____ __________________ _________________ Other petroleum/hydrocarbon solvent _____ __________________ _________________ Liquid silicone _____ __________________ _________________ Other (___________________) _____ __________________ _________________
If 2008 solvent use is limited to perc, CFC-113, and/or TCA, return only this page of the survey with the contact information listed at the top and your ce rtification at the bottom both complet ed. For all other solvents used, please provide a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for ea ch one when returning your survey submittal to DEQ.
3. For each dry cleaning machi ne at your facility, please complete the following information:
Machine Type Load Capacity Solvent Use per Load ( dry-to-dry or transfer ) Solvent Type ( pounds of garments ) ( gallons of solvent ) Controls in Place

__________________ ___________ _________________ ________________ ______________

__________________ ___________ _________________ ________________ ______________

__________________ ___________ _________________ ________________ ______________ 4. What is the average number of days per we ek that dry cleaning equipment is operating? ___________ 5. What is the average number of hours per da y that dry cleaning equipment is operating? ____________ 6. Describe any seasonal or month-by-month variat ions in your dry cleaning operations: ____________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Please indicate the number of employees at your facility: ________________
8. Every effort was made to send this survey to all dry cl eaners in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. Attached is a comprehensive list of these companies. Please list any other companies not on this list that should be surveyed:

9. Certification in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.01.123 – The statements and information contained in our emissions inventory submittal are true, accurate, and complete based on reasonable knowledge and inquiry.
Name of Responsible Official (Please Print): _____________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _____________________RETURN THIS PAGE TO DEQ – Attention: Chris Ramsdell County City Name Street Address Zip 12th Street Laundry 917 No rth 12th Street 83702 Baird's Cleaners 1504 South Vista Avenue 83705 Baird's Cleaners 2202 Broadway Avenue 83706 Baird's Dry Cleaners 902 North 8th Street 83702 Baird's Dry Cleaners 13373 West Chinden Boulevard 83713 Bairds Dry Cleaners - Fairview Branch Office 5702 West Fairview Avenue 83706 Best Cleaners 9225 West Chinden Boulevard 83714 Broadway Laundry 1217 Broadway Avenue 83706 Cleaners Express 111 Broadway Avenue, Suite 123 83702 Cleaning Authority The 6052 West Corporal Lane 83704 Clothesline Cleaners 244 South Orchard Street 83705 Comet Dry Cleaners and Shirt Laundry 8005 West Fairview Avenue 83704 Comet Dry Cleaners and Shirt Laundry 201 West Boise Avenue, Suite 101 83706 Comet Dry Cleaners and Shirt Laundry 389 East Park Center Boulevard 83702 Crestline Cleaners 3815 West Overland Road 83705 David's Bridal 8065 West Emerald Street 83704 Evergreen Dry Cleaners 3135 North Cole Road 83704 Idaho Custom Cleaning 2315 North Curtis Road 83706 Martinizing Dry Cleaning 1503 We st Washington Street 83702 Martinizing Dry Cleaning 116 Ea st Myrtle Street 83702 McRae's Cleaners - Alterations 2753 West State Street 83702 McRae's Cleaners - Alterations 5612 West Fairview Avenue 83706 McRae's Cleaners - Alterations 12505 West Chinden Boulevard 83713 Mr. Clean Jeans 4744 West State Street 83703 Norge Laundry & Dry Cleaning 515 North 15th Street 83702 Oak Drycleaners 266 South Cole Road 83709 On the Spot Cleaners & Laundry 3363 North Cole Road 83704 Overland Laundry 6555 West Overland Road 83709 Ragz 7406 Preece Drive 83704 Ralph's Cleaners 1291 South Orchard Street 83705 Star Cleaners 1521 South Five Mile Road 83709 Superwash 6939 W State St 83714 Vista Maytag Laundry 1504 1/2 South Vista Avenue 83705 Westco Martinizing 3363 North Five Mile Road 83713 Westco Martinizing 1337 S outh Orchard Street 83705 Westco Martinizing 991 East Parkcenter Boulevard 83706 Westco Martinizing Dry Cleaning 10418 West Overland Road 83709 Westco Martinizing Dry Cleaning 13601 West McMillan Road 83713 Boise

Westco Shirt Laundry 1718 West Main Street 83702 Custom Care Cleaners 3210 East Chinden Boulevard 83616 Custom Care Cleaners 228 Ea st Plaza Street 83616 Eagle Seabreeze Dry Cleaners 621 Ea st State Street 83616 Comet Dry Cleaners and Shirt Laundry 5865 Glenwood Street 83714 Garden City Mr Clean Jeans 4684 West Chinden Boulevard 83714 Kuna Marys Downtown Laundry 397 West Main Street 83634 Baird's Dry Cleaners 2941 East Overland Road 83642 Clothesline Cleaners 1800 South Meridian Road 83642 Elite Cleaners 1735 West Franklin Road 83642 Evergreen Dry Cleaners 41 East Fairview Avenue 83642 Meridian Dry Cleaners 1505 North Main Street 83642 On the Spot Cleaners 1551 West Cherry Lane 83642 Ultra Clean Cleaning & Restoration 865 Taylor Ave 83642 Meridian

Westco Dry-Cleaning 450 South Meridian Road 83642 Ada

Star Country Scrub 9876 We st State Street 83669 J'S Cleaners 723 Main Street 83605 One Hour Martinizing 903 Blaine Street 83605 Caldwell Smiths Laundromat 508 Blaine Street 83605 Attended Maytag Home Style Laundry 205 Caldwell Boulevard 83651 Cawala Industries Inc 1226 Caldwell Boulevard 83651 Cleaners Express 920 Caldwell Boulevard 83651 Holly Dry Cleaning 1407 2nd Street South 83651 Nampa Dry Cleaners 1015 2nd Street South 83651 One Hour Martinizing 513 12th Ave Rd 83686 Star Cleaners 349 Caldwell Boulevard 83651 Canyon Nampa

Twelfth Avenue Cleaners 916 12th Ave S 83651 Glenns Ferry Diamond Laundry Inc 95 East 2nd Avenue 83623 Econowash Laundromat 765 American Legion Boulevard, 83647 Mountain Home La Mode Cleaners 290 East 4th 83647 Elmore Mountain Home AFB Mr. Clean Jeans (Ralph's Quality Cleaners) 610 Mountain Home AFB 83648RETURN THIS PAGE TO DEQ – Attention: Chris Ramsdell 

### «Date_Project_Letter_Sent»
«Facility» «Address» «City», «State» «Zip_Code»
RE: Treasure Valley Emissions Inventory Pr oject – Wastewater Treatment Plants
To Whom It May Concern:
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality is developing an air emissions inventory of ozone and particulate matter pollutants and th eir precursors for the Treasure Valley (Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties). The scope of this inventory includes all st ationary and mobile sources of air pollution and will consist of emissions released in calendar year 2008.
Per Clean Air Act Section 114, 42 USC 7414 and the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01.122), your participation is re quired and will ensure completion of a comprehensive inventory of all emission source s related to wastewater treatment. A brief questionnaire is enclosed that asks specifi c questions pertaining to 2008 treatment plant operations within Ada, Canyon, or Elmore counties.
Please complete the attached survey, si gn, and return by mail, e-mail, or fax no later than November 6, 2009 to:
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ATTN: Christopher Ramsdell 1410 N Hilton Boise, ID 83706 E-mail: Christopher.Ramsdell@deq.idaho.gov Fax: 208-373-0340
Thank you for your cooperation w ith this important project.
Sincerely,

Christopher Ramsdell Emissions Inventory & Air Informati on Management Systems Coordinator 1410 North Hilton • Boise, ID 83706 • (208) 373-0502 C. L. “Butch” Otter, Governor Toni Hardesty, Director STATE OF IDAHO 

### DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYRETURN THIS PAGE TO DEQ – Attention: Chris Ramsdell 

### Treasure Valley Wastewater Treat ment Data Collection Survey
Facility Name:

Address:

Phone Number: Fax Number:
Contact Name:

• What is the composition of the wast ewater treated by your facility? (Provide responses in terms of %.):

Industrial % Commercial % Residential %

• Please provide the monthly quantit ies of wastewater treated by y our facility in 2008, in gallons:

Month Treated Quantity (Gallons)
January February March April May June July August September October November December

• Please provide a description of your treatment processes:

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

• Does your facility discharge effluent to other wastewater treatment facilities? _______________________

• Every effort was made to send this survey to all wa stewater treatment facilities in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. Attached is a comp rehensive list of these facilit ies. Please list any other fa cilities not on this list that should be surveyed:

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________
Certification in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.01.123 – The st atements and information contained in our emissions inventory submittal are true, accurate, and complete based on reasonable knowledge and inquiry.
Name of Responsible Official (Please Print):
Signature: Date:County Name_1 Name_2 City of Boise Lander Street Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Boise West Boise Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Garden City Wa stewater Treatment Plant City of Kuna Wastewat er Treatment Plant City of Meridian Wastew ater Treatment Plant Eagle Sewer District Wast ewater Treatment Plant Ada

Star Water and Sewer District Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Caldwell Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Greenleaf Wastew ater Treatment Plant City of Middleton Wastew ater Treatment Plant City of Nampa Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Notus Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Parma Wastewater Treatment Plant Canyon

City of Wilder Wastew ater Treatment Plant City of Glenns Ferry Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Mountain Home Wa stewater Treatment Plant Elmore Mountain Home AFB Wastewater Treatment PlantDO NOT RETURN THIS PAGE 

### «Date_Project_Letter_Sent»
«Salutation» «Contact_Full_Name» «Facility» «Address» «City», «State» «Zip_Code»
RE: Treasure Valley Emissi ons Inventory Project
Dear «Salutation» «Contact_Last_Name»:
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality is developing an air emissions inventory of ozone and particulate matter pollutants and th eir precursors for the Treasure Valley (Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties). The scope of this air emissions inventory includes all stationary and mobile sources of air pollution and will consis t of emissions released in calendar-year 2008.
Per Clean Air Act Section 114, 42 USC 7414, and the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01.122), your participation as a la ndfill owner or operat or is required to ensure completion of a comprehensive inventory of all air emission sources in the Treasure Valley related to landfills. A brief questionnaire is enclosed that as ks specific questions pertaining to landfill location, capacity, air em ission controls, and other parameters.
Please complete the attached eight-question surv ey form, sign it, and return by mail, electronic mail, or FAX no later than October 15, 2009 to:
Christopher Ramsdell Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division 1410 N Hilton Boise, ID 83706 E-mail: Christopher.Ramsdell@deq.idaho.gov FAX: 208-373-0340
Sincerely,

Christopher Ramsdell Emissions Inventory & Air Informati on Management Systems Coordinator 1410 North Hilton • Boise, ID 83706 • (208) 373-0502 C. L. “Butch” Otter, Governor Toni Hardesty, Director STATE OF IDAHO 

### DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYDO NOT RETURN THIS PAGE 

## LANDFILL QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Landfill Name: __________________________________________________________

2. Landfill Location: Street Address: __________________________________________________________
City, State, Zip Code: _____________________________________________________
Latitude: ________ (degrees, minutes, seconds; North)
Longitude: _________ (degrees, minutes, seconds; West)
3. Year Opened: ________________ 4. Year Closed (or N/A): ________________
5. Air Emission Control(s): Type (e.g., flare, enclosed combustion, etc., none) 

### Capture Efficiency Destruction Efficiency

% %

% %

% %

6. Landfill Parameters:

Landfill Design Capacity m 3



### Average Waste Acceptance Rate (if open) 

### Mg/year

Total Waste in Place (if closed) 

### Mg Landfill Waste Type (e.g., Construction/Demolition, Municipal, Industrial/ Commercial, Co-Disposal)


### 7. Does this landfill participate in U.S. EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program,
(Yes or No)? ________

8. Certification in accordan ce with IDAPA 58.01.01.123 – The statements and information contained in our emissions inventory submitta l are true, accurate, an d complete based on reasonable knowledge and inquiry.
Name of Responsible Offi cial (Please Print): _____________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _____________________

## APPENDIX D

AURORA RESIDENTIAL WOOD CO MBUSTION SURVEY REPORT

## Prepared for



# S TATE OF 

# I DAHO 

# D EPARTMENT OF 

# E NVIRONMENTAL 

# Q UALITY 

# ’ S 

# R ESIDENTIAL 

# W OOD 

# C OMBUSTION 

# I NVENTORY 

# S URVEY 

# : T REASURE 

# V ALLEY 

# A IRSHED 

# A UGUST 

# 2008 TO 

# J ULY 

# 2009
F INAL 

## R EPORT 

## J ANUARY 

## , 2010

S UBMITTED BY 

### : 

## D AWN 

## M ORLEY 

## C HAVERO 

## & N AOMI 

## E. H OLOBOW 

## , P H 

## .D. F ORState of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 2 Table of Contents

E XECUTIVE H IGHLIGHTS (4 P AGES ).................................................................................................................. 3 Project Background and Objectives.............................................................................................. ................ 7 Methodol ogy.................................................................................................................... .............................. 7 Results & Conclusions .......................................................................................................... ...................... 11 Inventory of H eating Devices ................................................................................................... ...............11 General Popula tion Resu lts ..................................................................................................... .......11 Individual Count y Results...................................................................................................... ..........12 Comparison with 1997 Results ................................................................................................... ....13 Percentage Burning at Least 4 Times in Past Year............................................................................... .14 General Popula tion Resu lts ..................................................................................................... .......14 Individual Count y Results...................................................................................................... ..........15 Comparison with 1997 Results ................................................................................................... ....16 OVERALL WOOD CONSUMPT ION....................................................................................................... 17 General Popula tion Resu lts ..................................................................................................... .......17 Individual Count y Results...................................................................................................... ..........19 Comparison with 1997 Results ................................................................................................... ....20 WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES WITH OUT AN INSERT ACTIVITY....................................................21 General Popula tion Resu lts ..................................................................................................... .......21 Individual Count y Results...................................................................................................... ..........26 Comparison with 1997 Results ................................................................................................... ....26 PELLET STOVE ACTIVITY .......................................................................................................... ..........30 General Popula tion Resu lts ..................................................................................................... .......30 Individual Count y Results...................................................................................................... ..........34 Comparison with 1997 Results ................................................................................................... ....34 WOOD BURNING STOVE & FIREPL ACE WITH INSER T INVENTO RY ..............................................34 WOOD STOVE OR FIREPLACE WITH INSERT ACTIVITY ..................................................................37 General Popula tion Resu lts ..................................................................................................... .......37 Individual Count y Results...................................................................................................... ..........41 Comparison with 1997 Results ................................................................................................... ....41 BARBEQUE, FIRE PI T OR SMOKER ................................................................................................... .42 General Popula tion Resu lts ..................................................................................................... .......42 Individual Count y Results...................................................................................................... ..........46 Comparison with 1997 Results ................................................................................................... ....46 STATE TAX DEDUCTION I NCENTIVE PR OGRAM ..............................................................................46 General Popula tion Resu lts ..................................................................................................... .......46 Individual Count y Results...................................................................................................... ..........48 DEMOGRAP HICS................................................................................................................... ................48State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 3 

# S TATE OF 

# I DAHO 

# D EPARTMENT OF 

# E NVIRONMENTAL 

# Q UALITY 

# ’ S 

# R ESIDENTIAL 

# W OOD 

# C OMBUSTION 

# I NVENTORY 

# S URVEY 

# : T REASURE 

# V ALLEY 

# A IRSHED
A UGUST 

## 2008 TO 

## J ULY 

## 2009


## E XECUTIVE 

## H IGHLIGHTS 

## (4 P AGES 

## ) These results and conclusions are based on a telephone survey of 751 residents in the Treasure Valley Airshed region, including the counties of Ada, Canyon and Elmore, which was conducted in September of 2009 by Aurora Research Group. The plurality of regional respondents was female, living in a single-family home that was built before 1980. While they had resided in Treasure Valley for more than 20 years, the length of time in their current residence varied.
Inventory of Heating Devices  Forty-one percent (41%) of residential households with wood-burning devices in the Treasure Valley Airshed have a wood burning fireplace without an insert and the same proportion (41%) have one with an insert. One quarter (25%) of all households have a barbecue, smoker or fire pit.

**-** There were significantly more households in Ada than in either Canyon or Elmore counties with a wood burning fireplace without an insert, and there were significantly fewer households in Ada with a pellet stove.
2008 Inventory: Individual Counties (includes Don’t know and Refusals)

46%

19% 37%

6% 25%

3%

31%

9% 49%

11% 24%
2%

26%

8% 51%

10% 26%

5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wood burning fireplace without insert Natural gas fireplace Wood burning stove or fireplace with insert Pellet Stove Wood burning barbecue, smoker or

firepit Any other wood burning device Ada Canyon Elmore

*

* *

*

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between Ada and the other two counties.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 4 **-** Significantly fewer residents had wood burning fireplaces or stoves, with or without inserts, in 2008 than in 1997. However, the percentage having pellet stoves and barbecues or fire pits has increased significantly from 1997.

6 Does your household have any of the following wood or gas burning devices: 2008 results compared with 1997 results (includes Don’t know and Refusals)

46%

19% 37%

6% 25%

31%

9% 49%

11% 24%

42%

16% 25% 55% 49% 40%

7% 6% 9% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wood burning fireplace without insert Natural gas fireplace Wood burning stove

or fireplace with insert Pellet Stove Wood burning barbecue, smoker or

firepit Ada Canyon Weighted Combined Ada & Canyon 1997 Results

Percentage Burning at Least 4 Times in Past Year  Households having fireplaces without inserts were less likely to have burned wood in them four or more times in the past year (31%) than those with stove or fireplace inserts (78%). The majority of those with pellet stoves used them (79%), as did half (51%) of those with barbecues or fire pits.

**-** The percentages of households that burned at least four times last year were similar in all three counties with one exception: significantly fewer households in Ada (29%) than in Elmore (49%) counties burned wood in fireplaces without inserts.

**-** While all comparisons cannot be made with 1997 results, among those that can, it appears that burning wood in fireplaces without inserts as well as in barbecues, smokers or fire pits has declined significantly from 1997.
Overall Wood Consumption  Seventy percent (70%) of respondents burned wood between August 2008 and July 2009, with 38% saying they consumed less than one cord of wood.  Ten percent of all respondents reported burning at least one processed log during the same timeframe, although the vast majority (85%) did not burn any processed logs.  One third (33%) of pellet stove users reported burning an average of 800 pounds of pellets in a year.  Wood burning seems to have increased since 1997 in Ada and Canyon counties combined, but the amount of wood burned is not large.

− Although significantly fewer people said they burned no wood (zero cords) in 2008 (25%) compared with 1997 (47%); the percentage who said they used less than one cord of wood has doubled since 1997 (38% in 2008 vs. 19% in 1997).State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 5 **-** There were no differences found by geographical region in terms of overall wood consumption (the pounds of pellets or number of processed logs, wood logs, or cords of wood burned).  Nearly all (97%) Treasure Valley residents surveyed reported having another source of fuel available besides wood or pellet burning to heat their home.
Wood Burning Fireplaces Without an Insert Activity  Those who burned wood tended to use their fireplaces without inserts mostly from November through February – over 60% burned wood in these four months.  The majority of the wood burned in fireplaces without inserts occurred on the weekends . About seven in ten respondents with fireplaces (without inserts) burned wood fires from 1-3 hours . Nearly all (96%) fireplace (no insert) users burned wood after 4:00 p.m ., while only about 15% burned early in the day.  Seven in ten consumed up to ten logs in fireplaces without inserts. Softwood was the most common type of wood burned, with four in ten users (40%) saying they used pine, cedar, fir, aspen, and other softwoods for their fires.  When comparisons were possible, the current results were generally consistent with the 1997 results among those with wood burning fireplaces without an insert.
Pellet Stove Activity  Pellet stove usage was highest during the winter (November through February), with over 70% burning pellets during these winter months and up to half burning 25 plus times a month.  The majority of pellet stove burn activity occurred during the week . About half of the pellet stove users burned pellets all day from 6:00 a.m. to noon (58%) and from noon until 4:00 p.m. (47%); however, activity significantly increased after 4:00 pm : all (97%) pellet stove users burned pellets after 4:00 p.m. On average, pellet burns lasted 11 hours

.  The median number of pellets consumed by stove users was 800, or 20 forty-pound bags

. Wood Burning Stove & Fireplace with Insert Activity  About 30% of stove and insert users burned wood in older, conventional stoves and a similar number of users had non-catalytic stoves or inserts (33%). Slightly fewer (21%) had catalytic stoves or inserts.

**-** Users with multiple types of devices either used their device all the time or not at all. There was very little mixed-device use reported.  Half of the stoves were built after 1986 (24% from 1986 to 1990 and 26% after 1990), although 35% were over 23 year old (built before 1986). About 30% of non-catalytic owners said that their stove or fireplace insert was EPA certified.  Wood burning in stoves and fireplaces with inserts occurred mainly (90%) in December and January, although 69% also burned wood in November and 74% in February . During these peak months, about 40% burned wood fires at least 25 times in each month.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 6  Nearly half (46%) of respondents used their stove or insert 70% or more of the time on weekends . About 70% of wood stove and fireplace insert users burned wood fires for up to 8 hour s. About half burned wood from 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Wood burning in wood stoves and fireplace inserts jumped significantly to 91% of all users after 4:00 p.m
.  In terms of fuel, slightly more than half (55%) burned up to 10 logs . Softwoods were burned by two thirds (65%) of the stove and fireplace insert users surveyed, which is more than double the percentage of those who burned hardwoods (31%).
Barbeque, Fire Pit, or Smoker Activity  Use of barbeques, fire pits, and smokers was most prevalent in the summer – 96% burned wood in an outdoor device in July.

**-** Not surprisingly, activity was lower in the winter months, although not obsolete.  Overall, among outdoor wood burning devices users, the majority lit them only one to four times per month.  A total of 72% said they burned wood outside in their barbeques, fire pits, and smokers on the weekends only (at least 90% of the time). The vast majority (86%) used their barbeques, fire pits or smokers after 4:00 p.m

.  Outdoor wood burners burned an average of three wood logs in their outdoor barbeques, fire pits, and smokers.  Four in ten (39%) respondents who used barbeques, fire pits, and smokers burned hardwood in their outdoor devices.
State Tax Deduction Incentive Program  Only 2 in 10 Treasure Valley Airshed residents (20%) were familiar with the state tax deduction incentive offer for the replacement of older, uncertified wood stoves.  Nearly a quarter (23%) of stove owning respondents reported being likely to take advantage of the state’s tax deduction incentive.

**-** Only 1% said they already had benefited from the program.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 7 

## Project Background and Objectives Overall Objectives: Aurora Research Group (Aurora) was contracted to conduct a Random Digit Dialed (RDD) telephone survey with a representative sample of residents in the Treasure Valley Airshed area comprising Ada, Canyon, and Elmore Counties, Idaho. The survey was designed to take an inventory of residential wood burning devices and to assess wood burning activity. It was also designed to allow for comparisons to be made with inventory results from 1997 1 where possible. This information will be used by ERG to estimate wood burning emissions for 2008 on both an annual and seasonal (November 1 through February 28) daily average basis. The wood burning emissions data will be incorporated by ERG into the overall three-county emissions inventory of ozone and particulate matter emissions for the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 

## Methodology Questionnaire Design: Meetings were held to discuss the project’s information requirements. Aurora translated the stated objectives into research questions that addressed each issue discussed. Using a previous 1997 questionnaire as a draft, questions were added, deleted, and revised. Questions were designed to address the following issues:

 Determine type of residential wood burning devices (fireplace, woodstove, EPA certified, outdoor, insert, etc.)

 Understand the amount and type of wood burned from August 2008 to July 2009

 Identify burning patterns (nighttime, weekends, weekdays, etc.)

 Identify the type of wood burned,

 Compare current results with those of 1997 where possible, and

 Gather relevant demographic information Most of the questions were asked in a closed-ended format, but up to three questions were asked as open-ended and verbatim responses were captured and later categorized for quantitative analyses. Transcripts of all the verbatim responses are provided with the final report.
The interviews took 12 to 15 minutes on average to administer. Participants were screened for age (adults at least 18 years old 2 ); the presence of a wood burning device; and residency in Ada, Canyon, or Elmore Counties was confirmed. Interviewing took place between August 20 and September 12, 2009. The study interviews were conducted in English.
Sampling Design: The sampling design for this survey involved conducting a total of 751 randomdigit-dial (RDD) telephone surveys with repres entative samples of Ada-Canyon-Elmore County residents as follows:

• Ada County – 401 surveys, with a margin of error ± 4.9%, at the 95% confidence level. In other words, one is 95% sure that the true population parameters lie within ± 4.9% of the

1 The 1997 survey was provided electronically by ERG. Resi dential Wood Combustion Survey (658) – Freeman, Sullivan & Co.,

San Francisco, April 10, 1997. In 1997 a total of 267 interviews were conducted with a proportional sample of residents from A da (222 interviews) and Canyon (45 interviews) counties only. 2 In order to speak with someone under 18 years of age, by la w we would have needed to get the parents’ written permission.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 8 sample statistics. As an example, if a response category to a question were chosen by 50% of respondents, one can be 95% sure that the true population parameters are between 45.1% and 54.9% (50.0% ± 4.9%).

• Canyon County – 200 surveys, with a margin of error ± 6.9%.

• Elmore County – 150 surveys, with a margin of error ± 8%. The margin of error for the study as a whole (751 completed interviews) was + or – 3.6%, at the 95% confidence level. Aurora Research Group procured its Random-Digit-Dial (RDD) samples from Scientific Telephone Samples (STS), a company which uses high quality, state-of-the-art procedures to construct random digit samples that provide each possible telephone number within the appropriate working blocks with an equal chance of being selected to generate a random digit number. Completed interviews from an STS RDD sample should be highly representative of the population under study. 3 Results for the 2008 Treasure Valley Airshed inventory as a whole are post-weighted to represent the proportion of residents in each county (according to US Census estimates, Ada County represents 67% of the entire Airshed population, Canyon County represents 29% of all Airshed residents, and Elmore contains 4%.) Individual county comparisons are unweighted. Comparisons with 1997 results include only Ada and Canyon County residents 4 , and post-weights were recalculated (Ada represented 70% of the total and Canyon 30%) and applied to the results. [The reader should therefore be advised that there may be slight discrepancies between three-county Airshed 2008 results and the two-county 2008 results used in comparison with 1997 results.]
Implementation and Quality Assurance: Aurora’s telephone surveys were conducted by I/H/R Research, 5 a fieldhouse that uses a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system, which condenses timelines, increases flexibility, and enhances the accuracy of data collection. Skip patterns and qualifying criteria are built into the program to operate automatically, allowing the interviewer to focus mainly on interviewing. Responses gathered with a CATI system are keyed directly into an electronic database, making data immediately available for statistical analysis. The CATI system easily handles sophisticated branch ing and randomization patterns, and calculates variables during the course of an interview, either for branching purposes or for expected data analysis. Because of the complexity of the programming and its critical role in the data collection, the CATI instrument undergoes an exhaustive testing of skip patterns and the acceptance of valid values along with multiple proofreadings of text. Further testing was conducted after changes were made to the questionnaire.
In terms of interviewing staff, the firm employs a staff of more than 300 interviewers, many of which are full-time staff members, and employs a 1:8 supervisor-to-interviewer ratio (industry standard). Their interviewers represent a wide range of ages and cultural backgrounds. I/H/R makes a substantial investment in training before new interviewers begin work on live projects, and

3 STS’s sampling frame is based on the largest database of working residential telephone exchan ges and working blocks in the United States. The database information is regularly updated f our times per year, and crosschecked monthly against area code and assigned exchange lists furnished by the telephone companies . Exchanges and/or working blocks designated for business or governmental telephones, car/boat/plane mobile units, and ot her commercial or institutional services, are screened out. Disconnects have traditionally been one of the most inefficient parts of random digi t sampling. STS PreID normally identifies 50% to 75% of all disconnects in any RDD sa mple. Many fax numbers are also identified. 4 The decision to eliminate Elmore from 2008 results when comparing with 1997 results was made at a meeting on October 8, 2009. 5 I/H/R Research is a research data collecti on facility with over 30 years of experience.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 9 throughout their employment with the firm. In terviewer candidates are carefully screened for phone manner, clarity of voice, vocabulary, and computer knowledge/aptitude. Once hired, they are trained extensively, beginning with the Marketing Research Association-approved video and workbook training materials and progressing to a more thorough sequence of our own which focuses on probing techniques, practice in recordi ng answers verbatim, administering surveys via computer, controlling interview situations, etc.
All interviewers were trained on the project, supervised and monitored by fieldhouse management. Aurora’s project manager also conducted remote monitoring during the pretest and periodically throughout the entire project as an additional quality control measure.
After the questionnaire was programmed for the CATI system, Aurora conducted a pretest, which consisted of 14 completed surveys. 6 This pretest helped identify potential problems with the questionnaire and the research design. The survey was timed to measure compliance with project specifications. A pretest debriefing was held to ascertain interviewers’, supervisors’, and managers’ reactions and feedback. Minor adjustments were made in consultation with ERG. The fieldwork then continued as scheduled.
Multiple attempts were made to reach potential respondents during afternoon/evening hours from 4:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday to Thursday and from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. only, on the weekends. (Telephone surveys are typically not conducted on Fridays as the response rate is low.) Experience has shown that these hours are the most effective for reaching and interviewing a representative sample of the general public. As per industry standard, interviewers tried each number up to five times until the telephone number was considered “exhausted” (due to answering machines, non-response, non-qualification, partial completion, refusal, etc.), and another number was substituted.
Additional Quality Control Measures: The use of a CATI system (described above) for conducting the interviews is one measure of quality control – CATI condenses timelines, increases flexibility, and enhances the accuracy of data collection. Up to 30% of all interviews were validated by managers as standard procedure, via audio and visual monitoring. Additionally, 10% of those respondents who initially refuse to participate were asked by a senior interviewer to reconsider (typically referred to as refusal conversion). As previously mentioned, Aurora’s project manager also conducted remote monitoring during the pretest and periodically throughout the entire project.
Once all the fieldwork was completed, the data were cleaned and verified, including a manual review of all the verbatim responses to open-ended questions. Aurora developed a list of categories based on an initial scan of the responses and coded all responses.
Methods of Analysis: Survey results were analyzed using univariate and bivariate statistical techniques. The type of analysis depended upon the kind of variable analyzed. Normally we would report frequency percentages that are adjusted, meaning that percentages have been adjusted to account for any non-responses (refusals to answer), “don’t know” responses, or non-qualified responses (questions not answered due to answers to previous questions). However, because all answer categories were included in the 1997 results, we have followed that format, except when the statistical assumptions underlying certain analyses prevented us from including them.

6 The pretest interviews occurred on the first night of calling (August 20, 2009) and are considered part of the study.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 10 Researchers are interested in assessing whether or not the differences in observed percentages between certain groups of individuals are due to chance, or if they represent real differences among the subpopulations. Differences between counties and/or 1997 results have been identified by running statistical analyses and are discussed in the report. Statistical significance within crosstabulation tables was calculated using chi square ( χ 2) statistics. Tests of proportion were used to identify differences in responses between questions or groups of respondents. The level of significance was generally set to a p value of .05. Caveat: The sole purpose of this report is to provide a collection, categorization and summary of public opinion data. Aurora Research Group intends to neither endorse nor criticize the state of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG); or their policies, products, board of directors or staff. The Client shall be solely responsible for any modifications, revisions, or further disclosure/distribution of this report.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 11 

## Results & Conclusions The survey results are organized and presented in approximately the same order as the questionnaire, as follows: the inventory of all wood-burning devices, followed by the wood consumption (frequency and type) for each are firs t presented. This is followed by awareness of the state tax deduction as an incentive, and ends with survey demographics. Within each section of the report, the results for the Treasure Valley Airshed as a whole are first presented, based on post-weighted results from the 751 completed surveys with the general population of residents. Next, any significant differences among the three counties in the Airshed are discussed. Finally, any signi ficant differences between 2008 results 7 and the 1997 inventory are presented (when questions were the same). 

## Inventory of Heating Devices

General Population Results  1 Forty-one percent (41%) of residential households with wood-burning devices in the Treasure Valley Airshed have a wood burning fireplace without an insert and the same proportion (41%) have one with an insert. One quarter (25%) of all households have a barbecue, smoker or fire pit.
All respondents were asked whether or not their household had any of the following wood or gas burning devices: a wood burning fireplace without an insert, a natural gas fireplace, a wood burning stove or fireplace with an insert, a pellet stove; a wood burning barbecue, smoker, or fire pit; or any other wood burning device. (If respondents had only gas burning fireplaces, they were thanked and the interview was ended. The current results therefore indicate the percentage of wood burning households who also have natural gas fireplaces, and not the percentage of the population with gas fireplaces.) The weighted results for the Treasure Valley Airshed as a whole are shown in Figure 1, and indicate that the same percentage of households (41%) have a wood burning fireplace without an insert as have one with an insert. Twenty-five percent (25%) have a smoker or fire pit, 16% have a natural gas fireplace, 7% have a pellet stove, and 2% have some other wood burning device. The results do not sum to 100% because each question was asked independently and some households had more than one device. However, it was rare that households had stoves or fireplaces both with and without inserts – they tended to have one or the other: only 20 households (or 3% of the total population) had both.

7 The sample of residents surveyed in 1997 differed from the curr ent sampling strategy in that only residents of Ada (83% or 22 2

interviews) and Canyon (17% or 45 interviews) counties were included and the total number of completed interviews was smaller at 267 than the current 751. For the 2008 inventory we interviewed 401 residents in Ada County, 200 in Canyon, and 150 in Elmore County, and postweighted results bas ed on proportions estimated from the U.S. Census: 67% Ada, 29% Canyon, and 4% Elmore). For the purposes of the 1997 comparison, we re-w eighted 2008 results (70% Ada, 30% Canyon), excluding Elmore County. The reader is therefore cautioned that the weighted three-county and two-county 2008 results may differ.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 12 Figure 1
2008 Inventory: Weighted Results for Treasure Valley Airshed as a Whole (includes Don’t know and Refusals)

41%

16% 25%

2% 7% 41%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wood burning fireplace without insert Natural gas fireplace Wood burning stove or fireplace with insert Pellet Stove Wood burning barbecue, smoker or

firepit Any other wood burning device

* Note: Results are independent an d will not sum to 100% - households may have more than one device.
Individual County Results  2 There were significantly more households in Ada than in either Canyon or Elmore counties with a wood burning fireplace without an insert, and there were significantly fewer households in Ada with a pellet stove.
The next figure shows the inventory of devices within each of the three counties in the Treasure Valley Airshed. It can be seen that there were some significant differences between Ada and the other two counties: for example, while 46% of Ada households had a wood burning fireplace without an insert, only 31% of Canyon and 26% of Elmore households did. However, 19% of households in Ada also had a gas fireplace, significantly more than in Canyon (9%) or Elmore (8%). About half of Canyon (49%) and Elmore (51%) households had a wood stove or fireplace with an insert; significantly more than the 37% of Ada households. Significantly fewer Ada households had pellet stoves. The three counties reported similar levels of ownership of barbecue, smokers or fire pits (about one-quarter of households).State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 13 Figure 2


### 2008 Inventory: Individual Counties (includes Don’t know and Refusals)

46%

19% 37%

6% 25%

3%

31%

9% 49%

11% 24%
2%

26%

8% 51%

10% 26%

5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wood burning fireplace without insert Natural gas fireplace Wood burning stove or fireplace with insert Pellet Stove Wood burning barbecue, smoker or

firepit Any other wood burning device Ada Canyon Elmore

*

* *

*

* Indicates a statistically significant diffe rence between Ada and the other two counties.
Comparison with 1997 Results  3 Significantly fewer residents had wood burning fireplaces or stoves, with
or without inserts, in 2008 than in 1997. However, the percentage having pellet stoves and barbecues or fire pits has increased significantly from
1997.
The next figure shows that the overall percentage of wood burning fireplaces or stoves has declined since 1997: whether or not fireplace and wood stoves had an insert, the general levels are significantly lower than in 1997. For example, it can be seen that 42% of Ada and Canyon households had wood burning fireplaces without inserts in 2008, significantly fewer than the 55% who did in 1997. [The percentage of homes with more than one device in 1997 was not presented in the frequency results we were given, so that comparison cannot be made.] It can also be seen that the percentage of households with natural gas fireplaces has possibly increased: from 6% in 1997 to 16% in 2008. 8 Similarly, more households in 2008 reported having pellet stoves in 2008 (7%) than in 1997 (2%); as well as wood burning barbecues, smokers, or fire pits (25% in 2008) compared with 1997 results (9%).

8 In 2008, the percentage represents those who had natural gas fireplaces in addition to one or more wood burning devices. It is

not clear if the 1997 questionnaire did the same. Results ther efore might not be directly comparable and should be treated wit h caution.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 14 Figure 3

6 

### Does your household have any of the following wood or gas burning devices: 2008 results compared with 1997 results (includes Don’t know and Refusals)

46%

19% 37%

6% 25%

31%

9% 49%

11% 24%

42%

16% 25% 55% 49% 40%

7% 6% 9% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wood burning fireplace without insert Natural gas fireplace Wood burning stove

or fireplace with insert Pellet Stove Wood burning barbecue, smoker or

firepit Ada Canyon Weighted Combined Ada & Canyon 1997 Results



## Percentage Burning at Least 4 Times in Past Year

General Population Results  4 Households having fireplaces without inserts were less likely to have burned wood in them four or more times in the past year (31%) than those
with stove or fireplace inserts (78%). The majority of those with pellet stoves used them (79%), as did half (51%) of those with barbecues or fire pits.
Respondents were asked if they burned wood (or processed logs or pellets) at least four times in the last twelve months 9 in each of the wood burning devices in the house. Results for the weighted Treasure Valley Airshed as a whole are presented in Figure 4. It can be seen that of those who had fireplaces without inserts, only 31% burned wood in them at least four times this past year, compared with 78% of those having stoves or fireplaces with inserts. The majority of pellet stove owners also burned pellets at least four times (79%), and about half (51%) of those with barbecues, smokers or fire pits burned wood in them during the past twelve months.

9 “That is, did you burn wood at least 4 times from Aug 2008 to July 2009?”State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 15 Figure 4 Treasure Valley Airshed: Among Those With Devices, Percent Who Burned at Least Four Times in Past Twelve Months (includes Don’t know and Refusals)

31% 78%

51% 79%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wood burning fireplace without insert Wood burning stove or fireplace with insert Pellet Stove Wood burning barbecue, smoker or firepit

Individual County Results  5 The percentages of households that burned at least four times last year were similar in all three counties with one exception: significantly fewer households in Ada (29%) than in Elmore (49%) counties burned wood in fireplaces without inserts.
Results for the individual counties are presented in Figure 5. It can be seen that, in general, households with wood burning devices in all three counties had similar burning patterns. There was one exception: among those with wood burning fireplaces without inserts, significantly fewer burned wood at least four times in the past year in Ada County (29%) than in Elmore County (49%). [Results from Canyon (37%) did not differ significantly from the other two.]State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 16 Figure 5

Individual Counties: Among Those With Devices, Percent Who Burned at Least Four Times in Past Twelve Months (includes Don’t know and Refusals)

29% 77% 77%

52%

37% 81% 82%

50% 49% 84% 80%

51%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wood burning fireplace without insert Wood burning stove or fireplace with insert Pellet Stove Wood burning barbecue, smoker or firepit Ada Canyon Elmore

*

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between Ada and Elmore Counties.

Comparison with 1997 Results  6 Not all comparisons can be made with 1997 results due to questionnaire differences. However, among those that can, it appears that burning wood in fireplaces without inserts as well as in barbecues, smokers or fire pits has declined significantly from 1997.
There were questionnaire differences between 1997 and the current survey and therefore not all comparisons can be made. In addition, we had to recalculate 1997 results to be comparable: for example, the denominator for the percentage of fireplace owners without inserts in the 1997 survey came from Q.3, but the numerator came from Q.4. 10 Further, results from owners of fireplaces and stoves with inserts should be treated with some caution as this question was only asked of stove owners in 1997. That being said, it can be seen that wood burning has declined significantly from 1997: fewer households in 2008 than in 1997 burned wood at least four times a year in their fireplaces without inserts (31% in 2008 compared with 44% in 1997) or in their barbecues, smokers or fire pits (51% in 2008 compared with 78% in 1997).

10 The percentage for stove owners with inserts for 1997 came from Q.8 alone. The percentage for bar becue, smokers or fire pits came from a combination of Q.11 and Q12 in the 1997 survey.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 17 Figure 6

6 2008 to 1997 Comparison, Ada and Canyon Counties only: Percent Who Burned at Least Four Times in Past Twelve Months (includes Don’t know and Refusals)

31% 78%

44% 51% 79% 78% 74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wood burning fireplace without insert Wood burning stove or fireplace

with insert ** Pellet Stove (not asked in 1997) Wood burning barbecue, smoker or firepit Weighted Ada and Canyon 1997 Results

Arrows indicate statistically significant differences between the years.

** In 1997 the question was asked only of wood stove owners with inserts



## OVERALL WOOD CONSUMPTION

General Population Results The next set of questions was asked in order to help determine how much overall fuel was burned. The survey asked respondents to estimate the number of cords (or individual logs) of wood, individual processed logs, and pounds of pellets that had been consumed during the year.  7 Seventy percent (70%) of respondents burned wood between August 2008 and July 2009, with 38% saying they consumed less than one cord of wood.
All respondents were asked, “On the average, how many cords of wood did you burn in the last 12 months in all the wood burning devices you have?” Results indicated that 11% burned about a cord, while 22% burned more. Twenty-eight percent said they used less than a cord of wood. One third (32%) of those asked said none (zero) and a further 8% were undecided. A follow up question then asked those respondents who had said “zero” or were unsure to estimate the number of wood logs they had burned. The results of the two questions were combined and are shown in the next chart. It can be seen that overall, 25% reported not burning any wood at all (either in terms of cords or logs) and 5% were still unsure. This meant that 70% burned wood. The largest group burned less than one cord of wood in the year (38%). Eleven percent used about a cord and 21% burned more wood than one cord.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 18 Figure 7 

### How Much Wood Was Burned? (combined cord and individual log questions)

More than 3 cords

7% 3 cords

5%

Don't know 5% 2 cords

9%

None 25% 1 cord

11%

Less than 1 cord 38% 21%

 8 Ten percent of all respondents reported burning at least one processed log from August 2008 to July 2009, but the vast majority (85%) did not burn any processed logs. All respondents were asked to quantify their use of processed fire logs. Overall, the responses ranged from zero to 60, with the most common response among users being 12 processed logs (2%) during the course of the year, which averages to one log per month. However, 85% said they did not burn any (zero). Four percent were unsure and 1% refused, both of which were considered to be non-responses.

Number of Process e Logs Percent of All Respondents None 85% One <1% Two 1% Three 1% Four 1% Five – Ten 2% 12 2% 13 or more 2% Non-response 5%

 9 Among pellet stove users, one third (33%) reported burning an average of 800 pounds of pellets in a year. Respondents who had a pellet stove were asked to quantify the amount of pellets burned in terms of pounds. (Some respondents reported their fuel in terms of bags, which was later converted into pounds. The assumption wasState of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 19 that each bag weighs 40 pounds.) Thirty-three percent of pellet stove owners reported using 800 pounds (or 20 bags). Thirteen percent could not estimate how much they used.

Pounds of

Pellets Percent of Pelle t Stove Owners 0 <1% 20 3% 80 3% 120 6% 150 3% 300 3% 400 3% 600 2% 800 33% 960 3% 1000 5% 1200 < 1% 1600 3% 2000 3% 3000 6% 4000 8% 8000 2% Don’t know 13%

 10 Nearly all (97%) Treasure Valley residents surveyed reported having another source of fuel available besides wood or pellet burning to heat their home.
When asked if burning wood or wood pellets was the only possible way to heat their home, most respondents (97%) said they could heat it with another heat source if they wanted to. Two percent reported wood burning as being the only way to heat their home and fewer than 1% were undecided.
Individual County Results

 11 There were no differences found by geographical region in terms of overall wood consumption (the pounds of pellets or number of processed logs, wood logs, or cords of wood burned).
Similarly, the results were consistent across all three counties in terms of having other possible ways to heat their homes: 98% of Ada county respondents, 97% of Canyon county respondents and 96% of Elmore county respondents said they could use another heat source to warm their home if they wanted to.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 20 Comparison with 1997 Results  12 Wood burning seems to have increased since 1997 in Ada and Canyon counties combined, but the amount of wood burned is not large. Although significantly fewer people said they burned no wood (zero cords) in 2008 (25%) compared with 1997 (47%); the percentage who said they used less than one cord of wood has doubled since 1997 (38% in 2008 vs. 19% in 1997). Only the results of Ada and Canyon were used for the comparison with 1997 results. We compared the number of cords only 11 that were consumed in the current survey with those of the 1997 survey and the results are shown in the next chart. It can be seen that the majority of the categories remained about the same with the exception of the first two categories (no wood and less than a cord). There were significantly fewer respondents who said they had not burned any cords of wood in 2008 (25%) than in 1997 (47%). However, the percentage of respondents who consumed less than one cord of wood doubled (from 19% in 1997 to 38% in 2008). In other words, approximately the same combined percentage of respondents in both years burned less than a cord or no wood during the year. Figure 8


### Cords of Wood Burned (Current Results vs. 1997 results for Ada & Canyon counties, weighted)

47%
25% 19%
38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1997 2008 More than 3 cords
3 cords
2 cords
1 cord
Less than 1 cord
None
Don't know *

*

In terms of processed logs and pellets, the slight differences in percentages were not found to be statistically significant. In other words, similar amounts of processed logs and pellets were burned Ada and Canyon counties in 2008 as in 1997. Results are shown in the next two tables.

11 Earlier in this report we combined the results of the number of cords of wood and the number of wood logs in order to have a better understanding of how many didn’t burn any wood. However, since we only have a hard copy of the frequency report for the 1997 survey, we were only able to compare the results of t he number of cords of wood and the number of individual logs separately and not combine them.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 21 Processed Logs 1997 Percent Among All R 2008 Percent Among All R None 89% 85% One – 10 logs 3% 6% 11 – 60 logs 3% 5% Non-response (Don’t know & Refused) 5% 4%

Pellets 1997 Percent Among All R 2008 Percent Among All R None 92% 94% At least one pound 3% 5% Non-response (Don’t know & Refused) 5% 1%



## WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES WITHOUT AN INSERT ACTIVITY

Respondents who owned a fireplace without an insert and used it at least four times in the past year were asked several questions pertaining to the frequency and timing of use, the length of the burn and the quantity and type of fuel consumed.
General Population Results  13 Those who burned wood tended to use their fireplaces without inserts mostly from November through February – over 60% burned wood in these four months.
Respondents were asked to identify the months (from August of 2008 to July of 2009) in which they burned wood in the fireplace without an insert in their home. [Multiple responses were accepted from respondents so each month should be considered separately.] It can be seen in the next chart that, not surprisingly, there was little fireplace wood burning in September (3%). Then activity increased in October (26%) and November (63%). In December and January, nearly everyone who has a fireplace without an insert used it (93% and 89%, respectively). Then in February, wood burning activity started to taper off.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 22 Figure 9 

## In What Months Do You Burn Wood In Your Fireplace Without an Insert? (“yes” responses including don’t know and refusals)

0% 3% 26% 63% 89%

67%

33%

12%
1% 0% 0% 93%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July 2008

The following chart provides the results of the number of times that respondents burned wood during each month in their fireplace without an insert. (There was no wood burning in August 2008, June or July 2009 so these months have been excluded from the chart.)

W OODBURNING F IREPLACE W ITHOUT I NSERT : F REQUENCY OF B URNING F ROM A UGUST , 2008 TO J ULY , 2009 ( AMONG THOSE WHO SAID THEY BURNED WOOD LEAST 4 TIMES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS )

A PPROXIMATELY HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU BURN WOOD DURING THE MONTH OF

....

Month (sample size) 1-4 times 5-8 times 9-12 times 13-18 times 9-24 times 25+ times Don’t Know Refused Total Sept 2008 (n=3) 86.2% -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- 6.9% 6.9% 100% Oct 2008

(n=24) 40.4% 26.0% 5.1% 16.4% 4. 5% 1.6% 5.1% 0.8% 100%
Nov 2008

(n=60) 33.2% 14.1% 9.6% 5.9% 15.7% 10.3% 8.8% 2.4% 100%
Dec 2008

(n=88) 32.4% 18.2% 11.7% 4.3% 14.3% 11.5% 7.4% 0.2% 100%
Jan 2009

(n=85) 31.2 16.0% 16.2% 5.8% 11. 2% 11.7% 7.7% 0.2% 100%
Feb 2009

(n=64) 31.3 17.3% 13.9% 11.6% 6.1% 9.2% 10.2% 0.3% 100%
March 2009 (n=32) 23.8 8.5% 16.4% 26.8% 5.8% 6.0% 12.0% 0.6% 100% April 2009

(n=12) 31.8 21.2% 38.5% 1.7% 5. 1% -.- -.- 1.7% 100% May 2009 (n=1) 100% -.- -.- -.- -. - -.- -.- -.- 100%State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 23  14 In general, the majority of the wood burning done in fireplaces without inserts occurred on the weekends.
Respondents who indicated that they burn wood at least four times in their fireplace without an insert were asked to think about their wood burning activity in terms of weekday versus weekend habits. The question read: “during a typical week, what percent of the wood burned in your fireplace(s) was burned on weekdays, that is, Monday through Friday ?” The program then calculated the remaining percent as burning on Saturday and Sunday. Four percent said they burned the same amount every day, Monday through Sunday. Seventeen percent were undecided and 4% refused. These three groups were excluded; the results were recalculated, and are presented in the next table.

F IREPLACE ( NO INSERT ) B URNING A CTIVITY P ERCENT M ONDAY – F RIDAY A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDING ( N =71) S ATURDAY & S UNDAY A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDING ( N =71) None 21% 0% 1 – 9% 4% 0% 10 - 19% 17% 5% 20 – 29% 16% 7% 30 – 39% 6% 2% 40 – 49% 2% 5% 50 – 59% 16% 17% 60 – 69% 6% 2% 70 – 79% 3% 16% 80 – 89% 3% 6% 90 – 99% 5% 20% 100% 0% 21%

 15 Nearly all (96%) fireplace (no insert) users burned wood after 4:00 p.m., while only about 15% had wood fires early in the day.
Regular users of their fireplace without an insert (and who used it at least 4 times per year) were asked what time of the day or night they burned. They were given three options and were asked, yes or no, if they had started a wood fire during that timeframe from August 2008 to July 2009. The results of those who answered “yes” are shown in the next chart.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 24 Figure 10 

## What time do you burn wood in your fireplace without an insert? (among those who have a fireplace without an insert)

16% 96%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6 AM - 12 PM 12 PM - 4 PM After 4 PM

 16 About seven in ten respondents with fireplaces (without inserts) burned wood fires from 1-3 hours and consumed up to 10 logs.
A follow up question asked regular fireplace (without an insert) users: “On the days that you burned wood, what was the average number of hours per day you burned wood in your fireplace?” Responses ranged from 1 hour to 24 hours and the average number of hours was 5. The following graph shows the categorized responses. Nearly three quarters of users (72%) said they burned one to four hours, while nobody (zero) said they used their fireplace with no insert longer than 12 hours.
Figure 11 

## What is the average number of hours per day you burned wood? (among fireplace without an insert users)

1-4 hours

72% 4 - 8 hours 22%

9 - 12 hours 5% 13 - 18 hou r 0%

19 - 24 hou 0% Non-response 1%State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 25 Respondents were then asked to estimate the number of logs they burned in the fire on an average day. Responses ranged from less than 1 log to 20 logs and the median number of logs was 4. Twenty percent of respondents did not give responses (don’t know or refusals). It can be seen in the following chart that a third of those responding said they burned 2 – 4 logs, while 30% burned anywhere from 5 to 10 logs.
Figure 12 

## What is the average number of logs you burn per day? (among fireplace without an insert users)

1 log 9% Non-response 20% 11 - 15 logs 5% 5 - 10 logs 30%

More than 15 logs 3% 2 - 4 logs

33%

 17 Softwood was the most common type of wood burned in fireplaces without inserts, with four in ten users (40%) saying they used pine, cedar, fir, aspen, and other softwoods for their fires.
Respondents were asked to describe the type of wood that was burned. Specific varieties were categorized into “hardwoods” and “softwoods.” Multiple responses were allowed so the totals will not sum to 100%. It can be seen in the next chart that, among fireplace without an insert users, softwood was the most popular type, with four in ten respondents (40%) indicating they usually burn pine, cedar, fir, cottonwood, aspen, poplar, juniper or another softwood. Seventeen percent said they usually burn mesquite, oak, alder, fruit trees or hardwoods.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 26 Figure 13 

## Type of Wood Burned (“yes” responses, including non-responses; multiple responses allowed from fireplace with no insert users)

3% 7% 10% 17% 18% 40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Scrap Other Processed logs Hardwood Wood - unspecified Softwood

Individual County Results
There were no significant differences found among fireplace (no insert) users in the three counties in terms of the frequency and timing of use, the length of the burn or the quantity or type of fuel consumed.
Comparison with 1997 Results

 18 When comparisons were possible, the current results were generally consistent with the 1997 results among those with wood burning fireplaces without an insert.
Results for all questions are not directly comparable between 1997 and 2008 because of questionnaire differences. Results from Q6_2.1 to Q6_2.6 in 1997 along with 2008 results from Ada and Canyon respondents are presented in the next graph. It can be seen that in both years, the majority of burn nights occurred in the months of November through February, with peak use in December and January.
The following graphs are for illustrative purposes.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 27 Figure 14 

## In What Months Do You Burn Wood In Your Fireplace Without an Insert? (“yes” responses including don’t know and refusals)

11% 55% 92% 84%

52%

13%

0% 3% 26% 63% 89%

67%

33%

12%
1% 0% 0% 93%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July 1997 2008

The comparison of results of other wood burning activity among fireplace without insert owners are presented in the next few tables and charts. It can be seen that results from the two years are generally consistent.

W EEK D AY B URNING A CTIVITY P ERCENT (A D A C ANYON O NLY ) 1997 A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDING ( N =5 4 2008 A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDI N ( N =57)

None 20% 22% 1 – 9% 6% 3% 10 - 19% 13% 17% 20 – 29% 9% 16% 30 – 39% 6% 5% 40 – 49% 2% 2% 50 – 59% 20% 16% 60 – 69% 7% 7% 70 – 79% 16% 3% 80 – 89% 0% 4% 90 – 99% 2% 5% 100% 6% 0%State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 28 W EEKEND B URNING A CTIVITY P ERCENT (A DA & C ANYON O NL Y 1997 A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDING ( N =5 4 2008 A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDI N ( N =57)

None 0% 6% 1 – 9% 0% 0% 10 - 19% 5% 2% 20 – 29% 7% 6% 30 – 39% 2% 6% 40 – 49% 5% 6% 50 – 59% 17% 20% 60 – 69% 2% 2% 70 – 79% 16% 9% 80 – 89% 5% 11% 90 – 99% 19% 13% 100% 22% 20%

Figure 15 

## What time do you burn wood in your fireplace without an insert? (among those who have a fireplace without an insert among Ada and Canyon respondents)

19% 16% 94%

16% 96%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6 AM - 12 PM 12 PM - 4 PM After 4 PM 1997 2008State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 29 Figure 16 

## What is the average number of hours per day you burn wood? (among those who have a fir eplace without an insert)

79%

8% 0% 0% 1% 5% 0% 0% 1% 12% 22% 72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1-4 hours 4 - 8 hours 9 - 12 hours 13 - 18 hours 19 - 24 hours Nonresponse 1997 2008

Figure 17 

## What is the average number of logs you burn per day? (among Ada and Canyon respondents who have a fireplace without an insert)

5% 41% 38%

6% 10% 8% 9% 5% 20% 32% 29%

3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

1 log 2 - 4 logs 5 - 10 logs 11 - 15 logs More than 15 logs Nonresponse 1997 2008State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 30 Figure 18 

## Type of Wood Burned (“yes” responses, including non-responses; multiple responses allowed from fireplace with no insert users)

3%

7%

10% 17% 18% 40%

10% 5% 15% 39%

8% 66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Scrap Other Processed logs Hardwood Wood - unspecified Softwood

1997 2008



## PELLET STOVE ACTIVITY

This section contains the results from respondents who owned a pellet stove and used it at least four times in the past year. As noted in Figure 1 on page 12, 7% of all respondents said they owned a pellet stove, and, furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 4, 79% of all pellet stove owners said they used their device at least four times last year. In other words, pellet stove users represented 6% of all respondents.
General Population Results

 19 Pellet stove usage was highest during the months of November through February, with over 70% burning pellets during these winter months and up to half burning 25 plus times a month.
Pellet stove users were asked about the usage of their device by month and the results are presented in the next chart. [Respondents were asked whether or not they used their pellet stove in each month and the “yes” responses are illustrated in the next chart.] It can be seen that the majority used their pellet stove from the months of November (73%) to February (81%) and reduced burn activity during the spring and fall months. Pellet stove use was practically non-existent during the summer months of August 2008, June and July 2009.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 31 Figure 19


## In What Months Do You Burn Pellets in your Stove? (“yes” responses including don’t know and refusals)

0% 8% 37% 73% 87% 81%

50%

28%

8% 3% 0% 86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July 2008

The following table provides the results of the number of times that respondents burned pellets during each month in their stove. It is interesting to note that, during the winter months, usage was very heavy (25+ times) among 40 – 50% of stove users. (There was no pellet burning reported in August or July so those months have been excluded from the chart.)

P ELLET S TOVE : F REQUENCY OF B URNING F ROM A UGUST , 2008 TO J ULY , 2009 (among those who said they burned pellet s at least 4 times in the past 12 months) Approximately how many TIMES did y ou burn wood during the month of....

Month (sample size) 1-4 times 5-8 times 9-12 times 13-18 times 19-24 times 25+ times Don’t Kno w Refused Total Sept 2008 (n=3) -.- -.- -.- -.- 36. 6% -.- 63.4 -.- 100% Oct 2008

(n=16) 1.2% 7.8% 20.2% 9.0% 7.8% 37.0% 17.0% -.- 100%
Nov 2008

(n=60) 1.9% 0.6% 7.4% 11.4% 16.6% 39.1% 22.9% -.- 100%
Dec 2008

(n=88) 3.9% 7.3% 6.3% 13.1% -.- 56.3% 13.1% -.- 100%
Jan 2009

(n=38) 7.7% 3.9% 3.9% 13.0% 5.8% 52.7% 13.0% -.- 100%
Feb 2009

(n=35) 4.7% 4.1% 4.1% 10.3% 16.9% 46.0% 13.9% -.- 100%
March 2009 (n=21) 0.9% 0.9% 6.9% 28.6% 11.8% 33.8% 16.9% -.- 100% April 2009

(n=12) -.- 9.0% 28.3% 12.0% 20.7% 19.3% 10.6% -.- 100% May 2009 (n=4) -.- -.- -.- 34.9% -. - 34.9% 30.3% -.- 100%
June 2009 (n=1) 100% -.- -.- -.- -. - -.- -.- -.- -.-State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 32  20 The majority of pellet stove burn activity occurred during the week.
Respondents who indicated that they burned pellets at least four times in their stove were also asked to think about thei r burning activity in terms of weekday versus weekend habits. They were asked how much (percentage) burn activity happened Monday through Friday and then the program calculated the weekend activity (by subtracting the weekday activity from 100%). Seventeen percent said they burned the same amount every day and a third (34%) were unsure. These groups were then excluded; the results were recalculated, and are presented in the next table. [Note: the remaining number of respondents answering this question is quite small.]

P ELLET S TOVE A CTIVITY P ERCENT M ONDAY – F RIDAY A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDING ( N =21) S ATURDAY & S UNDAY A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDING ( N =21) None 0% 5% (1 respondent) 1 – 9% 0% 0% 10 - 19% 7% (1 respondent) 0% 20 – 29% 0% 12% (3) 30 – 39% 0% 23% (5) 40 – 49% 7% (1) 22% (5) 50 – 59% 17% (4) 17% (4) 60 – 69% 35% (8) 7% (1) 70 – 79% 22% (5) 0% 80 – 89% 6% (1) 0% 90 – 99% 0% 7% (1) 100% 5% (1) 0%

 21 About half of the pellet stove users burned pellets all day from 6:00 a.m. to noon (58%) and from noon until 4:00 p.m. (47%); however, activity significantly increased after 4:00 pm: all (97%) pellet stove users burned pellets after 4:00 p.m.
Regular pellet stoves users (used it at least 4 times per year) were asked what time of the day or night did they burn. They were given three timeframes and asked, yes or no, if they had used their pellet stove during that period from August 2008 to July 2009. The results of those who answered “yes” are shown in the next chart.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 33 Figure 20 

### What time do you burn pellets? (among the 6% who burn pellets)

58% 47% 97%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6 AM - 12 PM 12 PM - 4 PM After 4 PM

 22 In terms of the activity length, the average number of hours of pellet burning was 11.
When asked about the average number of hours that pellets were burned in their stove, responses ranged from 1 to 24 hours and three percent were undecided. Excluding the undecided responses, the average number of hours that pellet stoves were used was 11. The responses were grouped into categories and are shown in the next chart. Figure 21 

## What is the average number of hours per day y ou burned pellets? (among pellet stove users)

1-4 hours

24% 4 - 8 hours

29% 9 - 12 hours 11%
13 - 18 hours 14%

19 - 24 hours 19%

Non-response 3%

 23 The median number of pellets consumed by stove users was 800, or 20 forty-pound bags.
Respondents were also asked to quantify the total number of pounds of pellets they used during the year. Some respondents gave answers in terms of bags of pellets, which were converted under the assumption that the average commercialState of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 34 bag of pellets weights 40 pounds. Twelve percent (6 respondents) were unsure and excluded from the analyses to get a median 12 of 800 pounds of pellets consumed by stove users. The respons es (including don’t know responses) were categorized and are displayed in the following graph.
Figure 22 

### What is the average nu mber of pounds of pellets used per day? (among pellet stove users – 43 respondents)

801 - 1200 pounds

10%

1201 - 2000

pounds

12%

More than 2000 pounds 12% Don't know 12% 401 - 800 pounds

34%

241 - 400 pounds

6%

Less than 40 pounds

4% 40 - 120 pounds

8% 121 - 240 pounds

2%

Individual County Results
Only 47 respondents of the 751 included in the sample (or 6%) were asked the in-depth series of questions about pellet stove activity. Due to such a small subset, none of crosstabulation analyses were found to be statistically significant. In other words, respondents of Ada, Canyon and Elmore counties were just as likely as one another to burn as frequently, on the weekdays, for the same periods of time, and the same quantity of fuel.
Comparison with 1997 Results In the 1997 survey, the pellet stove questions were intertwined with the wood burning stove questions and, therefore, no direct comparisons can be made with the current results.



## WOOD BURNING STOVE & FIREPLACE WITH INSERT INVENTORY

 24 About 30% of stove and insert users burned wood in older, conventional stoves and a similar number of users had non-catalytic stoves or inserts (33%). Slightly fewer (21%) had catalytic stoves or inserts. However, there were 28% of users who said they did not have any of the four types of stoves or inserts mentioned.

12 The median represents the 50 th percentile, whereby 50% of the responses fa ll above and 50% of the responses fall below the number.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 35 Respondents who said they had a wood burning stove or fireplace with an insert were read a list of four types of devices and asked: “How many of the following types of wood burning stoves or fireplace inserts do you have?” About a third reported having an older conventional stove (30%) and a similar amount said they had a non-catalytic st ove or insert (33%). Twenty-one percent had a catalytic stove or insert. 13 Figure 23 

## Number of Wood Burning Stoves or Fireplace Inserts Owned Among Users (“yes” responses including don’t know and refusals)

28% 21% 32%

2% 2% 1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Older conventional stove Catalytic Stove/Insert Non-Catalytic Stove/Insert Masonry Heater Two devices One device 30% 33%

 25 Users owning multiple types of devices either burned wood in their device all the time or not at all. There was very little mixed-device use reported.
Among those who had more than one type of stove or insert, respondents were asked how frequently they used each of their devices. The program was set to double check that the totals summed to 100%. Overall, the majority of respondents either used their device all of the time (100%) or not at all (0%), as the largest groups of responses were at the opposite ends of the scale.

Percent Older Conventional Stoves (n=33) Catalytic Stoves (n=28) Non-Catalytic Stoves (n=28) Masonry Stoves (n=8) 0 39.3% 44.1% 53.5% 83.8% 2 -.- -.- 3.9% -.- 10 1.2% -.- 1.4% -.- 20 -.- 3.9% -.- -.- 25 -.- 4.5% -.- -.- 34 -.- -.- 0.7% -.- 40 3.8% 4.5% -.- -.- 48 -.- 3.9% -.- -.- 50 3.3% -.- -.- -.-

13 However, 28% percent of stove and insert user s said they did not have any of these devices.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 36 60 3.8% -.- -.- 16.2% 66 -.- 0.7% -.- -.- 75 -.- -.- 4.5% -.- 80 3.3% 0.7% -.- -.- 90 0.6% -.- 0.7% -.- 100 44.8% 37.7% 35.4% -.- Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

 26 Half of the stoves were built after 1986 (24% from 1986 to 1990 and 26% after 1990), although 35% were over 23 year old (built before 1986). About 30% of non-catalytic owners said that their stove or fireplace insert was EPA certified.
Non-catalytic stove or insert owners were asked whether or not they knew the year in which their wood stove or inse rt was made. They were given three categories: before 1986, between 1986 and 1990, and after 1990. The question was asked about each device owned, although only three respondents said they had a second device and only one person said they had a third device. When talking about their (first and often only) device, 14% did not know they year the device was made. About a quarter (26%) said they had a stove from 1991 or newer. A similar number (24%) indicated that their stove was built between 1986 and 1990. The largest group (35%) said their stove was over 23 years old, as it was built before 1986. [Note: the number of responses may not always sum to the total because of weighting].

When was it made? FIRST non-catalytic stove/FP insert SECOND non-catalytic stove/FP insert THIRD non-catalytic stove/FP insert R ESPONSE C OUNT P ERCENT C OUNT P ERCENT C OUNT P ERCENT Before 1986 N=26 35% N=1 43% N=1 100%
1986 to 1990 N=18 24% N=1 50% N=0 -.-
After 1990 N=19 26% N=0 -.- N=0 -.-
Don’t know N=10 14% N=0 7% N=0 -.-
Total N=73 100% N=3 100% N=1 100%

Non-catalytic stove or insert owners were also asked whether or not they knew their device was EPA certified. Results are shown in the next table. It can be seen that, for the first stove discussed, more than half (55%) did not know. While the numbers are small, 29% said they had an EPA certified unit and 16% said they did not.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 37Is the FIRST noncatalytic stove/FP insert EPA certified? Is the SECOND noncatalytic stove/FP insert EPA certified? Is the THIRD noncatalytic stove/FP insert EPA certified? R ESPONSE C OUNT P ERCENT C OUNT P ERCENT C OUNT P ERCENT Yes N=21 29% N=1 50% N=0 -.-

No N=12 16% N=0 -.- N=0 -.-

Don’t know N=40 55% N=1 50% N=1 100%
Total N=73 100% N=3 100% N=1 100%



## WOOD STOVE OR FIREPLACE WITH INSERT ACTIVITY

General Population Results  27 Wood burning in stoves and fireplaces with inserts occurred mainly in December and January (90%), although 69% in November and 74% in February were also burning wood in their devices. During these months, about 40% were burning at least 25 times in each month.
Respondents with stoves or fireplaces with inserts were asked about their usage each month and the results are presented in the next chart (responses of “yes”). It can be seen that the majority burned from the months of November (69%) to February (74%), with the highest use occurring during December (88%) and January (91%). Burn activity was reduced during the spring and fall months, and non-existent during the summer months of June, July and August. Figure 24 

## In What Months Do You Burn Wood in your Stove or Fireplace With an Insert? (“yes” responses including don’t know and refusals)

0% 4% 30% 69% 91%

74%

41%

12% 2% 0% 0% 88%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July 2008State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 38 The results of the number of times that respondents burned wood in their stoves or fireplace inserts during each month are shown in the next table. Similar to pellet stoves, usage was heavie st during the months of November to February, when about 40% of wood stove and fireplace insert users burned at least 25 times. (Wood burning in August 2008 and June and July of 2009 was non-existent (0%) and has been excluded from the following table.

W OOD S TOVE : F REQUENCY OF B URNING F ROM A UGUST , 2008 TO J ULY , 2009 (among those who said they burned wood at least 4 times in the past 12 months) Approximately how many TIMES did y ou burn wood during the month of....

Month (sample size) 1-4 times 5-8 times 9-12 times 13-18 times 19-24 times 25+ times Don’t Know Refused Total Sept 2008 (n=7) 36.0% 2.9% 5.7% 31.2% 2. 9% 18.5% 2.9% -.- 100% Oct 2008

(n=52) 19.9% 15.4% 18.2% 13.7% 5. 0% 15.5% 12.3% -.- 100%
Nov 2008 (n=119) 14.9% 12.7% 7.8% 8.7% 11. 5% 34.0% 9.4% 0.9% 100%
Dec 2008 (n=153) 16.4% 12.6% 9.8% 5.8% 10.0% 38.2% 7.2% -.- 100%
Jan 2009 (n=157) 15.2% 16.1% 8.5% 4.8% 7. 9% 41.4% 6.0% 0.1% 100%
Feb 2009 (n=128) 15.7% 11.1% 9.8% 8.7% 7. 8% 40.5% 6.4% -.- 100%
March 2009 (n=70) 15.0% 7.3% 9.6% 19.8% 14.3% 25.7% 8.3% -.- 100% April 2009

(n=20) 8.2% 7.2% 7.4% 37.5% 7. 4% 19.1% 13.4% -.- 100%

May 2009 (n=4) 5.1% 10.2% 59.4% 20.3% -.- 5.1% -.- -.- 100%

 28 On average, wood stove and fireplace insert users burned wood fires for 8 hours. In terms of fuel, slightly more than half (55%) burned up to 10 logs.
A follow up question asked regular fireplace (with an insert) users: “On the days that you burned wood, what was the average number of hours per day you burned wood in your fireplace?” Four percent of respondents were undecided, as shown in the following chart. In order to calculate the average, these responses were excluded. Responses ranged from one hour to 24 hours and the average was 8 hours. The following graph shows the categorized responses. More than a third (37%) burned wood for 1–4 hours, and slightly fewer (32%) burned wood for 4 – 8 hours per day. Eleven percent burned wood nearly all day and night (19-24 hours).State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 39 Figure 25 

## What is the aver age number of hours per day you burned wood? (among wood stove and fireplace insert users)

4 - 8 hours 32% 9 - 12 hours 11%

19 - 24 hours 11% 1-4 hours

37% 13 - 18 hours 5%

Non-response 4% p

Respondents were then asked to estimate the number of logs they burned in the fire on an average day. Responses ranged from less than one log to 30 logs and the median number of logs was eight. A quarter of those asked (26%) could not give an answer (don’t know or refusals). It can be seen in the following chart that a third of those responding said they burned 2 – 4 logs, while 30% burned anywhere from 5 to 10 logs.
Figure 26 

## What is the average number of logs you burn per day? (among wood stove and fireplace insert users)

1 log 4% 2 - 4 logs

23% 11 - 15 logs 9%

Nonresponse

26% 5 - 10 logs

32%

More than 15 logs 6%

 29 Nearly half (46%) stove or insert users light fires 70% or more of the time
on weekends.
As in previous sections, wood stove and fireplace insert users who indicated that they burned wood in their devices at least four times in the year were asked to think about their burning activity in terms of weekday versus weekendState of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 40 habits. Eight percent said they burned the same amount every day and one in five (21%) were unsure. These groups were then excluded; the results were recalculated, and are presented in the next table.

W OOD S TOVE / F IREPLACE I NSERT A CTIVITY P ERCENT M ONDAY – F RIDAY A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDING ( N =122) S ATURDAY & S UNDAY A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDING ( N =122)

None 10% 9% 1 – 9% 7% 1% 10 - 19% 10% 2% 20 – 29% 14% 14% 30 – 39% 4% 7% 40 – 49% 8% 2% 50 – 59% 12% 12% 60 – 69% 3% 8% 70 – 79% 12% 10% 80 – 89% 9% 9% 90 – 99% 2% 17% 100% 9% 10%

 30 About half of those asked burned wood from 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. After 4:00 p.m., wood burning activity in stoves and fireplace inserts jumped significantly to 91% of all users.
Users of stoves or fireplaces with inserts (used them at least 4 times per year) were asked what time of the day or night they burned. They were given three timeframes and asked, yes or no, if they had used their devices during the period from August 2008 to July 2009. The results of those who answered “yes” are shown in the next chart. Figure 27 

## What time do you burn wood in

your stove or fireplace insert? (among wood stoves and insert users)

48% 49% 91%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6 AM - 12 PM 12 PM - 4 PM After 4 PMState of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 41  31 In terms of the type of wood burned, softwoods were burned by two thirds (65%) of the stove and fireplace insert users surveyed, which is more than double the percentage of those who burned hardwoods (31%).
Respondents were asked to describe the type of wood that they used to fuel the fires in their wood stoves and fireplace inserts. As in the previous section, specific varieties were categorized into “hardwoods” and “softwoods” and multiple responses were allowed so the totals may not sum to 100%. Softwoods, such as pine, cedar, fir, cottonwood, aspen, etc., were the most frequently mentioned type of wood burned in stoves and inserts, mentioned by nearly two thirds of users (65%). Hardwoods were less common, although three in ten users (31%) said they burned mesquite, oak, alder, fruit trees or hardwoods in their stove or insert. Figure 28 

## Type of Wood Burned (“yes” responses, including non-responses; multiple responses allowed from wood stove and insert users)

3%

6% 7% 15% 31% 65%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Processed logs Scrap Other Wood - unspecified Hardwood Softwood

Individual County Results
There were no significant differences among the c ounties in terms of respondents’ use of their stove or fireplace insert devices.
Comparison with 1997 Results
Due to questionnaire differences between 1997 and 2008, results from stove or fireplace insert users cannot be compared.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 42 

## BARBEQUE, FIRE PIT OR SMOKER

General Population Results

 32 The use of barbeques, fire pits, and smokers was most prevalent in the summer, specifically July (96%). Not surprisingly, activity was lower in the winter months, although not obsolete (30% burned wood in an outdoor device in December).
Respondents who used outdoor devices, such as barbeques, smokers, and fire pits at least 4 times in the past year, were asked to indicate whether or not they burned in each month. Results are shown in the next chart. Not surprisingly, July was the most common month for use, with nearly all users (96%) indicating they lit a fire outside during the middle of the summer. During the other months when the weather was warm, from May to October (excluding July), nearly half (47%) of the users lit an outside wood fire. Usage in the winter months dropped in December and January (30% and 31%, respectively), but was not eliminated. Figure 29 

### In What Months Do You Burn Wood In Your BBQ, Smoker or Pit? (“yes” responses including don’t know and refusals)

47% 46% 53%

42%

31% 33% 37% 40% 43% 48% 56%

30%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July 2008

 33 Overall, the majority of barbeque, smoker and fire pit users burned wood outdoors one to four times each month,.
The following chart shows barbeque, fire pit and smoker usage by month in terms of frequency. It can be seen that among monthly users, the majority used their outdoor devices only 1 to 4 times each month.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 43 BBQ/F IRE P IT /S MOKER : F REQUENCY OF B URNING F ROM A UGUST , 2008 TO J ULY , 2009 (among those who said they burned pellet s at least 4 times in the past 12 months) Approximately how many TIMES did y ou burn wood during the month of....

Month (sample size) 1-4 times 5-8 times 9-12 times 13-18 times 19-24 times 25+ times Don’t Know Refused Total Aug 2008

(n=45) 76.3% 8.5% 8.2% 0.4% 3.7% 2.8% -.- -.- 100% Sept 2008

(n=43) 69.3% 8.4% 6.4% 0.9% 3. 4% 2.9% 8.7% -.- 100% Oct 2008

(n=44) 78.5% 13.0% 3.0% 0.8% 2.5% -.- 2.2% -.- 100%
Nov 2008

(n=39) 83.4% 11.9% 1.0% 0.5% 3.2% -.- -.- -.- 100%
Dec 2008

(n=29) 75.9% 13.2% 1.4% 0.7% 4.4% -.- 4.4% -.- 100%
Jan 2009

(n=29) 80.2% 8.5% 2.0% -.- 4. 3% -.- 4.9% -.- 100%
Feb 2009

(n=31) 85.7% 3.5% 2.0% -.- 4. 1% -.- 4.1% -.- 100%
March 2009 (n=35) 78.9% 10.9% 1.2% 0.6% 3. 6% 0.6% 4.2% -.- 100% April 2009

(n=37) 78.1% 9.6% 4.0% 1.1% 3. 4% 0.5% 3.4% -.- 100% May 2009

(n=41) 73.8% 12.4% 6.2% 0.5% 3. 6% 0.5% 3.1% -.- 100%
June 2009

(n=45) 70.7% 14.2% 2.4% 5.6% 6. 1% 0.4% 0.4% -.- 100% July 2009

(n=52) 77.8% 11.7% 4.5% 2.4% 2. 8% 0.4% 0.4% -.- 100%

 34 A total of 72% burned wood outside in their barbeques, fire pits, and smokers mostly (at least 90%) on the weekends only.
In terms of weekday versus weekend habits, first of all, no one (0%) said they used their outdoor device the same amount every day. Additionally, 9% were undecided. The results shown in the next chart exclude these two response categories. It can be seen that nearly half (45%) used their outdoor devices only on Saturday and Sunday (100% of the time), and an additional 27% used it at least 90% on the weekends (only); indicating that a total of 72% used their outdoor devices nearly exclusively on weekends.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 44 B ARBEQUE , F IRE P IT & S MOKER A CTIVITY P ERCENT M ONDAY – F RIDAY A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDING ( N =85) S ATURDAY & S UNDAY A MONG T HOSE R ESPONDING ( N =85)

None 45% 1% 1 – 9% 16% 0% 10 - 19% 11% <1% 20 – 29% 9% 6% 30 – 39% 3% 1% 40 – 49% 1% <1% 50 – 59% 6% 6% 60 – 69% <1% 3% 70 – 79% 3% 7% 80 – 89% 5% 3% 90 – 99% <1% 27% 100% 1% 45%

 35 On an average day, outdoor wood burners consumed an average of three wood logs to fuel the fire in their outdoor barbeques, fire pits, and
smokers.
Respondents were then asked to estimate the number of logs they burned in their outdoor barbeques, fire pits or smokers on an average day. Responses ranged from none to 20 logs. The average number of logs was 3. (Six percent could not give an answer (don’t know or refusals). The categorized responses are shown in the next figure. Figure 30 

## What is the average number of logs you burn per day? (among barbeque, fire pit, and smoker users)

None 24% 1 log 14% Nonresponse 6% More than 15 logs 3% 5 - 10 logs 23% 2 - 4 logs

29%

11 - 15 logs 1%State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 45  36 The vast majority (86%) of outdoor users burned wood their barbeques, fire pits or smokers after 4:00 p.m.
When respondents who used their barbeques, fire pit or smoker at least 4 times per year were asked what time of the day or night they burned, 86% said after 4:00 p.m. Twenty-five percent said they lit an outdoor wood fire between the hours of noon and 4:00 p.m. The results of those who answered “yes” to each of the timeframes discuss ed in the survey are shown in the next chart.
Figure 31 

# What time do you use your barbeque, fire pit, or smoker? (among BBQ, fire pit, and smoker users)

25% 86%

14%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6 AM - 12 PM 12 PM - 4 PM After 4 PM

 37 Four in ten (39%) outdoor device users burned hardwood in their barbeques, fire pits, and smokers, and slightly fewer (29%) consumed
softwood.
When asked to describe the type of wood that was burned, outdoor device users most commonly said they fueled the fire with hardwoods (39%). Softwoods, such as pine, cedar, fir, cottonwood, aspen, etc., were mentioned by 29%, followed by scrap wood (14%), and other types (14%). Results are shown in the next chart.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 46 Figure 32 

## Type of Wood Burned ( “yes” responses, including non-responses; multiple responses allowed from barbeque, fire pit, or smoker users)

3% 11% 14% 14% 29% 39%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Processed logs Wood - unspecified Other Scrap Softwood Hardwood

- Individual County Results There were no significant differences among the counties in terms of respondents’ use of their outdoor wood burning devices.
Comparison with 1997 Results Monthly use of outdoor devices was not asked in 1997. The results of other wood burning activity among barbeque, fire pit, and smoker users from the two years are generally consistent.



## STATE TAX DEDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM

General Population Results  38 Only 2 in 10 Treasure Valley Airshed residents (20%) were familiar with the state tax deduction incentive offer for the replacement of older, uncertified wood stoves.
Respondents were asked to rate their familiarity with the state tax deduction offered to Idaho taxpayers as an incentive to replace old, uncertified wood stoves using a three-point scale. Results are shown in the following graph. The vast majority of respondents (80%) were not familiar at all with the program, while 20% were aware: 16% were somewhat familiar and 4% were very familiar with the program.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 47 Figure 33



### Familiarity With State Tax Deduction Incentive

Not at all familiar

80% Somewhat familiar

16%

Very familiar 4%

Additional analyses were run to see if stove owners were more or less familiar with the incentive offer than those who did not own a wood burning stove; however, the results indicated that familiarity was independent of stove ownership.

 39 Nearly a quarter (23%) of stove owning respondents reported being likely to take advantage of the state’s tax deduction incentive. Only 1% said they already had benefited from the program.
Those who indicated there was a wood burning stove in their household were asked to rate the likelihood that they would actually use the program, which was described as follows: With this program, you can deduct 40% of the cost of purchase and professional installation in the year the wood stove is replaced. Thereafter, you may deduct 20% of the cost of purchase and professional installation per year for the next three years. The total annual deduction cannot exceed $5,000. Among stove-owning residents, 5% said they would be “very” likely to take advantage of this program in the next 6 months, and a further 18% said they would be “somewhat” likely. Including the 1% of respondents who said they had already taken advantage of the progr am, nearly a quarter of the stoveowning residents (24%) indicated some level of likelihood.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 48 Figure 34 

### Likelihood to Take Advantage of

State Tax Deduction Incentive (among stove owners)

Not at all

likely 73%
Don't know 3% Somewhat likely 18%

Already have 1% Very likely 5%

Individual County Results

Results of the level of awareness of and interest in the state of Idaho’s tax incentive program to reduce the number of old wood burning stoves were independent of respondent residence. In other words, those living in Ada County were just as likely as those living in Canyon or Elmore counties to be either aware of the program or interested in it.



## DEMOGRAPHICS

 40 The plurality of respondents was female, living in a single-family home that was built before 1980. While they had resided in Treasure Valley for more than 20 years, the length of time in their current residence varied. Overall, the demographics across all three counties were very similar.
The tables on the following pages indicate the demographic characteristics of the Treasure Valley Airshed respondents as a whole (weighted results) as well as individual county demographics. The percentages of non-responses (either refusals or undecided) are included in these tables and were usually included in the analyses, unless otherwise stated.State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 49 D EMOGRAPHIC C HARACTERISTICS OF R ESPONDENTS

G ENDER P ERCENT OF T REASURE

V ALLEY R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF A DA C OUNTY R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF C ANYON C OUNTY

R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF E LMORE C OUNTY

R ESPONDENTS

Female 56% 55% 59% 49%
Male 44% 45% 41% 51%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

T YPE OF R ESIDENCE P ERCENT OF T REASURE

V ALLEY R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF A DA C OUNTY R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF C ANYON C OUNTY

R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF E LMORE C OUNTY

R ESPONDENTS

Single-family home 96% 97% 94% 93% Duplex 1% 1% < 1% 1% Apartment/Condo < 1% < 1% 0% 25
Mobile home 2% 1% 3% 1% Non-response (Don’t know or Refused) 1% 1% 3% 3%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Y EAR H OUSE W AS B UILT P ERCENT OF T REASURE

V ALLEY R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF A DA C OUNTY R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF C ANYON C OUNTY

R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF E LMORE C OUNTY

R ESPONDENTS

Before 1950 15% 13% 20% 14%
Between 1950 & 1979 47% 47% 47% 45%
Between 1980 & 1989 13% 15% 7% 14%
Between 1990 & 1999 12% 12% 12% 7%
From 2000 to now 9% 10% 8% 15% Non-response (Don’t know or Refused) 4% 4% 6% 5%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey Final Summary Report – January, 2010

Page 50 L ENGTH OF T IME L IVING

AT T HIS R ESIDENCE P ERCENT OF T REASURE

V ALLEY R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF A DA C OUNTY R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF C ANYON C OUNTY

R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF E LMORE C OUNTY

R ESPONDENTS

Less than 1 year 3% 3% 3% 2% 1 – 5 years 21% 21% 21% 26% 6 – 10 years 19% 17% 22% 19% 11 – 15 years 11% 11% 13% 9% 16 – 20 years 13% 15% 11% 8% More than 20 years 31% 33% 26% 32% Non-response (Don’t know or Refused) 2% 1% 3% 3%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

L ENGTH OF T IME L IVING

IN T REASURE V ALLEY P ERCENT OF T REASURE

V ALLEY R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF A DA C OUNTY R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF C ANYON C OUNTY R ESPONDENTS P ERCENT OF E LMORE C OUNTY

R ESPONDENTS

Less than 1 year 1% 1% <1% 1% 1 – 4 years 6% 5% 6% 11% 5 – 10 years 10% 11% 6% 13% 11 – 20 years 18% 18% 19% 13% More than 20 years 64% 64% 64% 57% Non-response (Don’t know or Refused) 2% 1% 4% 5%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

## APPENDIX E

DEQ CONCEPT-MV TEC HNICAL MEMORANDUMENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com

C:\Idaho - PGF - 3736-00-001-001\Draft - May -2010\APPENDIX E.doc 

### MEMORANDUM

To: Christopher Ramsdell, Idaho DEQ

From: Allison DenBleyker, Alison Pollack, John Grant, and Michele Jimenez

Cc: Paula Fields, ERG

Date: 21 May, 2010 Subject: Peer review of CONCEPT-MV work

INTRODUCTION
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has contracted with ERG/ENVIRON to prepare an emission inventory of O3 precursors, and prim ary PM10 and PM2.5 and their precursors, for base year 2008 and future years 2015 and 2023 in the Treasure Valley Airshed. The on-road mobile source portion of the emis sion inventory was prepared by the DEQ and ENVIRON.
ENVIRON generated the episodic on-road mobile source emi ssions from February 1, 2008 to February 15, 2008 using CONC EPT-MV for Ada and Canyon C ounty, transferred the entire CONCEPT-MV setup and code to DEQ, and trained DEQ staff to run CONCEPT-MV. DEQ then ran CONCEPT-MV for other time periods and estimated annual on-road emissions for 2008, 2015 and 2023. This memorandum describes ENVIRON’s review of DEQ’s CONCEPTMV work and compares base to future year emissions.

QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW
DEQ ran CONCEPT-MV for each day in four mont hs to represent the four seasons: January, April, July and October. Each full month wa s run for 2008, 2015 and 2023. DEQ then computed average daily emissions in each month and multip lied by the number of days in each season to estimate annual emissions. DEQ implemented E NVIRON’s quality assura nce (QA) tool to generate a series of detailed graphs showing di fferent aspects of the CONCEPT-MV results for seven consecutive days in each month and year.

ENVIRON has reviewed all 12 CONCEPT-MV QA spreadsheets by checking that emissions comparisons by day of week and hour of day trac k with temperature and VMT temporal changes by day of week. Finally, ENVIRON perfor med additional QA on DEQ CONCEPT-MV results to compare emissions between the four months and three years with detail by emissions mode.

### Page 2

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com

C:\Idaho - PGF - 3736-00-001-001\Draft - May -2010\APPENDIX E.doc 

### ENVIRON also reviewed all CONCEPT run sc ripts and log files and found only one minor inconsistency. In the 2008 modeling, July wa s run in Mountain Day light Time (MDT) and October, April and January were al l run in Mountain Standard Time (MST). For the future years 2015 and 2023, only January was run in MST; the other three months were run in MDT. ENVIRON inquired to DE Q about the matter and DEQ confirmed the mistake was in the 2008 modeling. DEQ will redo the base year mode ling and will update the Emission Inventory originally compiled by ENVIRON.

FUTURE YEAR COMPARISONS
Multiple factors cause differences in the on-ro ad mobile source emissions between the 2008 and future years 2015 and 2023 in Ada and Canyon counties. Annual average weekday VMT in the COMPASS travel demand model increases 20 08 to 2015 to 2023 from 12.7 to 16.8 to 22.4 million miles traveled. MOBILE6 emission factors for pollutants resulting from fuel combustion (e.g. VOC, CO, NOX exhaust) decrea se with advancing calendar year as new vehicles are introduced to the fleet, which meet increasingly stringent emission standards. In Canyon County, there was no inspection and maintenance program (I/M program) in effect for 2008, but I/M programs were in effect in 201 5/2023 for light duty gasoline vehicles. The frequency of I/M programs in both counties decr eased from annual in 2008 to biennial in 2015 and 2023. The market share of fuels sold in Ad a and Canyon that contain a low level of alcohol blend oxygenate were projected to change from 68% of the market in 2008 to 100% in 2015 and 2023.

The cumulative effects of all these factors are reflected in the emissions by year, shown for VOC, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 in Figures 1 though 4. The figures show emissions in tons per day for a weekday in each month and each year, w ith detail by emissions mode. Figures 1 and 2 show that VOC and NOX decrease significantly ove r calendar years despite increasing VMT; this is due to cleaner engine technologies beco ming introduced into the fleet while older high emitters leave the fleet. Figures 3 and 4 show that PM10 and PM2.5 emissions decrease from 2008 to 2015 and increase from 2015 to 2023. In the base year, a significant portion of PM10 is made up of particulate from br ake and tire wear. By contra st, PM2.5 in the base year is primarily from engine exhaust. Figures 3 and 4 show that engine exhaust portion of the overall PM emissions decrease from 2008 to 2015 to 2023 with fleet turnover. The brake and tire wear components of PM10 and PM2.5 increase with calendar year 2008 to 2015 to 2023 due to increasing VMT.

### Page 3

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com

C:\Idaho - PGF - 3736-00-001-001\Draft - May -2010\APPENDIX E.doc 0 5 10 15 20 25

2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 Jan Apr Jul OctEmissions (tons/day) START RUNNING LOSS RESTING LOSS HOT SOAK EXHAUST DIURNAL CRANKCASE

Figure 1. Weekday VOC emissions by mode in the Boise transportation network.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 Jan Apr Jul OctEmissions (tons/day)

START EXHAUST

Figure 2. Weekday NOX emissions by mode in the Boise transportation network.

### Page 4

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com

C:\Idaho - PGF - 3736-00-001-001\Draft - May -2010\APPENDIX E.doc 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 Jan Apr Jul OctEmissions (tons/day)

TIRE WEAR EXHAUST BRAKE WEAR

Figure 3. Weekday PM10 emissions by mode in the Boise transportation network.

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

0.3 0.35

0.4

2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 2008 2015 2023 Jan Apr Jul OctEmissions (tons/day)

TIRE WEAR EXHAUST BRAKE WEAR

Figure 4. Weekday PM2.5 emissions by mode in the Boise transportation network.

## APPENDIX F

BIOGENICS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

### MEMORANDUM

To: Christopher Ramsdell and Rick Hardy, Id aho Department of Environmental Quality

cc: Paula Fields; Eastern Research Group From: Gerard Mansell and Tanarit Sakulya nonvittaya, ENVIRON International Corporation Date: 8 December 2009 – Revised 31 December 2009 Subject: Review of IDEQ Biogenic Emission I nventory for the Treasure Valley

INTRODUCTION
The Idaho Department of Environmental Qual ity (IDEQ) has developed a biogenic emission inventory for calendar year 2008 for inclusion in a SIP-quality emission inventory for the Treasure Valley of southwestern Idaho. E NVIRON and Eastern Rese arch Group (ERG) have been contracted to compile a complete 2008 annual inventory of all anthropogenic emission sources for the three counties within the Trea sure Valley Airshed – Ada, Canyon and Elmore Counties. In addition to th e development of anthropogenic em issions, ENVIRON has also been tasked with a review of IDEQ’s biogenic emission inventory.

This Technical memorandum summarizes the ava ilable biogenic emissi on inventory modeling systems, landcover and vegetation data require d for implementation of these models, and provides a review of IDEQ’s bi ogenic emission inventory and comp arisons with an alternative model implementation for the Treasure Valley Airshed.

BIOGENIC EMISSIONS MODELING SYSTEMS
A number of models and modeling systems have been developed over the past several years for use in estimating biogenic emissions for use in a variety of applicati ons, including ozone SIPs and PM Maintenance Plans, as well as for use in urban and regional scal e air quality modeling. The three primary biogenic emissions modeling systems currently in use by the inventory development and air quality modeling community include:

• the Biogenic Emission Inventory System (BEIS);

• the Global Biosphere Emissions and Inte ractions System (GloBEIS); and

• the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosol from Nature (MEGAN)
Each of these models is briefly summarized below with respect to model capabilities, input data requirements and emission estimation results.
Biogenic Emission Inventory System (BEIS)
The Biogenic Emissions Inventory System (BEIS) family of models estimates emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) that are the re sult of biological acti vity from land-basedPage 2

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com 

### vegetative species and nitric oxide (NO) emi ssions generated from microbial activity from certain soil types. The EPA’s third version of the Biogenic Emissions Inventory System has been incorporated within the SMOKE emissions modeling system with various modifications and updates from previous versions.
The types of input data used in BEISv3.xx are sim ilar to those used in ea rlier versions of the BEIS model. The seven primary inputs to BEIS3 models are:

• Spatially and temporally resolved meteor ological data including temperatures, solar radiation and surface pressures

• Spatially resolved, species-specific vegetation

• Species-specific biogenic emissions fact ors (including a winter adjustment)

• Species-specific leaf area indices (LAI)

• Chemical speciation profiles
BEISv3.xx typically uses meteorological data from the Penn State/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Modeling System (MM5)

. 

### However, the model BEISv3.09 can make use of any meteorological data as long as it is in Network Common Data Format (NetCDF). BEISv3.xx uses the incoming shortwave radiation to estimate the amount of PAR available in the plant canopy.
One of the most important changes included in the BEIS3 modeling system is the use of the Biogenic Emissions Landcover Database versio n 3 (BELD3). The BELD3 consists of 1-km horizontal resolution for 230 differe nt land use types. The previous version, BELD2, was used in most BEIS2 applications and c onsisted of mainly county level land use of up to 156 different land use types. BELD3 combines the spatial resolution available from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1-km data with the detailed tree and crop species information available in county-level forest and agricultural datasets. The BELD3 data is aggregated and/or interpolated to the desired modeling domain and resolution a nd the land use data input into BEISv3.x must be in NetCDF.
Emission factors in BEISv3.xx consist of isoprene, monoterpene, nitrogen oxide and other VOC factors for all BELD3 land use types. The emissions factors are the flux-rate that each species emits under standard environmenta l conditions (i.e. 30oC and 1000 umol · m -2 

### · s -1 

### PAR for isoprene and 30oC for monoterpenes, other VOCs, and NO). The emi ssions factors are stored in an ASCII file. This emission factors file also incl udes a winter adjustment factor and a leaf area index (LAI) for each land use type. Leaf area inde x (LAI) is defined as the total one-sided, or one half of the total all-sided, gree n leaf area per un it ground surface area 11 

### . In BEIS3, LAI is used to adjust the isoprene emi ssions for the effects of PAR pe netrating through the leaf canopy.
The SMOKE- BEISv3.09 modeling system is a two-step process. In step one, the land use data and emissions factors file ar e input into a program called Normbeis3 . The Normbeis3 program estimates normalized emissi ons (at 30oC and 1000 umol · m -2 

### · s -1 

### PAR environmental conditions) by multiplying the emissions factor by the approp riate land use for each grid cell. These biogenic emissions data are reported in grams of Carbon or grams of Nitrogen pe r hour. An average LAI for each grid cell is also calculated in Normbeis3

.Page 3

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com 

### The second step involves the execution of the program Tmpbeis3 . The input data for this program consist of the meteorological data, sp eciation profiles, and the normalize emissions generated after the execution of Normbeis3 . The speciation profiles ar e used to allocate other VOC and monoterpene emissions to species recognized by the chemistry mechanism in the desired air quality model.
The outputs from Tmpbeis3 are gridded, speciated and temporally allocated emissions. The user can assign the units for the output emissions as gram-moles per hour or gram-moles per second. The output is in NetCDF and can be input in to Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system. SMOKE also in cludes the ability to convert the NetCDF BEIS3 output files into a binary format recognized by the Compre hensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) model.
Global Biosphere Emissions and Interactions System (GloBEIS)
The BEIS series of models are the product of co llaboration between res earchers at the EPA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (N CAR). GloBEIS, (Global Biosphere Emissions and Interactions System) is a biogenic emi ssions modeling system developed by NCAR and Environ International Co rporation, based on the BEIS emissi on factors and algorithms but with an easier-to-use interface and compatibility with a wider range of input data sources (Yarwood, 1999). GLOBEIS was developed to allow users to estimate biogenic emissions of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide and soil NOx emissions for any time scale and domain. The model runs in Microsoft Access on Windows based personal computers.

Model of Emissions of Gases a nd Aerosol from Nature (MEGAN)
The Biological-Atmospheric Intera ctions (BAI) group of the At mospheric Chemistry Division (ACD) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has developed a new biogenic emissions model - the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature (MEGAN). 1 

### MEGAN is a modeling system for estimating the net emission of gases and aerosols from terrestrial ecosystems into the atmosphere (Gue nther et al., 2006; Sakulya nontvittaya, 2008). It is driven by land cover, weather, and atmos pheric chemical composition. MEGAN is a global model with a base resolution of ~ 1 km and can run as a stand-alone model for generating emission inventories as well as being inco rporated as an on-line component of chemistry/transport and earth system models.
Several improvements and modifications to prev ious versions of the MEGAN model have been implemented recently:

• Accounting for spatial variations in soil NO X 

### emissions.

• Accounting for genetic variations in meth anol, acetone, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde emission capacities.

• Biogenic emissions depend upon temperature and solar radiation input data. Previous versions of MEGAN obtained these data from MM5 simulation outputs. ENVIRON has developed code to allow input of solar radiat ion from satellite data and temperature from interpolated observations

1 http://bai.acd.ucar.edu/Megan/Page 4

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com 

### • Pre-processors have been developed to al low the use of alternative modelling grids developed in ArcGIS.

• The MEGAN code is currently capable of outputting model-ready data for CMAQ. The MEGAN code has been modified to include the option of outputting CAMx model-ready data.

• Modification of the MEGAN FORTRAN code that runs on Linux to accept observed temperature data and satellite radiation data and generate emissions for grid-definitions that are developed using ArcGIS.
Input data requirements for the MEGAN biogenic model are described below.

LANDUSE AND VEGETATION DATA
Input data requirements and data sources for the BEIS and MEGAN biogenic emissions models are summarized below. Note that GloBEIS can make use of general landcover and vegetation data, as well as BELD3 database, and is capable of utilizing meteorological data from a variety of sources.
Biogenic Emissions Landcover Database, Version 3 (BELD3)
The primary inputs to the BEIS3 model are discussed below.
1) BEIS3 use MCIP meteorological output data as inputs, while it can also make use of other spatially and temporally resolved meteorological data including temperatures, solar radiation and surface pressures in NetCDF format.
2) BEIS3 uses updated vegetation database Bi ogenic Emission Landcover Database version 3 (BELD3) in NetCDF format BELD 3 contains 230 land use types in 1km resolution grids. In United States, BELD3 combines U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1-km data with the detailed tree and crop species information available in co unty-level forest and agri cultural datasets from other sources such as the U.S. department of Agri culture’s Census of Agri culture and U.S. Forest Service Eastwide Forest Invent ory and Analysis Database (E WDB). The BELD3 data can be aggregated and/or interpolated to the desired modeling domain and resolution. A typical BELD dataset for a specific domain consists of thr ee I/O API NetCDF files: BELD3_A, BELD3_B, and BELD3_TOT. For North America, BELD3 data ha s been developed by USEPA in both NetCDF and ASCII format. The gridded BELD3 data is broken up into tw o files (BELD_A and BELD_B) as the I/O API limits the number of va riables in any single Ne tCDF file to 120. The BELD_TOT file contains additional information on the BELD3 data for the same grid as the BELD3_A and BELD3_B files. The BELD3_TOT file contains the following variables and descriptions:

z 

### FIPCODE: Dominant FIPS code for each grid cell

z 

### URW_FLAG: Flag to indicate if grid cells are predominantly urban, rural, or water. (1 = Rural water, 2 = Rural land, 3 = Urban water, 4 = Urban land)

z 

### USGS_TYPE: Dominant USGS land type

z 

### USGS_TOTAL: Percentage of USGS area

z 

### FOREST: Percentage of forest areaPage 5

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com z 

### AGRICULTURE: Percentage of agricultural area

z 

### TOTAL_AREA: Percentage of total area

z 

### LAND: Percentage of total land area

3) BEIS3 consist of species-speci fic biogenic emissions factors (i ncluding a winter adjustment) for isoprene, monoterpene, nitrogen oxide and ot her VOC factors for all BELD3 land use types. The emissions factors are the flux-rate that each species emits under standard environmental conditions. Leaf area index (LAI) is used to adjust the isoprene em issions for the effects of PAR penetrating through the leaf canopy.
The three general landcover types (agricultural cropland, forest la nds and other land types) based on the BELD3 database are displayed in Figur es 1 through 3 for the IDEQ 4-km modeling domain. Note in these displa ys, all tree species are aggregated as are all agricultural crops and other landcover types (including urba n land, shrublands and grasslands)

Figure 1 . BELD3 Agricultural land (%) for IDEQ 4-km modeling domain.Page 6

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 2 . BELD3 Forest land (%) for IDEQ 4-km modeling domain.

Figure 3 . BELD3 Other land (%) for IDEQ 4-km modeling domain.



### MEGAN Driving Variable Database (MDVD)
Biogenic emissions depend critically upon landuse /landcover input data. The current MEGAN landcover variables include total Leaf Area I ndex (LAI), tree fraction and plant species composition. These variables are determined base d primarily on satellite observations, such as ~1 km 2 

### Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrora diometer (MODIS) and 30 m resolution LANDSAT data. Additionally, bi ogenic VOC (BVOC) and NO emissions vary considerably on spatial scales ranging from a few meters to thousands of kilometers. The MEGAN modelPage 7

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com 

### accounts for this variability with high resolu tion estimates of vegetation type and quantity. MEGAN driving variables include weather data, LAI, plant functional type (PFT) cover and compound-specific emission factors that are base d on plant species composition. All of these variables are available at various temporal scales and are provided in a geo-referenced gridded database in several formats (e.g., NetCDF, ESRI GRID). The MEGAN database has global coverage at 30 sec (~ 1 km) spatial resolution. Es timates for a particular region can be improved by using higher resolution satellite imagery a nd ground observations of landcover characteristics data.
The two main inputs to MEGAN are ECMAP and pl ant functional type fr action (PFTF) data. The ECMAP input file provide s gridded annual emission fact ors for 20 MEGAN species and monthly leaf area index (LAI) data . It also includes optional da ily average temperature and solar radiation data, which will be i gnored if online calculat ion from the meteorological input file is selected by the user. The PFTF input file contains fractions for 5 plant functional types: broad leaf, needle leaf, shrub/br ush, cropland and herbaceous.
SCT Distribution (ECMAP)
A species-specific emission factor distribution re quires accurate estimates of plant species distributions. This should be accomplished using a landcover database with sufficient detail for representing a relatively constant specie s composition type. The MEGAN version 2.0 SCT database (SCTv2.0) is describe d by Guenther et al. (2006).

PFT Distributions
Each MEGAN grid cell location has an estimate of the fraction of the cell covered by each of 5 PFTs (broadleaf trees, needleleaf trees, shrub/br ushland, cropland and othe r herbaceous) with the remainder of the cell considered barren w ith no vegetation. The PFT version 2.0 database (PFTv2.0; Guenther et al. 2006) was derived from three satellite databases with some adjustments in the U.S. using the USFS Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA ) data. The satellite databases include the following:

• 500-m resolution global tree cover and ground vegetation cover based on MODIS data (Hansen et al. 2003)

• 1-km resolution database of broadleaf vs . needleaf tree fraction based on AVHRR data (DeFries et al. 2000)

• 1-km resolution database of landcover ba sed on AVHRR data (Hansen et a. 2000). The Hansen et al. (2003) database provides an estimate of the fr action of each grid cell covered by trees and the fraction covered by other vegetation. The DeFries et al. (2000) data were used to divide trees into broadl eaf and needleleaf fractions. The Hansen et al. (2000) landcover database was combined with a simple scheme to divide non-tree vegetation in to shrub, grass and crop fractions. The global coverage of these data pr ovides a convenient approach for characterizing the entire earth system and these estimates provi de reasonable results when averaged over large scales. However, Guenther et al. (2006) demonstr ated that there are large uncertainties in the PFTv2.0 estimates on local scales and showed that emission estimates varied considerably forPage 8

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com 

### alternative landcover databases. The PFT version 2.1 (PFTv2.1) database characterizes PFT distributions on at global 1- km spatial resolution.
Meteorological Data
There are three options to provi de temperature and PAR data to MEGAN, which are generated by the TPAR2IOAPI pre-processor. Environm ent variables (TEMPVAR and SRADVAR) must be set in the MEGAN run script as follows:
Temperature variables (TEMPVAR):
T1P5X - Temperature from MM5CAMx (K) (default) T1P5Q - Temperature at 1.5 m above ground from MCIP T2Q - Temperature at 2 m above ground from MCIP T1P5M - Temperature from MM5 Solar radiation variables (SRADVAR):

SATPAR - Solar radiation from UMD satellite data (W/m2) (default) METPAR - Solar radiation from MM5 or MCIP data (W/m2)

MEGAN will internally estim ate PAR from the selected MCIP solar radiation data assuming half of the solar radiation is in the 400-700 nm sp ectrum. For CAMx modelling, the user can process MM5CAMx outputs to get temperature at 1.5 m using TPAR2IOAPI processor, which will also prepare PAR directly from satellite PAR data.
Figures 4 through 9 display the MEGAN isoprene em ission factors and plant functional types for the IDEQ 4-km modeling domai n. As noted above, although the BEIS model utilizes the BELD3 database with improvements to the classification of tree types in forested areas, these landcover types are not as resolved as seen in the MEG AN database as can be s een in Figure 4 which displays the isoprene emission factors which ar e highly dependent on accurate characterization of tree species. Plant functional types, displa yed in Figures 5 through 9, illustrate the increased spatial resolution of the MDVD over the BELD3 database.Page 9

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 4. MEGAN v2.1 Isoprene emission factors [mg/(m^2-hr)] for the IDEQ 4-km modeling domain.

Figure 5. MEGAN v2.1 plant functional type – needle-leaf trees (%) for the IDEQ 4-km modeling domain.Page 10

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 6. MEGAN v2.1 plant functional type – broad-leaf trees (%) for the IDEQ 4-km modeling domain.

Figure 7. MEGAN v2.1 plant functional type – croplands (%) for the IDEQ 4-km modeling domain.Page 11

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 8. MEGAN v2.1 plant functional type – shrublands (%) for the IDEQ 4-km modeling domain.

Figure 9. MEGAN v2.1 plant functional type – grasslands (%) for the IDEQ 4-km modeling domain.Page 12

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com 

### EMISSION SUMMARY AND COMPARISON
A summary of IDEQ’s biogenic em issions modeling is presented a nd discussed in this section. Additionally, comparisons are presented betwee n IDEQ’s inventory a nd biogenic emissions estimates developed using the MEGAN biogenic emissions modeling system.
IDEQ BEIS Application
The IDEQ generated biogenic emissions for the time period from January 1, 2008 – December 31, 2008 BEIS version 3.14 integrated within SM OKE2.5. As noted in their biogenic emissions inventory documentation (IDEQ, 2009), IDEQ was advised by EPA Region 10, Washington State University, OAQPS staff and the model deve lopers that for SIP purposes BEIS was an appropriate model to use until the large differenc es in isoprene emissions between BEIS and MEGAN can be resolved

. The processing approach utilized by IDEQ for its biogenic emissi ons for the 2008 SIP-quality EI for the Treasure Valley is described in the following steps:

1. Normbeis3 was executed to read gridded land use da ta and emissions factors and produce gridded normalized biogenic emissions for 35 species/compounds. The gridded land use data was prepared with EPA’s spatial alloca tor using the BELD3 dataset. Both summer and winter emissions factors for each species/ compound are provided for each of the 230 BELD3 land use types. Normbeis3 generates gridded summer and winter emission fluxes for the modeling domain normalized to 30 °C and a photosynthetic act ive radiation (PAR) of 1000 μmol/m 2 

### s. Additionally, gridded summer and wi nter leaf area indices (LAI) were also generated.

2. Tmpbeis3 was utilized to read the gri dded, normalized emissions from Normbeis3 and meteorological data from the MCIP-processe d MM5/WRF meteorological fields. More specifically, the following MM5/MCIP me teorological variables are used by Tmpbeis3 to compute hour-specific, gridde d biogenic emissions from the normalized emission fluxes:

• surface temperature (“TEMP2”)

• surface pressure (“PRSFC”)

• total incoming solar radiati on at the surface (“RGRND”)

• convective (“RC”) and non-convective (“RN”) rainfall The emissions for the species modeled by BE IS3.14 were converted to CO, NO, and the SAPRC99 VOC species utilized in CMAQ via the use of the SAPRC99 speciation profile. In addition, an optiona l seasonal switch file, BIOSEASON 

### , was utilized to determine whether to use summer or winter emissions factors fo r any given grid cell on any given day. This file was generated by the SMOKE2.5 utility Metscan based on layer-1 (surface) air temperatures (“TA”) to determine the date of the last spring frost and first fall frost at each grid cell. Summer emission factors are used by Tmpbeis3 for the time period between the last spring frost and first fall frost at any gi ven grid cell, and wint er emission factors are used for the remaining time period.Page 13

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com 

### 3. For reporting purposes, the hourly, speciated, gr idded emissions were aggregated to the county level for the entire calendar year 2008. For each county border-line grid cell, emissions were distributed among the counties in tersecting the grid cell in proportion to the area of each of these counties wi thin the grid cell. The area gridding surrogates needed for this aggregation were generated using the spatial allocator program based on EPA shape files. Table 1 presents the results of IDEQ biogenic modelling for the three county area.

Table 1. 2008 estimated biogenic emission (tpy) for Ada, Canyon, and Elmore Counties

County CO NO VOC Isoprene Ada 2,247 202 12,803 741 Canyon 1,650 284 8,902 139 Elmore 6,425 465 30,982 2,073



### MEGAN Model Application
For the purpose of comparison, ENVIRON a pplied the MEGAN model using the MDVD input database and the same MM5/WRF meteorological data as used by IDEQ. Biogenic emissions were generated for the IDEQ 4- km modeling domain for the enti re calendar year 2008. Countylevel emission totals for NO, CO, TOG and Is oprene were developed using GIS processing approaches, similar to those used by IDEQ, to allocate gridded emi ssions data to counties. For consistency, the gridded BEIS biogenic emissi ons provided by IDEQ were also reprocessed along with the MEGAN biogenic emi ssions to generate county-level emission totals for Ada, Canyon and Elmore Counties.
Table 2 presents summaries by county and polluta nt for the three county area of the Treasure Valley. Results are presented for NO, CO, tota l VOC (TOG) and isoprene emissions from both the BEIS and MEGAN biogenic model applicationsPage 14ENVIRON773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115●Novato, California 94998 USA(Tel): 415-899-0700z(Fax): 415-899-0707zwww.environcorp.comTable 2.Monthly biogenic emission summaries for BEIS and MEGAN for the three county Treasure Valley Area (tons/month)NOCOTOGIsopreneModelMonthAdaCanyonElmoreAdaCanyonElmoreAdaCanyonElmoreAdaCanyonElmoreJanuary 8.1 10.6 14.9 32.6 24.2113.9 123.0 87.1 402.6 0.6 0.1 1.3February 9.4 12.7 19.2 36.6 28.7127.7 147.3 109.9 465.9 1.4 0.2 3.2March 12.1 16.1 25.8 51.1 39.9168.7 221.5 163.1 637.3 3.4 0.3 7.3April 16.3 21.2 33.5 84.1 63.5 257.5 418.4 294.6 1,076.7 13.3 2.0 32.0May 22.1 29.2 51.4 227.0 156.8 621.41,246.2 814.4 2,870.8 68.0 11.6 164.5June 25.8 34.7 59.2 330.7 224.1 951.32,001.9 1,284.3 4,803.3 125.1 20.8 371.6July 32.7 42.2 80.5 571.7 388.6 1,675.63,702.0 2,394.7 9,029.4 249.6 41.4 783.2August 30.9 39.4 76.0 513.5 344.2 1,505.43,194.2 2,044.1 7,815.1 203.0 33.7 631.0September 23.3 29.7 56.7 281.8 184.7 848.6 1,537.1 966.0 3,947.4 81.2 13.6 251.7October 18.3 23.1 44.5 167.7 107.2482.3 791.1 473.8 2,020.5 30.3 4.5 74.5November 13.9 17.5 34.2 88.7 55.3 262.8 348.6 207.2 975.1 5.5 0.6 9.9December 9.1 12.0 19.2 37.7 27.8 138.9 147.3 103.2 500.5 1.1 0.1 2.6BEISAnnual Total 222.2 288.4 515.2 2,423.2 1,645.0 7,154.1 13,878.7 8,942.3 34,544.5 782.6 128.7 2,332.8January 1.0 0.7 1.4 8.9 4.0 17.8 40.2 16.0 87.9 1.6 0.4 3.2February 1.3 1.1 1.7 12.8 6.9 23.1 55.2 30.7 108.7 6.3 1.4 12.0March 2.2 1.8 2.7 25.0 13.3 39.4 124.2 60.1 199.9 22.4 5.3 38.0April 5.1 4.5 6.1 71.0 42.0 117.5 487.0 270.4 840.8 120.1 29.4 210.3May 13.1 12.3 18.8 193.8 119.1 384.1 1,408.0 666.4 3,098.6 613.2 159.7 1,136.5June 17.9 22.2 31.8 262.1 222.3 710.7 2,002.6 1,314.0 6,264.7 988.4 333.1 2,649.0July 30.9 49.0 57.6 389.9 434.5 1,171.8 3,106.7 2,508.8 10,728.9 1,659.5 744.8 5,601.5August 23.5 34.4 43.0 260.6 269.3 770.7 1,949.6 1,422.2 6,581.0 991.5 426.6 3,341.4September 10.3 13.8 19.0 101.4 98.9308.3 621.2 459.9 2,164.8 268.7 113.2 912.3October 4.8 5.9 9.3 41.4 35.8 124.3 207.3 141.7 700.6 69.6 25.6 229.1November 2.2 2.1 4.1 16.9 11.250.3 63.3 35.6 212.4 10.4 3.0 32.5December 0.8 0.7 1.3 7.2 4.2 14.9 26.5 13.3 55.4 2.6 0.7 6.0MEGANAnnual Total 113.0 148.5 196.8 1,390.9 1,261.5 3,733.1 10,091.8 6,939.1 31,043.5 4,754.4 1,843.2 14,171.7

### Page 15

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com 

### County-level Emission Summaries
Figures 10 through 13 display the monthly vari ation of biogenic NO, CO, TOG and Isoprene emissions, respectively, for Ada County. Bo th BEIS and MEGAN derived emissions are displayed. Corresponding displays of mont hly biogenic emissions from both models are presented in Figures 14 through 17 for Canyon C ounty, while Figures 18 through 21 present the results for Elmore County.
A review of Figures 10 through 13 illustrates that for most months, the MEGAN model is estimating lower biogenic emissions of NO, CO and total VOC biogenic emissions for Ada County for all months of the year. The largest differences are seen to occur during the winter and fall months. Isoprene emissions are seen to be higher with MEGAN than BEIS, as would be expected based on various test cases evaluated by the EPA (Pouliot and Pierce, 2008). The results for Canyon County show similar trends, ex cept for the month of July, when biogenic emissions peak for the year. Again, biogenic isoprene emissions are dramatically higher based on the MEGAN model than BEIS, particularly for the summer months. Results for Elmore County, displayed in Figures 18 through 21, illustrate the dependence of biogenic VOC emissions on land cover. As seen, the MEGAN-d erived biogenic emissions of NO and CO are lower than those derived from the BEIS mode l, while biogenic VOC, and especially biogenic isoprene, emissions are estimated to be consider ably higher than those estimated with the BEIS model for Elmore County. These results are to be expected given the increased percentage of forestlands in comparison to either Ada or Canyon Counties. For all counties and pollutants, both the BIEIS and MEGAN models are exhibiting similar seasona l variations with higher biogenic emissions during the spring and summer months comp ared to the winter and fall

seasons.

IDEQ Biogenic NOx Emissions

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Ada County MEGAN Ada County

Figure 10. Ada County Biogenic NO emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month)

### Page 16

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com IDEQ Biogenic CO Emissions

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Ada County MEGAN Ada County

Figure 11. Ada County Biogenic CO emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month).

IDEQ Biogenic TOG Emissions

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Ada County MEGAN Ada County

Figure 12. Ada County Biogenic TOG emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month).

### Page 17

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com IDEQ Biogenic Isoprene Emissions

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Ada County MEGAN Ada County

Figure 13. Ada County Biogenic Isoprene emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month).

IDEQ Biogenic NOx Emissions

0 10 20 30 40 50 60JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Canyon County MEGAN Canyon County

Figure 14. Canyon County Biogenic NO emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month).

### Page 18

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com IDEQ Biogenic CO Emissions

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Canyon County MEGAN Canyon County

Figure 15. Canyon County Biogenic CO emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month).

IDEQ Biogenic TOG Emissions

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Canyon County MEGAN Canyon County

Figure 16. Canyon County Biogenic TOG emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month).

### Page 19

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com IDEQ Biogenic Isoprene Emissions

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Canyon County MEGAN Canyon County

Figure 17. Canyon County Biogenic Isoprene emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month)



### . IDEQ Biogenic NOx Emissions

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Elmore County MEGAN Elmore County

Figure 18. Elmore County Biogenic NO emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month).

### Page 20

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com IDEQ Biogenic CO Emissions

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Elmore County MEGAN Elmore County

Figure 19. Elmore County Biogenic CO emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month).

IDEQ Biogenic TOG Emissions

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Elmore County MEGAN Elmore County

Figure 20. Elmore County Biogenic TOG emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month).

### Page 21

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com IDEQ Biogenic Isoprene Emissions

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

MonthTons BEIS Elmore County MEGAN Elmore County

Figure 21. Elmore County Biogenic Isoprene emissions for BEIS and MEGAN (tons/month).


### Spatial Distribution of Gridded Emissions
The spatial distributions of gr idded biogenic emissions develope d by the IDEQ with BEIS were also reviewed and compared those generated with the MEGAN biogenic model. Figures 22 through 25 display the 2008 annual gridded bi ogenic emissions for BEIS and MEGAN for IDEQ’s 4-km modeling domain. Displayed are annual emissions totals for NO, CO total VOC and isoprene. Figures 26 through 29 display th e corresponding gridded emissions for the month of July, in tons per month.
Differences in the spatial distributions of emissi on are clearly evident and reflect differences in the underlying vegetation and landcover databases used by the two models. In general, the results from the MEGAN model are seen to be more highly resolved. The differences in emission magnitudes are consistent with known di fferences in the ability of each model in estimated specific pollutants.

### Page 22

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 22. Spatial distribution of 2008 annual bi ogenic NO emissions (tons/year). Top – BEIS; Bottom - MEGAN

### Page 23

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 23. Spatial distribution of 2008 annual bi ogenic CO emissions (tons/year). Top – BEIS; Bottom - MEGAN

### Page 24

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 24. Spatial distribution of 2008 annual biogenic TOG emissions (tons/year). Top – BEIS; Bottom - MEGAN

### Page 25

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 25. Spatial distribution of 2008 annual biogenic Isoprene emissions (tons/year). Top – BEIS; Bottom - MEGAN

### Page 26

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 26. Spatial distribution of July 2008 biogenic NO emissions (tons/month). Top – BEIS; Bottom - MEGAN

### Page 27

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 27. Spatial distribution of July 2008 biogenic CO emissions (tons/month). Top – BEIS; Bottom - MEGAN

### Page 28

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 28. Spatial distribution of July 2008 biogenic TOG emissions (tons/month). Top – BEIS; Bottom - MEGAN

### Page 29

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com Figure 29. Spatial distribution of July 2008 biogenic Isoprene emissions (tons/month). Top – BEIS; Bottom - MEGAN

### Page 30

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com

C:\Documents and Settings\ckraemer\D esktop\TEMP\IDEQ_bio_Tech_Memo_31Dec09.doc 

### CONCLUSIONS
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality developed biogenic emissions as part of their SIP-quality emissions inventor y using the BEIS model, vers ion 3.19. ENVIRON reviewed the inventory, with respect to input data, includ ing landcover and vegetation and meteorology, and model application. In addition a comparison wa s made between biogenic emissions generated using the BEIS model and an alterna tive biogenic modeling system, MEGAN.
Based on the inventory review conducted by E NVIRON, IDEQ’s biogeni c emissions inventory development, including input data and processi ng, as documented in their report (IDEQ, 2009), appears correct and appropriate for the model selected (BEIS3.19) and provides the necessary SIP-level inventory estimates of biogenic emissions for the Treasure Valley Airshed.
Overall, IDEQ’s biogenic emission inventory developed using the BE IS biogenic emissions model appears to reasonably represent biogenic emissions for the region given the model and databases used. A comparison of the BEIS-der ived emissions and those derived from the MEGAN model are consistent give n the various differences m odel formulations and input databases, particularly the more highly spatially resolved landc over and vegetation data. Both models exhibit the appropriate seasonal and spat ial variations as expected. Differences in emission levels between the two model applicatio ns for certain pollutants are also consistent based on previous testing and comparisons of BEIS and MEGAN.

REFERENCES
DeFries, R. Hansen, M., Townshend, J.R.G., Ja netos, A.C., and Loveland, T.R., A new global 1km data set of percent tree cover derived fr om remote sensing, Global Change Biology, 6, 47-254, 2000.
Guenther, A., T. Karl, P. Harley, C. Wiedinmyer , P. Palmer, and C. Geron, Estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions using MEGAN (Model of Emissi ons of Gases and Aerosols from Nature), Atmos. Chem Phys., 6, 3181-3210, 2006.
Guenther, A., T. Karl, P. Harley, C. Wiedinmyer , P. Palmer, and C. Geron, Estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions using MEGAN (Model of Emissi ons of Gases and Aerosols from Nature), Atmos. Chem Phys., 6, 3181-3210, 2006.
Hansen, M., DeFries, R., Townshend, J. R. G., and Sohlberg, R., Global land cover classification at 1km resolution using a decision tree classifi er, International Journa l of Remote Sensing. 21, 1331-1365, 2000.
Hansen, M., DeFries, R. S., Townshend, J. R. G. , Carroll, M., Dimiceli, C ., and Sohlberg. R. A., Global Percent Tree Cover at a Spatial Resolution of 500 Meters: First Results of the MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields Algorithm" Earth Interactions, 7 (10), 1–15, 2003.
IDEQ. Processing of Biogenic Emissions for the SIP-Quality 2008 Treasure Valley, Idaho Emission Inventory. Draft Report. Technical Service Division, Idaho DEQ. October 29, 2009

### Page 31

ENVIRON 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com

C:\Documents and Settings\ckraemer\D esktop\TEMP\IDEQ_bio_Tech_Memo_31Dec09.doc 

### Pouliot, G., and T. Pierce (2008), Integration of the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature (MEGAN) into the CMAQ Modeling System, George Pouliot and Thomas Pierce. Sakulyanontvittaya, T., Duhl, T., Wiedinmyer, C., Helmig, D., Matsunaga, S., Potosnak, M., Milford, J., and Guenther, A. Monoterpene and Sesquiterpene Emission Estimates for the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42, p. 1623-1629.

Yarwood, G., G. Wilson, C. Emery, and A. Guenther . Development of GloBEIS – A State of the Science Biogenic Emissions Modeling System. Final Report. Prepared for Texas Natural Resource Conservation Co mmission. December, 1999.

## APPENDIX G

DETAILED AREA SOURCE EMIS SION INVENTORY SUMMARIES

### G-1 Table G-1. 2008 Annual Ada Count y Area Source Emissions (tpy)

SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy)

2102004000 Industrial Distillate Combustion 20.0 0.2 0.2 5.0 1.0 0.2 0.8

2102006000 Industrial Natural Gas Combustion 87.6 0.5 4.8 73.5 6.7 6.7 2.8 2102007000 Industrial LPG Combustion 2.8 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.1 0.1

2103004000 Commercial/Institutional Distillate Combustion 34.3 6.5 0.6 8.6 1.9 1.4 1.4

2103006000 Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas Combustion 188.6 1.1 10.4 158.4 14.3 14.3 0.9

2103007000 Commercial/Institutional LPG Combustion 2.5 0.0 0.2 1.5 0.1 0.1

2103011000 Commercial/Institutional Kerosene Combustion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2104004000 Residential Distillate Combustion 22.2 0.5 0.9 6.2 1.3 1.0 1.2

2104006000 Residential Natural Gas Combustion 438.1 2.8 25.6 186.4 35.4 35.4 93.2 2104007000 Residential LPG Combustion 2.8 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.2

2104008001 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces 22.1 3.0 143.5 1,135.6 232.4 232.4

2104008002 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces w/ insert (conventional/non-certified catalytic) 23.0 1.8 331.3 1,411.4 304.2 304.2

2104008003 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces w/ insert (certified non-catalytic) 15.9 2.8 140.5 979.3 104.5 104.5

2104008004 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces w/ insert (certified catalytic) 8.2 1.6 70.4 437.8 68.5 68.5

2104008010 Residential Wood Combustion - Woodstoves (conventional) 28.3 2.2 407.2 1,735.0 374.0 374.0

2104008030 Residential Wood Combustion - Woodstoves (catalytic) 5.1 1.0 43.5 270.6 42.3 42.3

2104008050 Residential Wood Combustion - Woodstoves (non-catalytic) 11.5 2.0 102.2 712.2 76.0 76.0

2104008053 Residential Wood Combustion - Pellet stoves 7.4 0.6 0.1 31.2 6.0 6.0

2104011000 Residential Kerosene Combustion 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2294000000 Paved Road Dust 26,669.3 1,520.2 2296000000 Unpaved Road Dust 965.8 55.1

2302002100 Commercial Cooking - Conveyorized Charbroiling 75.3 251.6 301.1 291.9

2302002200 Commercial Cooking - Underfired Charbroiling 58.8 192.5 490.6 474.2

2302003000 Commercial Cooking - Deep Fat Fying 4.7

2302003100 Commercial Cooking - Flat Griddle Frying 5.2 10.7 86.6 65.8

2302003200 Commercial Cooking - Clamshell Griddle Frying 1.2 33.2 28.1 2302050000 Bakeries 66.7

### G-2 SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) 2311010000 Construction 94.4 9.4 2399010000 Industrial Refrigeration 9.5 2401001000 Architectural Coatings 674.8 2401005000 Auto Refinishing 186.0 2401008000 Traffic Markings 28.3

2401015000 Surface Coatings - Factory Finished Wood 93.1

2401020000 Surface Coatings - Wood Furniture 63.4

2401025000 Surface Coatings - Metal Furniture 2.5 2401030000 Surface Coatings - Paper 95.9

2401035000 Surface Coatings - Plastic Products 1,305.4

2401050000 Surface Coatings - Miscellaneous Finished Metals 6.8

2401055000 Surface Coatings - Machinery and Equipment 78.6

2401065000 Surface Coatings - Electronic and Other Electrical 18.8

2401070000 Surface Coatings - Motor Vehicles 288.1 2401075000 Surface Coatings - Aircraft 255.7 2401080000 Surface Coatings - Marine 13.1 2401085000 Surface Coatings - Railroad

2401090000 Surface Coatings - Miscellaneous Manufacturing 7.4

2415105000 Open Top Degreasing - Furniture and Fixtures 21.9

2415110000 Open Top Degreasing - Primary Metal Industries 1.7

2415120000 Open Top Degreasing - Fabricated Metal Products 16.8

2415125000 Open Top Degreasing - Industrial Machinery and Equipment 485.4

2415130000 Open Top Degreasing - Electronic and Other Elect rical 64.6

2415135000 Open Top Degreasing - Transportation Equipment 34.7

2415140000 Open Top Degreasing - Instruments and Related Products 2.8

2415145000 Open Top Degreasing - Miscellaneous Manufacturing 26.8

2415150000 Open Top Degreasing - Transportation Maintenance Facilities 45.2

2415155000 Open Top Degreasing - Automotive Dealers 133.5

2415160000 Open Top Degreasing - Auto Repair Services 54.0

2415165000 Open Top Degreasing - Miscellaneous Repair Services 120.3

### G-3 SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy)

2415305000 Cold Cleaning - Furniture and Fixtures 17.9

2415310000 Cold Cleaning - Primary Metal Industries 1.4

2415320000 Cold Cleaning - Fabricated Metal Products 13.7

2415325000 Cold Cleaning - Industrial Machinery and Equipment 396.3

2415330000 Cold Cleaning - Electronic and Other Electrical 17.3

2415335000 Cold Cleaning - Transportation Equipment 28.3

2415340000 Cold Cleaning - Instruments and Related Products 2.3

2415345000 Cold Cleaning - Miscellaneous Manufacturing 21.8

2415350000 Cold Cleaning - Transportation Maintenance Facilities 415.0

2415355000 Cold Cleaning - Automotive Dealers 1,226.3

2415360000 Cold Cleaning - Auto Repair Services 496.3

2415365000 Cold Cleaning - Miscellaneous Repair Services 1,104.5

2420000370 Drycleaning - Special Naphthas 5.8 2425000000 Graphic Arts 244.6

2460100000 Consumer Solvents - Personal Care Products 388.5

2460200000 Consumer Solvents - Household Products 134.0

2460400000 Consumer Solvents - Automotive Aftermarket Products 235.8

2460500000 Consumer Solvents - Coatings and Related Products 180.9

2460600000 Consumer Solvents - Adhesives and Sealants 99.6

2460800000 Consumer Solvents - FIFRA Related Products 321.8

2460900000 Consumer Solvents - Miscellaneous Products 13.3 2461021000 Cutback Asphalt Application

2461022000 Emulsified Asphalt Application 571.7 2461850000 Pesticide Application 14.8

2501060051 Gasoline Distribution - Stage I Filling 553.7

2501060100 Gasoline Distribution - Stage II Refueling 253.2

2501060201 Gasoline Distribution - Breathing and Emptying 75.8

2505030120 Gasoline Distribution - Tank Trucks 4.6

### G-4 SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy)

2610000100 Open Burning - Yard Waste - Leaf 5.3 21.0 7.1 7.1

2610000400 Open Burning - Yard Waste - Brush 3.6 26.3 3.2 3.2

2610030000 Open Burning - Household Waste 2620000000 Landfills 5.6 2630000000 Wastewater Treatment 57.1 1.0 2730100000 Wind Erosion 8,606.0 861.0 2801000003 Agricultural Tilling 133.4 29.7 2801000005 Agricultural Harvesting 24.9 15.0

2801500262 Agricultural Field Burning - Wheat (Backfire Burning) 0.2 3.0 0.4 0.4 2801500999 Irrigation Ditch Burning 4.3 40.8 7.2 7.2

2801700001 Fertilizer - Anhydrous Ammonia 21.5 2801700002 Fertilizer - Aqueous Ammonia 0.6 2801700003 Fertilizer - Nitrogen Solutions 45.6 2801700004 Fertilizer - Urea 180.4 2801700005 Fertilizer - Ammonium Nitrate 10.3 2801700006 Fertilizer - Ammonium Sulfate 48.8

2801700007 Fertilizer - Ammonium Thiosulfate 2.0

2801700009 Fertilizer - Ammonium Phosphates 261.6

2801700011 Fertilizer - Calcium Ammonium Nitrate 0.0 2801700012 Fertilizer - Potassium Nitrate 2805001000 Beef Cattle Feedlots 425.4 27.1 4.1

2805003100 Livestock Ammonia - Beef Cattle 99.9

2805023300 Livestock Ammonia - Dairy Cattle 1,554.6 2805025000 Livestock Ammonia - Swine 14.2 2805030000 Livestock Ammonia - Poultry 0.2 2805035000 Livestock Ammonia - Horses 34.4 2805040000 Livestock Ammonia - Sheep 2.7 2810030000 Structure Fires 0.2 1.9 10.6 1.9 1.9 2810050000 Vehicle Fires 0.1 0.7 2.7 2.2 2.2

6906950001 Domestic Ammonia - Respiration 0.7

6906950002 Domestic Ammonia - Perspiration 104.8

6906950006 Domestic Ammonia - Cloth Diapers 100.8

6906950007 Domestic Ammonia - Disposable Diapers 5.3 6906950008 Domestic Ammonia - Cats 6.4 6906950010 Domestic Ammonia - Dogs 59.7 8888101001 Wild animals - Black bears 1.3 8888101002 Wild animals - Grizzly bears 8888101003 Wild animals - Elk 35.1 8888101004 Wild animals - Deer 2.1 9999101002 Native Soils - Urban 26.4

### G-5 SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) 9999101003 Native Soils - Barren

9999101004 Native Soils - Deciduous Forest 0.2

9999101005 Native Soils - Evergreen Forest 4.9 9999101006 Native Soils - Mixed Forest 0.5 9999101007 Native Soils - Shrubland 49.5 9999101008 Native Soils - Grassland 127.5 9999101009 Native Soils - Fallow 19.4 9999101010 Native Soils - Urban Grass 1,056.4 9999101011 Native Soils - Wetlands 6.9 Total 920.7 26.9 12,962.8 7,715.1 38,723.5 4,643.9 3,995.3

### G-6 Table G-2. 2008 Annual Canyon County Area Source Emissions (tpy)

SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy)

2102004000 Industrial Distillate Combustion 30.6 0.3 0.3 7.7 1.5 0.4 1.2

2102006000 Industrial Natural Gas Combustion 123.3 0.7 6.8 103.6 9.4 9.4 3.9 2102007000 Industrial LPG Combustion 1.7 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1

2103004000 Commercial/Institutional Distillate Combustion 14.1 1.5 0.2 3.5 0.8 0.6 0.6

2103006000 Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas Combustion 54.8 0.3 3.0 46.1 4.2 4.2 0.3

2103007000 Commercial/Institutional LPG Combustion 1.9 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.1

2104004000 Residential Distillate Combustion 63.8 0.8 2.5 17.7 3.8 2.9 3.5

2104006000 Residential Natural Gas Combustion 128.2 0.8 7.5 54.6 10.4 10.4 27.3 2104007000 Residential LPG Combustion 3.4 0.0 0.3 2.0 0.2 0.2

2104008001 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces 22.7 3.1 147.6 1, 167.8 239. 0 239.0

2104008002 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces w/ insert (conventional/non-certified catalytic) 17.7 1.4 254.1 1,082.8 233.4 233.4

2104008003 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces w/ insert (certified non-catalytic) 13.3 2.3 118.0 822.7 87.8 87.8

2104008004 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces w/ insert (certified catalytic) 6.4 1.3 54.8 341.0 53.4 53.4

2104008010 Residential Wood Combustion - Woodstoves (conventional) 40.9 3.2 587.9 2,504.9 540.0 540.0

2104008030 Residential Wood Combustion - Woodstoves (catalytic) 5.2 1.0 44.3 275.7 43.1 43.1

2104008050 Residential Wood Combustion - Woodstoves (non-catalytic) 7.0 1.2 62.5 435.4 46.4 46.4

2104008053 Residential Wood Combustion - Pellet stoves 9.6 0.8 0.1 40.0 7.7 7.7

2104011000 Residential Kerosene Combustion 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2294000000 Paved Road Dust 10,315.0 588.0 2296000000 Unpaved Road Dust 165.4 9.4

2302002100 Commercial Cooking - Conveyorized Charbroiling 20.3 67.7 81.1 78.6

2302002200 Commercial Cooking - Underfired Charbroiling 15.9 51.9 132.2 127.8

2302003000 Commercial Cooking - Deep Fat Fying 1.3

2302003100 Commercial Cooking - Flat Griddle Frying 1.4 2.9 23.3 17.7

2302003200 Commercial Cooking - Clamshell Griddle Frying 0.3 9.0 7.6 2302050000 Bakeries 32.2 2311010000 Construction 58.7 5.9 2399010000 Industrial Refrigeration 38.8

### G-7 SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) 2401001000 Architectural Coatings 256.3 2401005000 Auto Refinishing 45.4 2401008000 Traffic Markings 25.3

2401015000 Surface Coatings - Factory Finished Wood 84.3

2401020000 Surface Coatings - Wood Furniture 10.9

2401025000 Surface Coatings - Metal Furniture 1.2 2401030000 Surface Coatings - Paper 7.5

2401035000 Surface Coatings - Plastic Products 299.1

2401050000 Surface Coatings - Miscellaneous Finished Metals 10.6

2401055000 Surface Coatings - Machinery and Equipment 147.7

2401065000 Surface Coatings - Electronic and Other Electrical 86.9

2401070000 Surface Coatings - Motor Vehicles 73.6 2401075000 Surface Coatings - Aircraft 116.0 2401080000 Surface Coatings - Marine 3.0 2401085000 Surface Coatings - Railroad 58.0

2401090000 Surface Coatings - Miscellaneous Manufacturing 6.3

2415105000 Open Top Degreasing - Furniture and Fixtures 3.8

2415120000 Open Top Degreasing - Fabricated Metal Products 16.0

2415125000 Open Top Degreasing - Industrial Machinery and Equipment 8.9

2415130000 Open Top Degreasing - Electronic and Other Electrical 201.2

2415135000 Open Top Degreasing - Transportation Equipment 11.7

2415145000 Open Top Degreasing - Miscellaneous Manufacturing 8.3

2415150000 Open Top Degreasing - Transportation Maintenance Facilities 45.2

2415155000 Open Top Degreasing - Automotive Dealers 78.9

2415160000 Open Top Degreasing - Auto Repair Services 17.3

2415165000 Open Top Degreasing - Miscellaneous Repair Services 60.9

2415305000 Cold Cleaning - Furniture and Fixtures 3.1

2415320000 Cold Cleaning - Fabricated Metal Products 13.1

2415325000 Cold Cleaning - Industrial Machinery and Equipment 7.3

### G-8 SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy)

2415330000 Cold Cleaning - Electronic and Other Electrical 54.0

2415335000 Cold Cleaning - Transportation Equipment 9.5

2415345000 Cold Cleaning - Miscellaneous Manufacturing 6.8

2415350000 Cold Cleaning - Transportation Maintenance Facilities 415.0

2415355000 Cold Cleaning - Automotive Dealers 724.3

2415360000 Cold Cleaning - Auto Repair Services 159.0

2415365000 Cold Cleaning - Miscellaneous Repair Services 559.1

2420000370 Drycleaning - Special Naphthas 1.9 2425000000 Graphic Arts 101.9

2460100000 Consumer Solvents - Personal Care Products 187.6

2460200000 Consumer Solvents - Household Products 64.7

2460400000 Consumer Solvents - Automotive Aftermarket Products 113.9

2460500000 Consumer Solvents - Coatings and Related Products 87.4

2460600000 Consumer Solvents - Adhesives and Sealants 48.1

2460800000 Consumer Solvents - FIFRA Related Products 155.4

2460900000 Consumer Solvents - Miscellaneous Products 6.4 2461021000 Cutback Asphalt Application 11.2

2461022000 Emulsified Asphalt Application 313.3 2461850000 Pesticide Application 110.2

2501060051 Gasoline Distribution - Stage I Filling 267.4

2501060100 Gasoline Distribution - Stage II Refueling 121.4

2501060201 Gasoline Distribution - Breathing and Emptying 36.6

2505030120 Gasoline Distribution - Tank Trucks 2.2

2610000100 Open Burning - Yard Waste - Leaf 6.5 26.0 8.8 8.8

2610000400 Open Burning - Yard Waste - Brush 4.4 32.4 3.9 3.9

2610030000 Open Burning - Household Waste 1.0 0.2 5.1 14.3 6.4 5.9 2620000000 Landfills 2.3 2630000000 Wastewater Treatment 19.3 0.3 2730100000 Wind Erosion 888.0 89.0 2801000003 Agricultural Tilling 582.1 129.4

### G-9 SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) 2801000005 Agricultural Harvesting 123.7 74.2

2801500112 Agricultural Field Burning - Alfalfa (Backfire Burning) 2.3 9.6 2.3 2.3 2801500999 Irrigation Ditch Burning 10.7 101.4 17.9 17.9

2801700001 Fertilizer - Anhydrous Ammonia 109.2 2801700002 Fertilizer - Aqueous Ammonia 3.1 2801700003 Fertilizer - Nitrogen Solutions 231.2 2801700004 Fertilizer - Urea 899.1 2801700005 Fertilizer - Ammonium Nitrate 52.2 2801700006 Fertilizer - Ammonium Sulfate 247.5

2801700007 Fertilizer - Ammonium Thiosulfate 10.2

2801700009 Fertilizer - Ammonium Phosphates 1,326.4

2801700011 Fertilizer - Calcium Ammonium Nitrate 0.1 2801700012 Fertilizer - Potassium Nitrate 0.0 2805001000 Beef Cattle Feedlots 829.2 14.2 2.1

2805003100 Livestock Ammonia - Beef Cattle 138.0

2805023300 Livestock Ammonia - Dairy Cattle 3,187.1 2805025000 Livestock Ammonia - Swine 11.8 2805030000 Livestock Ammonia - Poultry 0.7 2805035000 Livestock Ammonia - Horses 57.5 2805040000 Livestock Ammonia - Sheep 29.0 2810030000 Structure Fires 0.1 1.1 6.1 1.1 1.1 2810050000 Vehicle Fires 0.1 0.5 1.9 1.5 1.5

6906950001 Domestic Ammonia - Respiration 0.3

6906950002 Domestic Ammonia - Perspiration 50.6

6906950006 Domestic Ammonia - Cloth Diapers 61.3

6906950007 Domestic Ammonia - Disposable Diapers 3.2 6906950008 Domestic Ammonia - Cats 3.1 6906950010 Domestic Ammonia - Dogs 28.8 8888101001 Wild animals - Black bears 0.1 8888101002 Wild animals - Grizzly bears 8888101003 Wild animals - Elk 3.3 8888101004 Wild animals - Deer 0.2 9999101002 Native Soils - Urban 27.0 9999101003 Native Soils - Barren

9999101004 Native Soils - Deciduous Forest

9999101005 Native Soils - Evergreen Forest 0.4 9999101006 Native Soils - Mixed Forest 9999101007 Native Soils - Shrubland 3.1 9999101008 Native Soils - Grassland 22.8

### G-10 SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) 9999101009 Native Soils - Fallow 31.6 9999101010 Native Soils - Urban Grass 1,081.6 9999101011 Native Soils - Wetlands 30.1 Total 545.8 19.1 7,507.9 7,221.7 13,715.9 2,450.2 7,726.9

### G-11 Table G-3. 2008 Annual Elmore County Area Source Emissions (tpy)

SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy)

2102004000 Industrial Distillate Combustion 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

2102006000 Industrial Natural Gas Combustion 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2102007000 Industrial LPG Combustion 1.9 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.1

2103004000 Commercial/Institutional Distillate Combustion 8.9 1.0 0.2 2.2 0.5 0.4 0.4

2103006000 Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas Combustion 4.3 0.0 0.2 3.6 0.3 0.3 0.0

2103007000 Commercial/Institutional LPG Combustion 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1

2104004000 Residential Distillate Combustion 9.1 0.1 0.4 2.5 0.5 0.4 0.5

2104006000 Residential Natural Gas Combustion 17.5 0.1 1.0 7.4 1.4 1.4 3.7 2104007000 Residential LPG Combustion 3.4 0.0 0.3 2.0 0.2 0.2

2104008001 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces 6.1 0. 8 39.7 314.5 64.4 64.4

2104008002 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces w/insert (conventional/noncertified catalytic) 3.0 0.2 43.4 184.9 39.9 39.9

2104008003 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces w/ insert (certified non-catalytic) 2.7 0.5 23.8 166.0 17.7 17.7

2104008004 Residential Wood Combustion - Fireplaces w/ insert (certified catalytic) 1.0 0.2 9.0 56.1 8.8 8.8

2104008010 Residential Wood Combustion - Woodstoves (conventional) 6.9 0.5 99.8 425.4 91.7 91.7

2104008030 Residential Wood Combustion - Woodstoves (catalytic) 1.8 0.4 15.6 96.8 15.1 15.1

2104008050 Residential Wood Combustion - Woodstoves (non-catalytic) 2.3 0.4 20.6 143.3 15.3 15.3

2104008053 Residential Wood Combustion - Pellet stoves 0.9 0.1 0.0 3.9 0.7 0.7 2294000000 Paved Road Dust 1,252.7 283.6 2296000000 Unpaved Road Dust 2,647.7 262.3

2302002100 Commercial Cooking - Conveyorized Charbroiling 3.8 12.7 15.2 14.7

2302002200 Commercial Cooking - Under-fired Charbroiling 2.7 9.0 22.9 22.1

2302003000 Commercial Cooking - Deep Fat Fying 0.2

2302003100 Commercial Cooking - Flat Griddle Frying 0.3 0.5 4.3 3.3

2302003200 Commercial Cooking - Clamshell Griddle Frying 0.0 1.4 1.2 2302050000 Bakeries 5.1 2311010000 Construction 7.6 0.8

### G-12 SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) 2399010000 Industrial Refrigeration 2.8 2401001000 Architectural Coatings 20.5 2401005000 Auto Refinishing 4.7 2401008000 Traffic Markings 4.1 2401030000 Surface Coatings - Paper 8.8

2401035000 Surface Coatings - Plastic Products 53.1

2401065000 Surface Coatings - Electronic and Other Electrical 3.9 2401075000 Surface Coatings - Ai rcraft 23.6 2401080000 Surface Coatings - Marine 0.4 2401085000 Surface Coatings - Railroad 11.8

2415130000 Open Top Degreasing - Electronic and Other Electrical 0.5

2415145000 Open Top Degreasing - Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.1

2415150000 Open Top Degreasing - Transportation Maintenance Facilities 5.1

2415155000 Open Top Degreasing - Automotive Dealers 15.0

2415160000 Open Top Degreasing - Auto Repair Services 0.8

2415165000 Open Top Degreasing - Miscellaneous Repair Services 1.7

2415330000 Cold Cleaning - Electronic and Other Electrical 0.1

2415345000 Cold Cleaning - Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.1

2415350000 Cold Cleaning - Transportation Maintenance Facilities 47.2

2415355000 Cold Cleaning - Automotive Dealers 137.7

2415360000 Cold Cleaning - Auto Repair Services 6.9

2415365000 Cold Cleaning - Miscellaneous Repair Services 15.9 2425000000 Graphic Arts 5.0

2460100000 Consumer Solvents - Personal Care Products 29.6

2460200000 Consumer Solvents - Household Products 10.2

2460400000 Consumer Solvents - Automotive Aftermarket Products 17.9

2460500000 Consumer Solvents - Coatings and Related Products 13.8

2460600000 Consumer Solvents - Adhesives and Sealants 7.6

### G-13 SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy)

2460800000 Consumer Solvents - FIFRA Related Products 24.5

2460900000 Consumer Solvents - Miscellaneous Products 1.0 2461021000 Cutback Asphalt Application 5.6

2461022000 Emulsified Asphalt Application 60.0 2461850000 Pesticide Application 94.7

2501060051 Gasoline Distribution - Stage I Filling 42.1

2501060100 Gasoline Distribution - Stage II Refueling 33.9

2501060201 Gasoline Distribution - Breathing and Emptying 5.8

2505030120 Gasoline Distribution - Tank Trucks 0.3

2610000100 Open Burning - Yard Waste - Leaf 3.1 12.3 4.2 4.2

2610000400 Open Burning - Yard Waste - Brush 2.1 15.4 1.9 1.9

2610030000 Open Burning - Household Waste 8.1 1.3 40.5 114.7 51.3 47.0 2620000000 Landfills 0.1 2630000000 Wastewater Treatment 3.5 0.1 2730100000 Wind Erosion 17,720.0 1,772.0 2801000003 Agricultural Tilling 387.9 86.2 2801000005 Agricultural Harvesting 65.4 39.3 2801500999 Irrigation Ditch Burning 2.0 18.7 3.3 3.3

2801700001 Fertilizer - Anhydrous Ammonia 39.1

2801700002 Fertilizer - Aqueous Ammonia 1.1

2801700003 Fertilizer - Nitrogen Solutions 82.6 2801700004 Fertilizer - Urea 311.0

2801700005 Fertilizer - Ammonium Nitrate 18.7

2801700006 Fertilizer - Ammonium Sulfate 88.5

2801700007 Fertilizer - Ammonium Thiosulfate 3.7

2801700009 Fertilizer - Ammonium Phosphates 474.3

2801700011 Fertilizer - Calcium Ammonium Nitrate 0.0 2801700012 Fertilizer - Potassium Nitrate 2805001000 Beef Cattle Feedlots 698.0 48.9 7.3

2805003100 Livestock Ammonia - Beef Cattle 237.2

2805023300 Livestock Ammonia - Dairy Cattle 2,369.2 2805025000 Livestock Ammonia - Swine 0.4 2805030000 Livestock Ammonia - Poultry 0.1 2805035000 Livestock Ammonia - Horses 10.2

### G-14 SCC SCC Description NO x (tpy) SO 2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM 10 (tpy) PM 2.5 (tpy) NH 3 (tpy) 2805040000 Livestock Ammonia - Sheep 1.1 2810030000 Structure Fires 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.2 2810050000 Vehicle Fires 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3

6906950001 Domestic Ammonia - Respiration 0.1

6906950002 Domestic Ammonia - Perspiration 8.0

6906950006 Domestic Ammonia - Cloth Diapers 9.0

6906950007 Domestic Ammonia - Disposable Diapers 0.5 6906950008 Domestic Ammonia - Cats 0.5 6906950010 Domestic Ammonia - Dogs 4.6 8888101001 Wild animals - Black bears 4.6 8888101002 Wild animals - Grizzly bears 0.0 8888101003 Wild animals - Elk 127.4 8888101004 Wild animals - Deer 7.6 9999101002 Native Soils - Urban 14.5 9999101003 Native Soils - Barren 0.2

9999101004 Native Soils - Deciduous Forest 0.0

9999101005 Native Soils - Evergreen Forest 103.6 9999101006 Native Soils - Mixed Forest 9999101007 Native Soils - Shrubland 100.1 9999101008 Native Soils - Grassland 173.5 9999101009 Native Soils - Fallow 19.3 9999101010 Native Soils - Urban Grass 581.5 9999101011 Native Soils - Wetlands 13.0 Total 80.5 5.8 1,730.0 1,595.8 22,491.9 2,806.1 4,812.3