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 Environmental 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 International Corporation 

773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 

Novato, CA 94998 

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

Final, August 31, 2010 

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.2 Inventory Scope ......................................................................................................1-3 

1.3 Report Contents ......................................................................................................1-5 

2.0 2008 POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY ......................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Point Source Data Collection..................................................................................2-1 

2.2 Emission Calculation Methodologies – Annual ..................................................... 2-5 

2.3 Emission Calculation Methodologies – Ozone and PM Season............................. 2-8 

2.4 Emission Results by Facility...................................................................................2-9 

2.5 QA/QC Procedures .................................................................................................2-9 

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

3.1 Emissions Calculation Methodologies – Annual.................................................... 3-1 

3.1.1 Fuel Combustion.........................................................................................3-1 

3.1.2 Residential Wood Combustion ...................................................................3-6 

3.1.3 Paved Road Dust......................................................................................... 3-8 

3.1.4 Unpaved Road Dust .................................................................................. 3-13 

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 Factor 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 Methodologies – 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....................................................................................... 3-72 
2008, 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 Methodologies – 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 Methodologies – 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 Methodologies – Annual.................................................... 6-1 

6.2 Emissions Calculation Methodologies – Ozone and PM Season ........................... 6-1 

6.3 Emission Results.....................................................................................................6-1 

7.0 2015 AND 2023 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORIES.......................................... 7-1 

7.1 Development of 2015 and 2023 Projection Factors................................................ 7-1 
2008, 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 SURVEYS (FUEL DEALER AND DISTRIBUTOR 

SURVEY, DRY CLEANING SURVEY, WASTEWATER TREATMENT 

SURVEY, AND LANDFILL SURVEY) 

APPENDIX D AURORA RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION SURVEY REPORT 

APPENDIX E DEQ CONCEPT-MV TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

APPENDIX F BIOGENICS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

APPENDIX G DETAILED AREA SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARIES 

Tables Page 

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

Inventories............................................................................................................ 1-4 

Table 2-1. Permitted Point Sources in the Treasure Valley ..................................................2-3 

Table 2-2. Facilities Operating Under Permit by Rule in the Treasure Valley Air 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 with at least 0.01 Inches of Rain......................3-10 
2008, 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 Industrial 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, and 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 Harvesting 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-Level Livestock Head Counts.........................................3-55 

Table 3-25. Ammonia Emission Factors for Livestock ........................................................3-55 

Table 3-26. Monthly Livestock Allocation Factors .............................................................. 3-56 

Table 3-27. 2008 Annual Fertilizer Application Data by Type and County (kg/year) .........3-58 

Table 3-28. Ammonia Emissions Factors 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 for Wild Animal Ammonia Sources.....................3-63 

Table 3-33. CDL Classifications and NH3 Model Cross-References ...................................3-64 

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

(Acres)................................................................................................................ 3-67 

Table 3-35. Land Use/Surrogate Cross-Reference................................................................ 3-69 

Table 3-36. Source Category/Surrogate 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 Assignment 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 Profile Assignment for Degreasing .................................3-76 

Table 3-43. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Graphic Arts...............................3-76 
2008, 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 Source Emissions – Elmore County...............3-83 

Table 4-1. On-Road Motor Vehicle Categories .................................................................... 4-1 

Table 4-2. Automatic Traffic Recorder Sites Used in Temporal Profile Analysis ...............4-3 

Table 4-3. FHWA Roadway Classifications .........................................................................4-3 

Table 4-4. Assignment of Temporal Profiles to Missing Roadway Types ...........................4-4 

Table 4-5. FHWA Vehicle Classifications............................................................................ 4-7 

Table 4-6. Fractional Allocation of FHWA Vehicle Classes to MOBILE Vehicle Classes.4-8 

Table 4-7. FHWA Class 2 and 3 Splits 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 County: I/M Program Parameters...........................4-13 

Table 4-10. 2008 MOBILE6 Inputs by County: Other ......................................................... 4-14 

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

Table 4-12. 2008 On-road Emissions Summary (Tons/Year and Tons/Day) .......................4-23 

Table 5-1. 2008 Pleasure Craft and Recreational Equipment Populations ........................... 5-2 

Table 5-2. NONROAD Model Default and Revised Agricultural Equipment Populations .5-3 

Table 5-3. Lawn and Garden Equipment 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 Pacific Railroad Activity Data .................................................5-14 

Table 5-10. Locomotive Emission Standards for 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 Activity Data for the Nampa Yard ............................... 5-19 

Table 5-18. Switching Locomotive 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 Equipment Emissions by County................................5-21 

Table 5-22. 2008 Seasonal Nonroad Equipment Emissions by Equipment Type (Ada, 

Canyon, and Elmore Counties Combined) ........................................................ 5-22 

Table 5-23. Fraction of Aircraft 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, and PM Season Biogenic Emissions .............................6-2 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

vi

Table 7-1. 2015, 2023, and 2030 MOBILE6 Inputs 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 Aircraft LTO Activity Data and Future Year Projection Factors.....7-11 

Table 7-4. Union Pacific Historic Fuel Consumption.........................................................7-12 

Table 7-5. 2008 County-Level Annual Emissions Summarized by Source Type...............7-13 

Table 7-6. 2015 County-Level Annual Emissions Summarized by Source Type...............7-14 

Table 7-7. 2023 County-Level Annual Emissions 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 Season On-Road Emissions for Ada and Canyon 

Counties ............................................................................................................. 7-18 

Table 7-13. 2008 County-Level PM Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type ........7-19 

Table 7-14. 2015 County-Level PM Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type ........7-20 

Table 7-15. 2023 County-Level PM Season Emissions Summarized by Source Type ........7-21 

Table 7-16. 2030 County-Level PM Season 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 Texture 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 Function of Friction Velocity Predicted by the 

Alfaro and Gomes (2001) Model Constrained by the Four Soil Geometric 

Mean Diameter Classes of Alfaro et al. (2004) ................................................. 3-49 

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 Modeling Domain from the STATSGO Database.3-67 

Figure 4-1. Hourly Temporal Profiles for Urban Interstates ..................................................4-5 

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

Figure 4-3. Monthly Temporal Profiles by Roadway Type for Boise....................................4-6 

Figure 4-4. Hourly Vehicle Mix Temporal Profiles for Urban Interstates in July .................4-9 

Figure 4-5. Hourly Vehicle Mix 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 Showing Vehicle Class Contributions........................4-16 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

vii

Figure 4-8. NOx Emissions by Day Showing Vehicle Class Contributions......................... 4-17 

Figure 4-9. PM2.5 Emissions by Day Showing Vehicle Class Contributions....................... 4-17 

Figure 4-10. Daily Minimum and Maximum Temperatures (Degrees Fahrenheit) 

Averaged Across Grid Cells Containing Roadway Links ................................. 4-18 

Figure 4-11. Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles (LDGV) Hourly VMT Profiles by Episode 

Date.................................................................................................................... 4-18 

Figure 4-12. Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV) Hourly VMT Profiles by Episode Date 4-19 

Figure 4-13. VMT Mix by Hour for a Weekday Episode Day (Wednesday 2/13/2008) .......4-19 

Figure 4-14. VMT Mix by Hour for a Weekend Episode Day (Saturday 2/9/2008)..............4-20 

Figure 4-15. Spatial Distribution at 4km Resolution of the BOISE Network Emissions, 

Showing Nitric Oxide (NO)...............................................................................4-20 

Figure 4-16. Vehicle Class Percent Contributions 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 Contributions to 2008 Elmore County Annual 

Emissions ........................................................................................................... 4-24 

Figure 4-19. Vehicle Class Percent Contributions to 2008 Ada County Average Ozone 

Season Day Emissions ....................................................................................... 4-25 

Figure 4-20. Vehicle Class Percent Contributions to 2008 Canyon County Average Ozone 

Season Day Emissions .......................................................................................4-25 

Figure 4-21. Vehicle Class Percent Contributions to 2008 Elmore County Average Ozone 

Season Day Emissions .......................................................................................4-26 

Figure 4-22. Vehicle Class Percent Contributions to 2008 Ada County Average PM 

Season Day Emissions ....................................................................................... 4-26 

Figure 4-23. Vehicle Class Percent Contributions to 2008 Canyon County Average PM 

Season Day Emissions ....................................................................................... 4-27 

Figure 4-24. Vehicle Class Percent Contributions 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 Equipment Monthly Temporal Profile.................................5-5 

Figure 5-3. Local Lawn-, Soil-, and Leaf-Related 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 Associated Emissions Contributions........................................... 5-12 

Figure 5-6. FRA Line-Haul Freight Density ........................................................................5-14 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

viii

ACRONYMS 

μg/m3 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 

CH4 methane 

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

CMU Carnegie Mellon University 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

COMPASS Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho 

CONCEPT MV Consolidated Community Emissions Processing Tool On-Road Motor Vehicle Model 

CTIC Conservation Technology Information Center 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality 

DQOs Data Quality Objectives 

EDMS Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System 

EEA European Environment Agency 
2008, 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 Highway Administration 

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FRS Facility Registry System 

ft3 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 Civil Aviation Organization 

ID identification number 

IDPR Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation 

IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources 

IFIRS Idaho Fire Incident Reporting System 

INPR Idaho Northern Pacific Railroad 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

IPP Inventory Preparation Plan 

ISDA Idaho State Department of Agriculture 
2008, 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 Gases and Aerosol from Nature 

Mg Megagrams 

MM5 Fifth-Generation NCAR/Penn State Mesoscale Model 

mmHG millimeters of mercury 

MMscf million standard cubic feet 

MOVES 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 Industry Classification System 

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NH3 ammonia 

NO nitric oxide 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

O3 ozone 

ORIS Office of Regulatory Information Systems 

OSD ozone season daily 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

xi

PAN Pesticide Action Network 

PBR permit by rule 

PM particulate matter 

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less 

PM2.5 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 Operator Kernel Emissions 

SO2 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 Inventory 
2008, 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 Regional Climate Center 

WRF Weather Research and Forecasting 

WSFO National Weather Service Forecast Office 

WWTPs wastewater treatment plants 
2008, 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 Corporation (ENVIRON), with assistance from Aurora Research Group 

(Aurora), according to the scope of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Contract 

C774, dated March 26, 2009. 

1.1 Background 

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

Elmore, Boise, Gem, Payette, and Owyhee counties in Idaho; plus, a portion of Malheur County, 

Oregon (see report cover). This airshed boundary was determined using population, model runs, 

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

less (PM2.5) and ozone (O3), 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 northwest-north-northeast that rise to more than 7,000 feet (i.e., the 

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

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

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

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

an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (μm) or less (PM10), and carbon monoxide (CO). 

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

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

the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in 1986. Violations of the PM10

NAAQS have not occurred since 1991 and northern Ada County remains in maintenance. 

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

winter inversions. Exceedance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS has not occurred since January 1991 

and the area remains in maintenance since that time. 

Currently, the Treasure Valley is close to violating the O3 NAAQS. Air quality 

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

averaging the fourth-highest readings from 2006, 2007, and 2008. Sunny summer weather, air 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

1-2

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

the terrain all contribute to high O3 levels. The occasional nearby wildfire and transport from 

other urban areas in the region also contribute to high levels of O3 in the valley. 

After approaching the 35 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m3

) 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5, 

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

2007/2008 have allowed the PM2.5 design value to decrease. Lower frequency and shorter 

duration inversion conditions have occurred as synoptic weather systems passed through 

Southwestern Idaho with more regularity. Although the Treasure Valley is not in danger of 

violating the annual PM2.5 standard in the short term, interest remains in obtaining accurate PM2.5

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

return. 

Planning efforts and special projects have identified certain contributors to the O3, PM10, 

and PM2.5 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 O3 levels in the valley, as well as 

ensuring PM2.5 problems remain in check even if stagnant winter weather patterns return. To be 

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

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

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

pollutants. 

Idaho DEQ needed an accurate emissions inventory of O3 precursors, and primary PM10

and PM2.5 and their precursors for the Treasure Valley Airshed. This emissions inventory must 

be of sufficient quality and detail to: 

• Support development of O3, PM10, and PM2.5 control strategies; 

• Support photochemical grid modeling for control strategy development; and 

• If necessary, in the event of a non-attainment designation, to fully meet U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) expectations and guidance as part of an 

O3, PM10, or PM2.5 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 program, which is distributed via the Idaho 
2008, 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 according 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 (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and CO; 

– Primary PM10 and PM2.5; and 

– Precursors of PM10 and PM2.5: NOx, sulfur dioxide (SOx), VOC, and ammonia (NH3). 

• Time Frame and Temporal Resolution: The base year inventory was developed is for 

calendar year 2008. Projections were developed for years 2015 and 2023. In addition 

to annual inventories, estimates were also developed for ozone season daily (OSD) 

and PM10/PM2.5 (PM) season daily emissions. The ozone season is April 1 through 

October 31, and the PM season is November 1 through February 28. 

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

sources, area sources, and nonroad mobile sources. Also, ENVIRON estimated linklevel on-road motor vehicle emissions for the 15-day period of February 1-15, 2008. 

DEQ then used the CONCEPT-MV system and identical methodologies, with 

assistance and peer review by ENVIRON, to estimate on-road emissions for each 

season during all three inventory years (i.e., 2008, 2015, and 2023). DEQ has also 

completed the CONCEPT-MV on-road modeling procedure for the year 2030 to 

support update of a PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

• Geographic Domain and Resolution: The inventories were estimated for the subject 

pollutants and sources located entirely within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties, 

Idaho. For the point sources, specific location coordinates will be provided. For area 

and nonroad mobile sources, emissions will be provided at the county level. 

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

inventory. 

The contract scope includes the 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 Categories Included in the Treasure Valley 

Emissions Inventories 

Source Type Source Category Pollutants 

Point Industrial Facilities (Various)a NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Industrial Fuel Combustion (distillate, LPG, natural 

gas) 

NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Commercial/ Institutional Fuel Combustion 

(distillate, kerosene, LPG, natural gas) 

NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Residential Fuel Combustion (distillate, kerosene, 

LPG, natural gas) 

NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Residential Wood Combustion (fireplaces, 

woodstoves, fireplaces with inserts, pellet stoves) 

NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Paved Road Dust PM10, PM2.5

Unpaved Road Dust PM10, PM2.5

Commercial Cooking NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Construction Dust PM10, PM2.5

Architectural Surface Coating VOC 

Traffic Markings VOC 

Autobody Refinishing VOC 

Industrial Surface Coating VOC 

Degreasing VOC 

Graphic Arts VOC 

Industrial Refrigeration/Cold Storage NH3

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) NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Agricultural Tilling PM10, PM2.5

Agricultural Harvesting PM10, PM2.5

Agricultural Burning (fields, irrigation ditches) NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Beef Cattle Feedlots VOC, PM10, PM2.5

Structural Fires NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Vehicle Fires NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Windblown Dust PM10, PM2.5

Livestock Ammonia NH3

Agricultural Fertilizer NH3

Domestic Ammonia NH3

Wild Animals NH3

Area 

Native soils NH3

Nonroad Equipment NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Aircraft NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Nonroad 

Mobile 

Locomotives NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

On-Road 

Motor Vehicles 

• Vehicle Types (8) 

• Roadway Types 

NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3

Biogenics To be provided by DEQ NOx, VOC a

Industrial point sources include facilities that emit pollutant quantities above the following amounts: 5 tons per year (TPY) PM10, 

PM2.5, SO2, or NH3; 10 TPY VOC; 25 TPY NOx or CO. Sources with annual 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 Inventory Data Spreadsheets 

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

• Task 9: Provide all Data to DEQ 

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

• Task 11: CONCEPT MV Motor Vehicle Emissions Modeling 

All work under all tasks has been completed. The methods used and results achieved are 

documented in this final report. All data files (e.g., emissions inventory calculation spreadsheets, 

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

1.3 Report Contents 

The remainder of this report is organized as follows: 

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

inventory; 

• Section 3.0 provides the methodologies and results for the 2008 area source 

inventory; 

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

• Section 5.0 provides the methodologies and results for the 2008 nonroad mobile 

source inventory; 

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

• Section 7.0 outlines the methodologies used to project the 2008 point, area, on-road 

motor vehicle, nonroad mobile, and biogenic inventories to the future years of 2015 

and 2023; 

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

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

emissions inventory. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

1-6

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

• 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 Surveys (Fuel Dealer and Distributor Survey, Dry 

Cleaning Survey, Wastewater Treatment Survey, and Landfill Survey) 

• Appendix D – Aurora Residential Wood Combustion Survey Report 

• Appendix E – DEQ CONCEPT-MV Technical Memorandum 

• Appendix F – Biogenics Technical Memorandum 

• Appendix G – Detailed Area Source Emission Inventory Summaries 
2008, 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 include facilities that operate under a current Tier 1 permit (i.e., 

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

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

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

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

PBR facilities, including facility and contact name and address. 

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

industrial facilities emitting greater than one of the following thresholds: 

• 5 tons per year (tpy) of PM10, PM2.5, SOx, or NH3; 

• 10 tpy of VOC; or 

• 25 tpy of NOx or CO. 

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

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

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

counties) in order to include full contact information 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 lists (109 facilities). 

Information for these facilities included contact 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 information was merged with the above 

permits list (42 facilities). For overlapping facilities, IDs were updated. Non-
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

2-2

overlapping facilities were appended into the master database and a unique Facility 

ID was assigned. Information included: facility name(s), address information, 

SIC/NAICS/Industry codes and descriptors, location coordinates, and other facility 

identifiers (i.e., NEI Site ID, ORIS Facility Code, TRI ID and FRS ID). This 

information was assigned the second highest priority. 

• Using DEQ’s listing of facilities with PBRs (i.e., portable rock crushers and dairies), 

facility information was added to database. Information for these facilities included 

contact person, facility name(s), and address. Also, these facilities were assigned an 

SIC of either 1442 (Construction Sand and Gravel) 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 identified. For nonoverlapping facilities, the information obtained from FRS included facility name(s), 

address information, location coordinates, SIC/NAICS codes, and other facility 

identifiers (i.e., FRS ID, NEI ID, AFS ID, and TRI ID). This information was 

assigned the fourth highest priority. 

• A business listing provided by the Idaho Secretary of State was merged with the 

above list, and appended to the master database for non-overlapping businesses. 

Information included contact person, facility name(s), and address information. This 

information was assigned the fifth highest priority. 

• The final data source to be merged into the master database was the 2005 through 

2007 TRI datasets. While the basic facility information was contained in the FRS 

data source, the TRI datasets also contained contact information. This information 

was assigned the lowest priority. 

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

identified: 

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

• PBR facilities (portable rock crushers and dairies): 23 portable plants and 6 dairies 

(see Table 2-2) 

• Unpermitted facilities: 1,654 facilities 

A listing of the 1,683 total PBR and unpermitted facilities is presented in Appendix A. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

2-3

Table 2-1. Permitted Point Sources in the Treasure Valley 

Co. Facility Name 

2008 

Emissions 

Data Co. Facility Name 

2008 

Emissions 

Data 

Ada Animal Crematorium 9 Western Aircraft 

Ada County/Hidden Hollow Landfill Western Electronics Inc 9

American Paving Company 9

Ada 

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 Sorrento 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 9

Canyon 

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 & Gravel 

Elmore 

US Air Force-Mountain Home 9

Ada 

West Park/Walla Walla Shopping Center 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

2-4

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

Shed 

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Fuel suppliers/distributors (Section 3.1.1) 

• Dry cleaners (Section 3.1.13) 

• Wastewater treatment plants (Section 3.1.17) 

DEQ ID or County Type of Facility Facility Name 

1677700335 Portable C Wright Construction Co Inc 

1677700418 Portable C Wright 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 Dairy 
2008, 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 print names and contact information on each of the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2 Emission Calculation Methodologies – Annual 

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

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

for 2008 is discussed in Section 2.3, while the development of the future 2015 and 2023 

projected point source emissions inventories is presented in Section 7.1.1. 

Annual point source emissions were developed from data collected electronically by 

DEQ using the POSST submittal process. Of the 109 permitted facilities, a total of 60 facilities 

submitted 2008 annual emissions either through the complete POSST or as a separate facilitywide emissions inventory (see Table 2-1). Initial quality assurance (QA) was conducted by DEQ 

before emissions data were compiled. 

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

data submitted through POSST was very inconsistent. Some facilities submitted primary PM10

(PM10-PRI) emissions, while others submitted filterable PM10 (PM10-FIL) emissions. Most 

combustion sources did not submit condensable PM (PM-CON) emissions, even though such 

emissions would be expected. Some facilities submitted PM2.5 emissions that were identical to 

PM10 emissions based on an apparent assumption of equality, even though such an assumption 
2008, 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., PM10-PRI to PM10-

FIL, PM10-FIL to PM-CON, PM10-FIL to PM2.5-FIL, etc.). The augmentation scheme was 

applied to either PM10-PRI or PM10-FIL emissions for every point source process reported in 

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

procedure. Application of the augmentation procedure resulted in PM10-FIL, PM2.5-FIL, and 

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

source emissions were reported as PM10-PRI (i.e., sum of PM10-FIL and PM-CON) and PM2.5-

PRI (i.e., sum of PM2.5-FIL and PM-CON). However, in the formatted data files to be provided 

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

of 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 concerning air emissions, there were considerable 

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

• Because the selection of the 1,683 unpermitted and PBR facilities was fairly broad, 

there were a large number of facilities that did not have emissive processes (e.g., 

businesses run out of homes, land management companies, etc.). 

• Some facilities reported nonsensical units (e.g., tons of electricity, million cubic feet 

of heat, 1000 gallons of vehicles, gallons of steel, etc.). 

• Some reported material quantities were not reasonable (e.g., a particular facility’s 

reported fuel use was a significant fraction of the state’s total industrial or 

commercial fuel use, etc.). 

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

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

corrected (i.e., typically based upon notes found elsewhere in the submitted data 

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

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

Final, August 31, 2010 

2-7

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

and reasonable activity data. 

The next step for these 291 facilities was to determine which facilities exceeded the point 

source thresholds (i.e., 5 tpy for PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and NH3; 10 tpy for VOC; and 25 tpy for NOx

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

emission factors from AP-42 and other guidance documents, as well as information submitted by 

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

determination for natural gas combustion used the AP-42 emission factors for small natural gas 

boilers (i.e., 100 lbs NOx/106 ft3, 0.6 lbs SO2/106 ft3, 5.5 lbs VOC/106 ft3, 84 lbs CO/106 ft3, 7.6 

lbs PM10/106

 ft3, and 7.6 lbs PM2.5/106 ft3) (U.S. EPA, 2010). The resultant natural gas quantities 

needed to exceed the respective pollutant thresholds were: 500 × 106 ft3 for NOx, 16,667 × 106

ft3 for SO2, 3,636 × 106

 ft3 for VOC, 595 × 106 ft3 for CO, and 1,316 × 106 ft3 for PM10 and PM2.5. 

The lowest quantity (i.e., 500 × 106 ft3 for NOx) was then used to determine which facilities had 

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

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

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

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

application. Following the threshold determination, a total of 33 non-permitted sources were 

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

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

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

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

remaining nine non-permitted sources that exceeded DEQ’s point source thresholds are listed in 

Table 2-3. 

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

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

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

commercial sectors. The activity data reconciliation is described further in Section 3.1.1 

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

Final, August 31, 2010 

2-8

Table 2-3. Unpermitted Facilities that Exceeded Point Source Thresholds in 2008 

Emissions 

Facility Name County

C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac Id: 1677700418) Ada

Guerdon Enterprises LLC Ada

Knife River Ada

Western Construction (Portable Plant) Ada

C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (Fac 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 Methodologies – Ozone and PM Season 

After the annual point source emissions were estimated using the methodologies 

described in Section 2.2, the daily ozone season and PM season emission estimates were 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(i.e., December through February) for each process. In a few instances, the seasonal percent of 

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

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

The 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 PSF
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

2-9

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

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

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

Where: 

EA = Annual emissions (tons/year); 

EOS = Ozone season daily emissions (tons/day); 

EPS = 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 source emissions are presented in Table 2-4. The facilities 

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

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

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 listed 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 represent zero emissions. All facility-level point 

source data presented in Tables 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 are included in the electronic data files 

submitted in conjunction with this final report. 

2.5 QA/QC Procedures 

For the point source inventory development, a 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 envisioned 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. However, ERG did conduct some QA/QC following 

214

E OSF E A

OS

× =

121

E PSF E A

PS

× =
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010

2-10

Table 2-4. 2008 Annual Point Source Emissions (Tons/Year) 

Facility Name County

Facility 

Type NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3

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 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3

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 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3

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 1,348.5 800.9 479.0 466.6 
2008, 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 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3

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 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3

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 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3

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 1.20 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010

2-16

Table 2-6. 2008 PM Season Point Source Emissions (Tons/Day) 

Facility Name County

Facility 

Type NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3

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 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3

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 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3

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 1.47 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010

2-19

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

calculations, ERG conducted a high-level review of the transmitted POSST and EZ data files and 

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

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

(e.g., identification of non-emissive processes, nonsensical units, unreasonably high material 

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

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

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

Final, August 31, 2010 

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 emissions inventory includes all of the area source 

emission categories listed in Table 1-1. In general, these are identical to the categories identified 

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

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

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

have been added. 

3.1 Emissions Calculation Methodologies – Annual 

The annual area source emissions calculation methodologies are briefly summarized in 

Table 3-1 (i.e., the Area Source Matrix). The Area Source Matrix was previously presented in 

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

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

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

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

3.1.1 Fuel Combustion 

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

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

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

category, which is described in the following section. 

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

were collected using a mail-out survey (included as Appendix C) that was sent to fuel dealers 

and distributors in September 2009. The survey was mailed to a total of 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 counties) 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, 2010 Table 3-1. Area Source Matrix Source Category Pollutants Methodology Activity Data 

Industrial Fuel Combustion NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3 Emission factors: AP-42 (Sections 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5); 2002 NEI Documentation; EIIP Ammonia Report Local fuel survey (fuel quantities and sulfur content) Includ

LPG. Point for na

Commercial/ Institutional Fuel Combustion 

NOx, SO2, VOC, 

CO, PM10, PM2.5, 

NH3

Emission factors: AP-42 (Sections 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5); 2002 NEI Documentation; EIIP Ammonia Report 

Local fuel survey (fuel quantities and sulfur content) 

Includand kPoint for na

Residential Fuel Combustion (excluding wood) 

NOx, SO2, VOC, 

CO, PM10, PM2.5, 

NH3

Emission factors: AP-42 (Sections 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5); 2002 NEI Documentation; EIIP Ammonia Report 

Local fuel survey (fuel quantities and sulfur content) 

Includand k

Residential Wood Combustion 

NOx, SO2, VOC, 

CO, PM10, PM2.5, 

NH3

Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Local residential wood 

combustion survey 

Paved Road Dust PM10, PM2.5 TVRDS methodology (Ada and Canyon); AP-42 

(Section 13.2.1) (Elmore) 

VMT, silt loading 

Unpaved Road Dust PM10, PM2.5 TVRDS methodology (Ada and Canyon); AP-42 

(Section 13.2.2) (Elmore) 

VMT, silt content 

Commercial Cooking VOC, CO, PM10, 

PM2.5

Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Number of equipment, 

annual meat cooked per equipment 

Includfrying

Bakeries VOC Per capita emission factors: EIIP (Vol. III, 

Abstracts) 

Population, per capita bread consumption 

Construction PM10, PM2.5 Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Number of building 

permits 

Industrial Refrigeration/ Cold Storage 

NH3 Per employee emission factors: EIIP Ammonia 

Report 

Employee counts 

Architectural Surface Coating 

VOC Emissions ratioing based on population and 

employment: 2002 NEI Documentation 

2002 NEI emissions; population and employee counts 

Autobody Refinishing VOC Per employee emission factors: 2002 NEI 

Documentation 

Employee counts 

Traffic Markings VOC Mass balance Traffic marking 

quantities; VOC content 
Table 3-1. Continued 

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 3-3

Final, August 31, 2010 Source Category Pollutants Methodology Activity Data 

Industrial Surface Coating VOC Emissions ratioing based on employment: 2002 NEI Documentation 2002 NEI emissions; employee counts No po

condu

Degreasing VOC Emissions ratioing based on employment: 2002 NEI Documentation 2002 NEI emissions; employee counts No po

condu

Dry Cleaning VOC Mass balance Local survey (quantity 

of solvent used) 

Graphic Arts VOC Per employee emission factors: 2002 NEI 

Documentation 

Employee counts 

Consumer Solvent Use VOC Per capita emission factors: 2002 NEI 

Documentation 

Population 

Pesticide Application VOC Emission factors: EIIP (Vol. III, Chap. 9) Planted acreage, 

application rates, % active ingredient, formulation type 

Gasoline Transport and Distribution 

VOC Emission factors: AP-42 (Section 5.2), on-road 

motor vehicle modeling files 

Quantity of fuel, Stage I/II controls 

Point condu

Open Burning (Household and Yard) 

NOx, SO2, VOC, 

CO, PM10, PM2.5

Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Population not subject 

to burn bans 

Wastewater Treatment VOC, NH3 Emission factors: 2002 NEI Documentation Local survey (quantity 

of water treated) 

Landfills VOC Theoretical first-order kinetic model: AP-42 

(Section 2.4) 

Local survey (refuse acceptance rate, landfill opening/closing) 

Agricultural Tilling PM10, PM2.5 Emission factors: ARB Area Source Method 

(Section 7.4) 

Acreage planted, planting practices 

Agricultural Harvesting PM10, PM2.5 Emission factors: ARB Area Source Method 

(Section 7.5) 

Acreage harvested, harvesting practices 

Agricultural Burning – Fields 

VOC, CO, PM10, 

PM2.5

Emission factors: AP-42 (Section 2.5) Burned acreage, fuel 

loading, burning practices 

Agricultural Burning – Irrigation Ditches 

VOC, CO, PM10, 

PM2.5

Emission factors: AP-42 (Section 2.5) Burned acreage, fuel 

loading, burning practices 

Beef Cattle Feedlots VOC, PM10, PM2.5 Emission factors: ARB Area Source Method 

(Section 7.6) 

Head of cattle, residence time 

Structural Fires NOx, VOC, CO, 

PM10, PM2.5

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

burned 

Vehicle Fires NOx, VOC, CO, Emission factors: EIIP (Vol. III, Abstracts) Number of vehicles 
Table 3-1. Continued 

2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 3-4

Final, August 31, 2010 Source Category Pollutants Methodology Activity Data 

PM10, PM2.5 burned Windblown Dust PM10, PM2.5 WRAP windblown dust model Wind speeds, soil textures, crop acreages, crop calendars Livestock Ammonia NH3 WRAP NH3 emissions model Livestock population 

Agricultural Fertilizer NH3 WRAP NH3 emissions model Harvested acreage, type 

and quantity of fertilizers 

Domestic Ammonia NH3 WRAP NH3 emissions model Population Wild Animals NH3 WRAP NH3 emissions model Wild animal population Soil Ammonia NH3 WRAP NH3 emissions model Land use/land cover 

acreages 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-5

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

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

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

as being associated with these 16 fuel dealers/distributors (e.g., duplicates, under common 

ownership, recently purchased, etc.). In addition, another 20 surveys were returned with an 

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

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

delivered). However, examination of the remaining 12 non-respondent surveys points to a 

potentially even higher return rate; a total of 9 of the non-respondent surveys were identified as 

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

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

wrong numbers, no answer after 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 combinations were included 

in the Treasure Valley emissions inventory: 

• Industrial distillate oil 

• Industrial natural gas 

• Industrial LPG 

• Commercial/institutional distillate oil 

• Commercial/institutional natural gas 

• Commercial/institutional LPG 

• Commercial/institutional kerosene 

• Residential distillate oil 

• Residential natural gas 

• Residential LPG 

• Residential kerosene 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-6

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

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

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

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

by point source facilities during the POSST submittal process. 

In general, fuel combustion emissions were estimated using emission factors from AP-42 

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

combustion (NH3 only) were obtained from other guidance documents (U.S. EPA, 2006; EIIP, 

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

fuel survey respondents; both sulfur contents were used to calculate weighted SOx estimates. 

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

Where: 

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

Uf = Fuel usage for fuel f (106

 ft3 or 103 gal); and 

EFf,p = Emission factor for fuel f and pollutant p (lb/106

 ft3 or lb/103 gal).

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual NOx emissions from Ada 

County residential natural gas usage is as follows: 

UNG = 9,321 MMscf (i.e., 106

 ft3) natural gas 

EFNG,NOx = 94 lbs NOx/MMscf natural gas 

ENG,NOx = 9,321 MMscf × 94 lbs NOx/MMscf natural gas × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) 

 = 438.1 tons NOx 

3.1.2 Residential Wood Combustion 

The residential wood combustion source category includes emissions from fireplaces, 

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

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

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

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

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton Ef ,p Uf EFf ,p
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-7

1. Determine number of existing devices (i.e., fireplace, woodstove/insert, and pellet 

stove) by applying existing device ratio from RWC survey to the number of 

households. 

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

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

3. Determine number of actively used devices by applying device-specific use ratio 

from RWC survey to number of existing devices. 

4. For woodstoves and inserts, determine the number of conventional, 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 fireplaces, woodstoves, and inserts is 

softwood; lesser amounts of hardwood and unspecified wood are also used. Only 

minor amounts of processed wood logs, scrap wood/building materials, and other 

materials are burned. 

 

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

Where: 

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

D = Number of in-use devices; 

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

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

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual NOx emissions from Ada 

County residential natural gas usage is as follows: 

D = 20,608 in-use fireplaces 

W = 0.739 tons wood/device 

EFNOx = 2.6 lbs NOx/ton wood 

ENOx = 20,608 in-use fireplaces × 0.739 tons wood/fireplace × 2.6 lbs NOx/ton wood × 

 (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 19.8 tons NOx 

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

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

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton Ep D W EFp
2008, 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 affect paved road dust emissions include the weight of the vehicles 

that drive on the roadway surface, vehicle speed, the particles on the roadway surface available 

for entrainment, and precipitation on the roadway which decreases road dust emissions. In 2002, 

the Treasure Valley Road Dust Study (TVRDS) (Etymezian et al., 2002) was completed. The 

TVRDS included real-time measurements of paved road dust emissions made in Ada and 

Canyon counties and paved road dust emission inventories 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 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that were estimated 

for the on-road motor vehicle emissions inventory (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 included a very limited number of unpaved roads 

that were excluded from the paved road dust emissions, but included with the unpaved road dust 

emissions (see Section 3.1.4). 

Ada and Canyon County 

Paved road dust emissions in Ada and Canyon counties were calculated based upon the 

methodology developed in the TVRDS; however, changes 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 PM10/VKT/meters per second [mps]); 

CC,S,T = constant dependent on county, setting, and season (grams PM10/VKT/mps); 

s = roadway speed (mph); and 

x = empirically derived exponent dependent on county, setting, and season. 

x

C S T b C s − = , , ×
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: 

EFS,T = roadway PM10 emissions factor per setting and season (grams PM10/VKT); 

bS,T = roadway emissions potential per setting and season (grams PM10/VKT/mps); and 

s = roadway speed (mph). 

TDM and residential roadway emission potential estimates were taken from the TVRDS 

(Etymezian et al., 2002). The TDM roadway emission potential estimates are shown in Table 3-

2, while the residential roadway emission potential estimates are shown in Table 3-3. 

Table 3-2. Emissions Potentials for Roads that are Physically Represented in the 

TDM 

Season County Setting 

CC,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 Potentials for Residential Roads 

Season County Setting 

CC,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 

EF b s S ,T = S ,T ×
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-10

Because annual, spring, and fall emission potentials were not available, summer emission 

potentials were assumed for 75% of the year and winter emission potentials were assumed for 

25% of the year, consistent with the assumptions made in the TVRDS (Etymezian et al., 2002). 

Precipitation adjustments were made according to the AP-42 methodology (U.S. EPA, 

2010a). The standard AP-42 methodology was used because the TVRDS precipitation 

adjustment estimates were based on engineering judgment rather than actual measurements; 

therefore, standard AP-42 methodology was used. The adjusted emission estimates were 

calculated according to the following equation: 

Where: 

EC = estimate of actual emissions, accounting for precipitation control (tons); 

EUC = estimate of emissions without accounting for precipitation control (tons); 

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

ND = total number of days in a given period. 

Precipitation correction factors were estimated using 2008 precipitation 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 data 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

C UC N

N E E

4

1
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-11

Based upon the TVRDS, the PM2.5 fraction of PM10 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 the 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 surface silt loading (g/m2

); 

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 PM10 PM2.5

k (g/VMT) 7.3 1.1 

C (g/VMT) 0.2119 0.1617 

Table 3-6. Elmore County Silt Loading Estimates 

Road Type 

Winter Silt 

Loading (g/m2) 

Summer Silt 

Loading (g/m2) 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 Climate 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 sL W E k

4

1

2 3

0.65 1.5
2008, 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 and roadway type are shown in Table 3-8. 

Table 3-8. 2008 Annual Paved Road Dust Emission Estimates 

Annual (TPY) 

Roadway Type PM10 PM2.5

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 1,253 284 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-13

Although the TVRDS was conducted 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 road maintenance indicated that winter sanding application has 

decreased in some areas and the frequency of road sweeping has increased in some areas. While 

such practices will likely decrease road dust emissions, 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 processes that affect unpaved 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 obtained 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 available. In cases where average daily traffic estimates were not 

available, an ADT estimate was assigned based on existing data as identified in Table 3-9. 

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

Average speed estimates were not available; therefore, 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 PM10 emissions factor (grams PM10/VMT); 

b = roadway emissions potential (grams PM10/VMT/mph); and 

s = roadway speed (mph). 

EF = b × s
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-14

Table 3-9. 2008 Unpaved Road Dust 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 129a 3,292,940 Waldinger, 2010 

Totals 88 4,220,303 

Canyon County 

City of Caldwell 11.4 20a 82,892 Baker, 2010 

City of Greenleaf 0 - 0 Amick, 2010 

City of Middleton 0.3c 20a 2,518 c

City of Melba 0.1c 20a 371 c

City of Nampa 8.9c 20a 64,755 c

City of Wilder 0.1 20a 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 87.5b 9,293,813 Tindall, 2010a 

Glenns Ferry Hwy Highway 

District 250 87.5b 7,984,375 Gluch, 2010 

Totals 595 19,002,813 a

Estimate taken from TVRDS (Etymezian et al., 2002). 

b

Assumed equivalent to Atlanta Highway District since these data were not available. c

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

A dry emissions potential value of 11.9 grams/VMT/mph from TVRDS was used across 

all unpaved roads. 

Unlike the paved road dust source category where precipitation related control estimates 

were based on engineering judgment in the TVRDS, unpaved road dust precipitation related 

control estimates were based directly on TVRDS observations. Consequently, the TVRDS 

precipitation control methodology was used (Etymezian et al., 2002). Table 3-10 shows the 

adjustment factors used to account for precipitation. It should be noted that although 

precipitation events might have an effect on unpaved roadway activity, data were not available to 

estimate the influence of such an effect. Therefore, while unpaved roadway VMT activity was 

adjusted for seasonality as described in Section 3.2.4, the specific effect that precipitation events 

may have on unpaved roadway activity was not accounted for. Accounting for seasonality as 

described above is typical for regional unpaved road dust emission inventories. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-15

Table 3-10. Unpaved Road Dust 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 PM2.5 fraction of PM10 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 fleet exhaust, brake wear and tire wear 

(g/VMT); 

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

N = number of days in the averaging period. 

( ) ( )

( ) ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ − ×

⎪⎭

⎪

⎬

⎫

⎪⎩

⎪

⎨

⎧

⎥ −

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ = N

N P C

M

k s S E c

a d

0.5

12 30
2008, 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, brake 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 – PM10 (lb/VMT) 1.8 

k – PM2.5 (lb/VMT) 0.18 

a 1 

d 0.5 

c 0.2 

M (%) 0.5 

C – PM10 (g/VMT) 0.00047 

C – PM2.5 (g/VMT) 0.00036 

The days of precipitation greater 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 PM10 PM2.5

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 estimated using the methodology (e.g., national 

average number of equipment pieces, meat cooking quantities, etc.) and associated emission 

factors presented in the 2002 National Emissions Inventory documentation (U.S. EPA, 2006). 

The number of county-level establishments 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: 

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

EFp = 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: 

EFVOC = 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 

EVOC = 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 construction dust emission factors were obtained 

from the 2002 NEI methodology document for the following residence types: single family, two 

family, three and four family, and five or more family units (U.S. EPA, 2006). Discussions with 

government agencies that issue building permits indicated that industrial and commercial 

building activity during 2008 was minimal and that relevant activity data were not available 

(Webb, 2009; Radek, 2009; Hunter, 2009; Winterfield, 2009). 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton Ep EFp EQ M
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-18

3.1.7 Architectural Surface Coatings 

The architectural surface coatings 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), degreasing (Section 3.1.10), and other per employee 

source categories (Section 3.1.11) and was 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 product specifications, were obtained through telephone 

contacts with nine different government agencies (i.e., Idaho Transportation Department, county 

highway departments, city public works departments, and local highway districts). The 

identified traffic marking usage quantities were 45,250 gallons for Ada County, 40,381 gallons 

for Canyon County, and 6,590 gallons for Elmore County. The MSDSs and product 

specifications indicated various VOC contents; however, 150 grams per liter (g/l) was the most 

prevalent. Therefore, this VOC content was used for the estimating emissions. Emissions were 

calculated using the methodologies identified in the EIIP guidance document (EIIP, 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.) that were inventoried for the Treasure Valley 

inventory. These subcategories were all estimated by ratioing emission estimates from the 2002 

NEI. Each of the 13 industrial surface coating subcategories were assigned a specific NAICS 

code for which county-level employee data for 2002 and 2007 were obtained from County 

Business Patterns (U.S. Census, 2009a). Employee data were not available for 2008, so it was 

assumed that 2007 employee data were a reasonable approximation of 2008 employee data. 

The specific county-level NAICS code assignments for the 13 industrial surface coating 

subcategories are shown in Table 3-14. The 2007 employee data were adjusted downward based 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-19

upon employee counts obtained from telephone contacts with permitted point sources having 

NAICS codes relevant to the industrial surface coating area source category. These adjustments 

are also indicated in Table 3-14. 

Table 3-14. NAICS Code Assignments for Industrial Surface Coating 

Subcategories 

Industrial Surface Coating Subcategory NAICS Codes 

Factory Finished Wood 321XXX (Wood Product Manufacturing)a

Wood Furniture 337XXX (Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing)b

Metal 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 Products and Parts Manufacturing) 

Marine 3366XX (Ship and Boat Building) 

Railroad 3365XX (Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing)b

Miscellaneous Manufacturing 31XXXX (Manufacturing) 

a

Employee counts adjusted downward for Ada and Canyon counties. 

b

Employee counts adjusted downward for Ada County. 

a

Employee counts adjusted downward for Canyon County.

The Area Source Matrix previously presented in the IPP/QAP indicated that emission 

factors from EIIP guidance would be used for all industrial surface coating subcategories. As 

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 associated with industrial 

surface coating since the EIIP guidance is from 1997. 

The general equation used to estimate emissions for the industrial surface coating 

subcategories was: 

Where: 

E2007 = Emissions for 2007 inventory year (tons/year); 

E2002 = Emissions for 2002 inventory year (tons/year); 

EM2007 = Employees for 2007 inventory year (adjusted for point source employment, if 

necessary) (people); and 

EM2002 = Employees for 2002 inventory year (people). 

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = ×

2002

2007

2007 2002 EM

EM

E E
2008, 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: 

E2002 = 79.9 tons VOC 

EM2002 = 883 people 

EM2007 = 1,029 people 

E2007 = 79.9 tons VOC × (1,029 people/883 people) = 93.1 tons VOC

3.1.10 Degreasing 

The degreasing category consists of open top degreasing and cold cleaning for 13 sectors 

(e.g., furniture and fixtures, primary metal industries, fabricated metal products, etc.) for a total of 26 

subcategories that were inventoried for the Treasure Valley inventory. As with industrial surface 

coating, these subcategories were estimated by ratioing emission estimates from the 2002 NEI with 

employee count data. Each of the 26 degreasing subcategories were assigned a specific NAICS code 

for which county-level employee data for 2002 and 2007 were obtained from County Business 

Patterns (U.S. Census, 2009a). Employee data were not available for 2008, so it was assumed that 

2007 employee data were a reasonable approximation of 2008 employee data. 

The specific county-level NAICS code assignments for the 26 degreasing subcategories are 

shown in Table 3-15. The 2007 employee data were adjusted downward based upon employee 

counts obtained from telephone contacts with permitted point sources having NAICS codes relevant 

to the degreasing area source categories. These adjustments are also indicated in Table 3-15. 

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 downward for Ada and Canyon counties. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-21

The Area Source Matrix previously presented in the IPP/QAP indicated that emission 

factors from EIIP guidance would be used for all of the degreasing subcategories. As discussed 

for other categories above, it was felt that the per capita factors from the 2002 NEI 

documentation would be more representative of current conditions associated with degreasing 

since the EIIP guidance is from 1997. 

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

Where: 

E2007 = Emissions for 2007 inventory year (tons/year); 

E2002 = Emissions for 2002 inventory year (tons/year); 

EM2007 = Employees for 2007 inventory year (adjusted for point source employment, if 

necessary) (people); and 

EM2002 = Employees for 2002 inventory year (people). 

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from 

furniture and fixture open top degreasing in Ada County is as follows: 

E2002 = 12.6 tons VOC 

EM2002 = 325 people 

EM2007 = 566 people 

E2007 = 12.6 tons VOC × (566 people/325 people) = 21.9 tons VOC

3.1.11 Other Per Employee Emission Factor Source Categories 

In addition to industrial surface coating and degreasing, there were three other area 

source categories that were estimated using employee counts and per employee emission factors. 

These categories were autobody refinishing, industrial refrigeration/cold storage (NH3), and 

graphic arts. 

County-level employee data were obtained from County Business Patterns (U.S. Census, 

2009a) for 2007; employee data were not available for 2008, so it was assumed that 2007 

employee data were a reasonable approximation of 2008 employee data. The specific countylevel NAICS code assignments for autobody refinishing, industrial refrigeration/cold storage, 

and graphic arts are shown in Table 3-16. For autobody refinishing and graphic arts, the 2007 

employee data were adjusted downward based upon employee counts obtained from telephone 

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = ×

2002

2007

2007 2002 EM

EM

E E
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-22

contacts with permitted point sources having relevant 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

Industrial Refrigeration/ 31132X (Chocolate and Confectionery Manufacturing from Cacao Beans) 

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 (Beverage 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 IPP/QAP indicated that emission factors from EIIP guidance would 

be used for these categories (i.e. per employee 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 storage was obtained from 

EIIP ammonia guidance for anthropogenic nonagricultural sources (EIIP, 2004). 

The general equation used to estimate emissions for categories using per employee 

emission factors was: 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton E EF EM
2008, 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 NH3 emissions from Ada 

County cold storage is as follows: 

EM = 635 people 

EF = 30 lbs NH3/person 

E = 635 people × 30 lbs NH3/person × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 9.5 tons NH3 

3.1.12 Bakeries and Consumer Solvents 

Two source categories were estimated using per capita emission factors. These 

categories were bakeries and consumer solvents (e.g., personal care products, household 

products, etc.). 

County-level population data were obtained from the U.S. Census (U.S. Census, 2009b). 

For bakeries, an annual per capita bread consumption rate of 70 lbs of bread/person was 

combined with an 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 consumer solvents were obtained from the 2002 NEI 

documentation (U.S. EPA, 2006). The Area Source Matrix previously presented in the IPP/QAP 

indicated that the per capita emission factors from EIIP guidance would be used for consumer 

solvents; however, the EIIP guidance for consumer solvents is from 1996 and it was felt that the 

per capita factors from the 2002 NEI documentation would be more representative of current 

conditions associated with consumer solvents. 

The general equation used to estimate emissions for categories using per capita emission 

factors was: 

Where: 

E = VOC emissions (tons/year); 

EF = VOC per capita emission factor (lbs/person-year); and 

P = Population (people). 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton E EF P
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-24

A sample calculation using this equation for 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 collected using a mail-out survey (included as 

Appendix C) that was sent to dry cleaners located in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties in 

October 2009. Additional follow-up was conducted via phone during in January 2010. A total 

of 24 dry cleaners were identified as conducting on-site cleaning in the three counties. Of these 

24 dry cleaners, 13 exclusively used perchloroethylene, 10 exclusively used petroleum solvents, 

and 1 used both perchloroethylene and petroleum solvents. Since perchloroethylene is not a 

VOC species, it was not included in the 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 identified for Canyon County. Only two dry cleaners 

identified solvent being sent off-site; for both of these facilities, the off-site quantities exceeded 

the purchase statistics, so the purchase statistics for these facilities were excluded. Solvent 

densities were obtained from material safety data sheets (MSDSs) provided by the dry cleaners. 

It was assumed that purchase statistics were equal to emissions (i.e., all purchased solvent was 

used and subsequently evaporated). 

3.1.14 Asphalt Application 

Usage quantities of asphalt within the three-county area, as well as relevant material 

safety data sheets (MSDS) and product specifications, were obtained through telephone contacts 

with 11 different government agencies. These government agencies included the following: 

• Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), District 3 (Morrison, 2010a) 

• Highway districts: 

− Ada County Highway District (including City of Boise) (Nobel, 2010) 

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

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

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

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-25

− Canyon (Canyon County) Highway District No. 4 (Richard, 2010c) 

− Mountain Home (Elmore County ) Highway District (Tindall, 2010b) 

• City public works departments: 

− City of Caldwell Streets Department (Caldwell, 2010) 

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

− City of Mountain Home Public Works Department (Harvel, 2010) 

− City of Nampa Public Works Department (Barr, 2010) 

Usage quantities were collected for hot mix asphalt, emulsified asphalt, and cutback 

asphalt. However, based upon the survey-based methodologies identified in EIIP guidance 

documents (EIIP, 2001a), emissions were only estimated for emulsified asphalt and cutback 

asphalt (i.e., emissions are typically not estimated for hot mix asphalt and an appropriate 

methodology was not identified). 

Most of the asphalt applied in the three-county area is hot mix asphalt. Five agencies 

(i.e., ITD District 3, Nampa Highway District No. 1, City of Middleton, City of Mountain Home, 

and City of Nampa) used hot mix asphalt exclusively. Only two agencies (i.e., Golden Gate 

Highway District No. 3 and Mountain Home Highway District) identified any cutback asphalt 

usage with a total of only 75 tons. Emulsified asphalt usage was identified in four agencies (i.e., 

Ada County Highway District, Golden Gate Highway District No. 3, Canyon Highway District 

No. 4, and Mountain Home Highway District) with a total of 7,875 tons. 

Asphalt usage could not be obtained from Notus-Parma Highway District No. 2 and the 

City of Caldwell. Consideration was given to gap fill the missing data for these two agencies, 

but a reasonable approach could not be identified. For the City of Caldwell, asphalt data from 

the other three cities contacted was limited to hot mix asphalt, so there was no basis for 

extrapolation of cutback or emulsified asphalt. For Notus-Parma Highway District No.2, data 

from the three other highway districts in Canyon County were 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 District No. 1, emulsified and cutback asphalt for 

Golden Gate Highway District No. 3, and emulsified asphalt only for Canyon Highway District 

No. 4.). 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-26

A number of assumptions from the EIIP guidance were used to calculate emissions (EIIP, 

2001a). The cutback asphalt was assumed to be medium cure cutback and the emulsified asphalt 

was assumed to be medium set emulsified. In addition, asphalt densities of 7.8 lb/gal and 8.34 

lb/gal were assumed for cutback and emulsified, respectively. Likewise, diluent densities of 6.67 

lb/gal (cutback) and 8.34 lb/gal (emulsified) were also assumed. It was assumed that the diluent 

content of cutback asphalt was 35 percent (EIIP, 2001a), while recent research has indicated that 

the diluent content of emulsified asphalt is approximately 12 percent (Midwest, 2006). Finally, 

it was assumed that 75 percent of the cutback diluent evaporated, while 100 percent of the 

emulsified diluent evaporated.. 

Ozone seasonal daily emissions were estimated by dividing annual emissions by the 

number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days). All of the 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 application were estimated as indicated in the 

IPP/QAP Area Source Matrix. Planted crop acreage data were obtained from the 2007 Census of 

Agriculture (USDA, 2009). Pesticide application information (i.e., fraction of acreage applied, 

quantity of active ingredient per acre, and applications per year) were obtained from crop 

profiles: however, only 11 crop profiles were available (i.e., apples, barley, dry beans, sweet 

corn, lentils, mint, dry peas, green peas, potatoes, sugar beets, and wheat) (IPM Center, 2010). 

Only pesticides with application rates in terms of pounds per acre were considered; pesticides 

with unusual application rates (e.g., ounces per hundredweight of seed, ounces per linear row, 

etc.) were not included. Emissions were estimated using the methodology outlined in the EIIP 

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 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 IPM Center crop profiles were followed. If 

assumptions were made for specific pesticides, then pesticides with an active U.S. product 

regulatory status were selected. 

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

Where: 

Ep,t = Total emissions from pesticide p (tons VOC/year); 

Ep,a = Emissions from active ingredient of pesticide p (tons VOC/year); 

Ep,i = Emissions from inert ingredient of pesticide p (tons VOC/year); 

Rp = Application rate of pesticide p (lbs/acre-year); 

Ap = Harvested acreage that had application of pesticide p (acres); 

ap = Percent of active ingredient in pesticide p (%); 

EFp = Emission factor for active ingredient in pesticide p (lbs/ton); 

ip = Percent of inert ingredient in pesticide p (%); and 

Vp = Volatile content of inert fraction of pesticide p (%). 

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from the 

application of Bravo 500 (active ingredient chlorothalonil) on potatoes in Elmore County is as 

follows: 

Rp = 9.282 lbs/acre-year 

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

ap = 40.4 percent active ingredient 

ip = 59.6 percent inert ingredient 

Vp = 56 percent volatile content of inert ingredient 

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

Ep,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 

Ep,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 

Ep,t = Ep,a + Ep,i = 5.85 tons VOC + 8.34 tons VOC = 14.19 tons VOC 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ⎟ + × × × ×

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = + = × × × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton R A i V

2,000 lbs

1 ton Ep,t Ep,a Ep,i Rp Ap a p EFp p p p p
2008, 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 distribution area source category in order to avoid 

potential modeling difficulty. 

Emission factors for underground tank filling (Stage I), breathing and emptying losses, 

and tank truck transit losses were obtained from EIIP guidance (EIIP, 2001b). It was assumed 

that the Stage I underground tank filling was submerged fill throughout Ada, Canyon, and 

Elmore counties. Refueling (Stage II) emission factors were developed from MOBILE6 input 

files used by ENVIRON in their on-road motor vehicle analysis (Grant, 2010). 

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

Where: 

E = Emissions (tons VOC/year); 

EF = Emission factor (lbs/gal throughput); and 

T = Annual fuel throughput (gal/year). 

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from Ada 

County Stage I underground tank filling is as follows: 

T = 151,687,674 gallons (or 151,687.674 × 103

 gallons) 

EF = 7.3 lbs VOC/103

 gallons 

E = 151,687.674 × 103

 gallons × 7.3 lbs VOC/103 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 quantities of wastewater treated. Additional follow-up 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton E EF T
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-29

was attempted for the three non-respondent facilities (i.e., Glenns Ferry, Kuna, and Notus), but 

contact could not be made. Since these non-respondent facilities are located in small 

communities, they are likely comparatively small facilities and their missing data is unlikely to 

affect the overall uncertainty of the emission estimates. In addition, the wastewater quantities 

from the Eagle Sewer District Treatment Plant were not included since effluent from that facility 

is pumped to the West Boise Wastewater Treatment Plant for further processing. The emission 

factors were obtained from the 2002 NEI documentation report (U.S. EPA, 2006). 

It should be noted that the WATER9 model was identified as the wastewater treatment 

source category methodology in the IPP/QAP Area Source Matrix. However, further 

investigation revealed that the collection of the activity data needed to run WATER9 was 

extensive and it would be infeasible to collect for all of the wastewater treatment facilities 

located in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. Therefore, the alternate emission factor 

methodology described above was used to estimate emissions from wastewater treatment. 

3.1.18 Landfills 

Landfill gas is generated by microorganism within the landfill under anaerobic 

conditions. The primary landfill gas constituents are methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2); 

however, lesser amounts of VOC are also generated either from decomposition products or the 

volatilization of biodegradable wastes. 

Activity data for landfills were collected using a mail-out survey (included as Appendix 

C) that was sent to landfills located in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties in October 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 Butte Sanitary Landfill (Canyon County), and 

Mountain Home AFB (Elmore County). Emissions calculations for these three landfills 

confirmed that none of them exceed the VOC point source threshold of 10 tpy VOC. Therefore, 

emissions from these landfills were inventoried as an area source. 

Emissions were estimated using the methodology outlined in Section 2.4 of AP-42 (U.S. 

EPA, 2010). This methodology is based on a theoretical first-order kinetic model of CH4

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: 

QCH4 = Methane generation rate at time t (m3

/yr); 

Lo = Methane generation potential (m3

 CH4/Mg) (default value of 100 m3 CH4/Mg); 

R = Average annual refuse acceptance 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: 

QVOC = Emission rate of VOC (m3

/yr); 

CVOC = Concentration of VOC in landfill gas (ppmv) (default value of 835 ppmv); and 

CCH4 = Concentration of CH4 in landfill gas (assumed to be 50% expressed as 0.5). 

Where: 

UMVOC = Uncontrolled mass emissions of VOC (kg/yr); 

QVOC = Emission rate of VOC (m3

/yr); 

MWVOC = 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: 

Lo = 100 m3

 CH4/Mg 

R = 299,420 Mg refuse/year 

k = 0.02 

c = 0 years (active landfill) 

t = 35 years 

QCH4 = 1.3(100 m3

 CH4/Mg)( 299,420 Mg refuse/year)(e-[0.02 × 0] – e-[0.02 × 35]) = 

19,595,216 m3

/yr CH4

( ) kc kt

CH o Q L R e e − −

4 = 1.3 × × −

(1 10 )

6

4

4

× ×

× =

CH

CH VOC

VOC C

Q C Q

( )

(273 T) kg

1000 g

gmol- K

0.00008205 m - atm

1atm

3

× + ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

×⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

× = × VOC

VOC VOC

MW UM Q
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-31

CVOC = 835 ppmv 

CCH4 = 0.5 

QVOC = (19,595,216 m3

/yr CH4 × 835 ppmv)/(0.5 × 1,000,000) = 32,724 m3 VOC/yr 

MWVOC = 86.18 g/gmol 

T = 25 °C 

UMVOC = [(32,724 m3

 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 material originating outside of the three-county 

area. In addition, conversations 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, concerns over air quality and fire hazards have also 

affected the public acceptance level of open burning (Hutchinson, 2010). Therefore, an 

alternative methodology was used to estimate open burning emissions. 

The city and county codes were examined for all government entities located within Ada, 

Canyon, and Elmore counties. The codes were examined for mandatory residential waste 

collection requirements and prohibitions of household and/or yard waste burning. This 

examination was greatly facilitated by the availability of city/county codes on-line. The Boise city 

code was available from the City of Boise website (Boise, 2010). The city/county codes for 14 

other government entities (i.e., Caldwell, Eagle, Garden City, Greenleaf, Kuna, Meridian, 

Middleton, Mountain Home, Nampa, Parma, Star, Wilder, Ada County, and Canyon County) were 

maintained on-line by a codifying company (Sterling, 2010). The city/county codes for only four 

government entities (i.e., Glenns Ferry, Melba, Notus, and Elmore County) could not be identified. 

Based on the review of these city/county codes, the following information was determined: 

• Mandatory residential waste collection 

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

− Not explicitly required in Glenns Ferry, Greenleaf, Melba, Notus, Parma, Star, 

and the unincorporated portions of Canyon and Elmore counties 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-32

• Household waste burning 

− Explicitly banned in most areas located within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore 

counties 

− Not explicitly banned in Glenns Ferry, Greenleaf, Melba, Notus, and the 

unincorporated portion of Elmore County 

• Yard waste burning 

− Explicitly banned in only a few areas (i.e., Boise, Caldwell, Meridian, Nampa, 

and the unincorporated portion of Ada County) 

− Allowed in the other areas subject to necessary burn permits (typically from local 

fire agencies) and sufficiently low air quality index (AQI) values. 

It was assumed that household waste (i.e., municipal solid waste) and yard waste burning 

was conducted in all areas without explicit codified bans. National per capita waste generation 

rates for 2008 were derived from national statistics (U.S. EPA, 2009a). The per capita yard 

waste generation was reduced by 50 percent to account for the grass clippings portion which is 

typically not burned. These per capita waste generation rates were applied to the populations in 

the non-ban areas (i.e., 18,691 for household waste 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 generated 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 Inventory (U.S. EPA, 2006). 

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

Where: 

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

BF = Fraction of generated waste burned; 

W = Per capita waste generation rate (tons/person-day); 

P = Population (people); and 

EFp = Emission factor for pollutant p (lbs/ton). 

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from 

Elmore County household waste burning is as follows: 

BF = 28% of generated waste is burned 

W = 3.18 lbs waste/day 

P = 16,615 people without household waste burning bans 

[ ] ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × × × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton Ep BF W P EFp
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-33

EFp = 30 lbs VOC/ton waste 

E = 0.28 × 3.18 lbs waste/person-day × 16,615 people × 366 days/year × 1 ton 

waste/2,000 lbs waste × 30 lbs VOC/ton waste × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 40.6 tons 

VOC

3.1.20 Agricultural Tilling and Harvesting 

Emissions from both agricultural tilling and agricultural harvest operations were 

estimated using per-acre emission factors developed by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB, 2003a; CARB, 2003b). It was assumed that these per-acre emission factors provide a 

reasonable approximation of conditions in the Treasure Valley. Planted and harvested crop 

acreage data were obtained from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2009). 

The equation for estimating emissions from agricultural tilling and harvest activities is as 

follows: 

Where: 

Ec = Emissions for crop c (tons PM10/year); 

EFc = Emission factor for crop c (lbs PM10/acre planted/harvested); and 

Ac = Acres planted/harvested for crop c (acres/year). 

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual PM10 emissions from 

sugarbeet tilling in Ada County household waste burning is as follows: 

EFc = 22.8 lbs PM10/acre planted 

Ac = 1,976 planted acres of sugarbeets 

E = 1,976 acres × 22.8 lbs PM10/acre × 1 ton/2,000 lbs = 22.5 tons PM10

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 the 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 County. For estimation purposes, backfired 

wheat fuel loading and emission factors were assumed for the Ada County cereal grain acreage. 

Likewise, backfired alfalfa loading and emission factors were assumed for the Canyon other 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton Ec EFc Ac
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-34

acreage. Fuel loadings and emissions were estimated using appropriate emission factors from 

AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 2010a). 

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

Where: 

Ep,c = Emissions for pollutant p and crop c (tons/year); 

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

FLc = Fuel loading for crop c (tons/acre); and 

EFp,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 

EFp,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 Burning – Irrigation Ditches 

An additional source of agricultural burning that was not identified in the IPP/QAP Area 

Source Matrix was the burning of weeds in irrigation canals and ditches. The weeds in the ditch 

bottoms are typically burned during the month of March just before the irrigation water is first 

released in the spring. Although the ditch width is quite variable (i.e., from 3 feet to over 70 

feet), a typical ditch width was assumed to be 5 feet. The ditch length within a given irrigation 

district or ditch company can be quite extensive, but not necessarily well quantified. For 

instance, it was roughly estimated within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District that there 

were 500 to 600 miles of ditches (Anderson, 2010). A total of 56 irrigation districts and ditch 

companies have been identified by the Idaho Department of Water Resources in Ada and Canyon 

counties (IDWR, 2006; IDWR, 2007). Therefore, it was not feasible to contact all of the 

irrigation districts and ditch companies. An alternative data source for ditch lengths was 

identified in the U.S. Geological Service’s National Hydrography Dataset (USGS, 2010); ditch 

lengths were derived from a data layer of canals and ditches. Based on the National 

Hydrography Dataset, the county ditch lengths were estimated to be 796.28 kilometers (km) for 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton Ep,c ABc FLc EFp,c
2008, 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 emission estimation equation is identical to that 

used for agricultural field burning. 

3.1.23 Beef Cattle Feedlots 

This category includes PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from beef cattle feedlots and VOC 

emissions from all cattle and calves; NH3 emissions are addressed under the livestock ammonia 

category in Section 3.1.26. 

The total number of cattle and calves was obtained 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 Canyon County was explicitly reported; however, 

the population of cattle on feed for Ada County and Elmore County were not presented due to 

confidentiality reporting requirements. The overall population of cattle on feed for those 

counties in Idaho with confidentiality “shielded” data (including Ada and Elmore) was 

determined by subtracting known county populations of cattle on feed from the overall state 

population of cattle on feed resulting in the state shielded population. The state shielded 

population of cattle on feed was then allocated to the shielded counties based upon the reported 

quantity of other cattle (i.e., not beef cows or milk cows). The total number of cattle and calves 

was 66,476 head for Ada County, 129,561 head for Canyon County, and 109,065 head for 

Elmore County. The total number of cattle on feed was 13,770 head for Ada County, 7,221 head 

for Canyon County, and 24,862 head for Elmore County. 

The emission factors were obtained from the California Air Resources Board (CARB, 

2004). The PM10 emission factor was 28.9 lbs/1000 head-day, while the VOC emission factor 

was 12.8 lbs/head-year. Since the PM10 emission factor was units of lbs/head-day, it was 

necessary to determine how long each head of cattle on feed is typically present in the feedlot. A 

typical residence time of 136 days was obtained from a feedlot cattle behavioral study (Stanford 

et al., 2009). The annual VOC emissions were calculated for all cattle and calves regardless of 

whether or not they were located on a feedlot. 

 The equation for estimating emissions from beef cattle feedlots is as follows: 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-36

Where: 

E = Emissions (tons/year); 

EF = Emission factor (lbs/head); and 

BC = Beef cattle population (head). 

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual VOC emissions from Ada 

County is as follows: 

BC = 66,476 head 

EF = 12.8 lbs VOC/head-year 

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

3.1.24 Other Fires 

The other fire source category includes structural fires and vehicle fires. County-level 

structural and vehicle fire statistics were obtained from the Idaho State Fire Marshal’s Idaho Fire 

Incident 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 structural and vehicle sources 

categories is shown in Table 3-17. The specific county-level employee data 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 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton E EF BC
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-37

1.15 tons/fire was assumed for structural fires and a fuel loading of 0.25 tons/fire was assumed 

for vehicle fires. 

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

follows: 

Where: 

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

F = Annual structural or vehicle fires (fires/year); 

FL = Fuel loading (tons material/fire); and 

EFp = Emission factor for pollutant p (lbs/tons material). 

A sample calculation using this equation for estimating annual CO emissions from Ada 

County structural fire is as follows: 

F = 150 fires 

FL = 1.15 tons material/fire 

EF = 60 lbs CO/ton material 

E = 150 fires × 1.15 tons/fire × 60 lbs CO/person × (1 ton/2,000 lbs) = 5.2 tons CO

3.1.25 Windblown Dust 

The windblown fugitive dust emissions for the Treasure Valley Airshed were developed 

using the estimation methodology developed for the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) by a 

team of contractors led by ENVIRON (ENVIRON, 2004a) and subsequently revised by Mansell and 

others (Mansell, 2003a; 2003b; Mansell, et al. 2004). The methodology was based upon the results 

of wind tunnel studies and a detailed characterization of vacant lands. Windblown dust emissions 

were estimated hourly on a gridded modeling domain using hourly averaged wind speeds and 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 meteorological data, to determine the potential for 

wind 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. 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × × ×

2,000 lbs

1 ton Ep F FL EFp
2008, 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 modeling system for the development of windblown 

fugitive dust PM emissions requires the use of a larger Cartesian modeling grid domain. As 

such, the emission estimates described below include additional Idaho counties, as well as 

neighboring counties in Oregon. Figure 3-1 displays the modeling domain for which 

windblown dust PM emissions were estimated. In addition, the model requires hourly gridded 

meteorological data and generates emission estimates for each hour for the entire time period 

considered. For the DEQ inventory, these estimates 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 Domain for Windblown Dust Emissions 

Development 
2008, 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 relations, described below, requires the 

characterization of soil texture in terms of the four soil groups considered by the model. The 

characteristics or type of soil is one of the parameters of primary importance for the application 

of the emission estimation relations derived from wind tunnel study results. 

The windblown dust model utilized the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) 

available from the USDA (USDA, 2010). In some parts of the country, the SSURGO data are 

incomplete. Alternatively, the State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) was used to gap-fill 

the SSURGO data for the modeling domain (USDA, 1994). The STATSGO database provides 

detailed information concerning the taxonomy of the soils, including soil texture class, 

percentage of sand, silt and clay, and the available water capacity of the soil. Figure 3-2 displays 

the final merged soil texture data, which combines the SSURGO and STATSGO databases, as 

used in the windblown dust model. 

Land Use-Land Cover 

Land use-land cover (LULC) data required for the windblown dust model was derived 

from crop-specific GIS data layers obtained from the USDA NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL) 

Program and represent agricultural, as well as non-agricultural, lands throughout the region 

based on data for calendar year 2007 (NASS, 2007). The primary purpose of the CDL Program 

is to use satellite imagery to provide acreage estimates to the Agricultural Statistics Board for the 

state’s major commodities and produce digital, crop-specific, categorized geo-referenced output 

products. These data were reviewed and processed for use in the windblown dust model. Figure 

3-3 presents a display of the final land use/land cover data for the 4-km modeling domain. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-40

Figure 3-2. Merged Soil Texture Data from the SSURGO and STATSGO Databases 
2008, 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 Development 
2008, 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 influences, including irrigation and seasonal crop growth. 

As a result, several non-climatic correction or adjustment factors were developed for 

applicability to the agricultural wind erosion emissions. These factors included: 

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

• Crop canopy 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 surrounding and adjacent to agricultural fields). 

The methodology used to develop individual non-climatic correction factors was based 

upon previous work performed by the California Air Resources Board in their development of 

California-specific adjustment factors for the USDA’s Wind Erosion Equation (CARB, 1997). 

In order to apply the agricultural adjustments described above, crop information, 

including types of crops and planting schedules, were required. These crop data (i.e., crop types, 

tilling and harvesting practices, crop calendars, and planting and harvesting schedules) were 

obtained from the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (NASS, 2009b; USDA, 1997; USDA, 2009). In the windblown dust model, specific 

crop types were mapped to those recognized by the model, based on the Conservation 

Technology Information Center (CTIC) crop database, in order to provide a link between 

specific crop planting and harvesting schedules, tilling and irrigation practices, and canopy 

growth curves. Table 3-18 summarizes the Idaho-specific crop types and the mapping between 

DEQ’s data and the CTIC crop types. 

The windblown dust model used the percentage of canopy cover for each crop type as 

crops are grown throughout the year to apply various adjustments to the estimated hourly wind 

blown dust emissions. For the 2008 inventory, the crop canopy cover data, developed from 
2008, 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 for each crop type in 15-day increments throughout the year. 

Table 3-20 presents the Idaho crop canopy information regarding planting and harvesting dates 

by crop type and region used in combination with the canopy growth curves shown in Table 3-

19. These data are available for broad regions within the State of Idaho including the Central 

(C), Southwestern (SW) and South Central (SC) regions 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 (grain) Wheat WHE02 

FD12 Durum wheat (grain) Wheat WHE01 

FD13 Spring wheat (grain) Wheat WHE01 

SH01 All grass seeds Forage Crops HAY01 

SH02 Hay (alfalfa) Forage Crops ALF01 

SH03 Hay (small grain) Forage Crops HAY01 

SH04 Hay (other tame) Forage Crops HAY01 

SH05 Hay (wild) Forage Crops HAY01 

SH06 Corn (silage and greenchop) Corn COR01 

OT01 Hops n/a n/a 

OT02 Mint for oil (peppermint) Canola POT01 

OT03 Mint for oil (spearmint) Canola POT01 

OT04 Sweet corn (for seed) Corn COR01 

VG01 Onions, Dry Vegetables ONI01 

VG02 Peas, Chinese (sugar and snow) Vegetables PEA01 

VG03 Potatoes Potatoes POT01 

VG04 Sweet Corn Corn COR01 

FR01 Apples n/a n/a 

FR02 Cherries, Sweet n/a n/a 

FR03 Grapes n/a n/a 

FR04 Peaches n/a n/a 

FR05 Plums and Prunes n/a n/a 
2008, 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

Day
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010

3-45

Table 3-20. Idaho Planting and Harvesting 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 COR01 
2008, 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 provided by DEQ (Zhang, 2009). Required data 

fields included wind speeds, precipitation rates, soil temperatures and ice/snow cover. These 

data were obtained from DEQ and then reviewed 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 (soil and land use) and crop-specific agricultural 

information as described above. The windblown dust model estimation methodology was 

developed based 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 determined 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 the velocity versus the natural logarithm of height through the 

relationship: 

 

Where: 

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

u* = friction velocity (m/s); 

κ = von Karman’s constant (0.4); and 

z0 = 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 empirical relationships that are 

functions of the aerodynamic surface roughness length, z0 (Marticorena et al., 1997). Surface 

friction velocities, including the threshold friction velocity, are a function of the aerodynamic 

surface roughness lengths. The surface friction velocities are, in turn, dependent upon surface 

characteristics, particularly land use/land cover. The empirical 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 Velocity 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 determined as a function of surface friction 

velocity and soil texture. Key relationships were 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]) (Chatenet et al., 1996). Dust emission fluxes were estimated using 

relationships developed for each of the soil texture groups (Alfaro and Gomes, 2001; Alfaro et 

u*t = 0.31e7.44x(Zo)

R2 = 0.60

u*t = 0.30e7.22x(Zo)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

zo (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 mapping 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 Constrained by the Four Soil Geometric Mean 

Diameter Classes of Alfaro 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 = 2.45x10-6 (u*)

3.97

FS

F = 9.33x10-7 (u*)

2.44

M S

F = 1.243x10-7(u*)

2.64

CS

F = 1.24x10-7 (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-2 s-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 the surface roughness lengths, 

which in turn impact the potential for vacant lands to emit dust from wind erosion. 

An examination of the relationship between the threshold surface friction velocity and the 

aerodynamic surface roughness length, reveals that for surface roughness lengths larger than 

approximately 0.1 cm, the threshold friction velocities increase rapidly above values that can be 

realistically expected to occur in the meteorological data used in the model implementation. 

Therefore to simplify the model implementation, only those land types with roughness length 

less than or equal to 0.1 cm are considered as potentially erodible surfaces. 

For a given surface roughness, as determined by the land use type, the threshold friction 

velocity has a constant 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 (water/wetlands), 2 (forest/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 roughness length, Z0 (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 to 
2008, 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 precipitation and 

snow events and freezing conditions of the soils. A recharge time of 24 hours was assigned to all 

surfaces. In addition, it was assumed that no surface will generate emissions for 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 conditions were developed for treating these events 

based on seasons, soil characteristics and the amounts of rainfall and snow cover (Barnard, 

2003). In addition, the time necessary to re-initiate wind erosion after a precipitation event 

ranges from 1 to 10 days, depending on the soil type, season of the year, and whether the 

precipitation event rainfall amount exceeds 2 inches. 

Soil Disturbance 

The disturbance level of a surface has the effect of lowering the threshold surface friction 

velocity. Except for agricultural lands, which are treated separately in the model as described 

below, vacant land parcels are typically undisturbed unless some activity is present such as to 

cause a disturbance (e.g., off-road recreational vehicle activity in desert lands, animal grazing on 

rangelands, etc.). It was assumed that all non-agricultural 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 impacts related to fugitive dust transportability 

and partitioning between fine and coarse fractions of PM10. Transport fractions as a function of land 

use were assigned to all emission estimates (Pace, 2003; Pace, 2005). In addition, new fine fraction 

values developed from controlled wind tunnel studies of western soils were applied to determine the 

fine and coarse fractions of wind-generated fugitive dust emissions (MRI, 2005). 

Model Application 

The windblown fugitive dust model was applied for the entire calendar year 2008 at a 

spatial resolution of 4-km on a modeling domain encompassing the Treasure Valley Airshed. 

The model generates estimates of PM10 dust emissions. The fine fraction of dust is obtained by 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-52

using a PM2.5/PM10 ratio of 0.10 (MRI, 2005). Gridded emissions estimates were allocated to 

counties using GIS processing techniques and are summarized below. 

Emission Results for 2008 

Annual 2008 windblown dust emissions are presented in Table 3-23 for Ada, Canyon and 

Elmore counties. Annual emissions were calculated by summing hourly emission estimates 

across all days in calendar year 2008. 

Table 3-23. 2008 Annual Windblown Fugitive PM Dust Emissions for Ada, Canyon 

and Elmore Counties (Tons/Year) 

Annual 2008 (tpy) 

County FIPS PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (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 sources including: livestock, agricultural 

fertilizer application, natural soils, domestic sources, wild animals, and ammonia from cold 

storage/industrial refrigeration. With the exception of ammonia from cold storage/industrial 

refrigeration (see Section 3.1.11), emissions have been developed using a GIS-based ammonia 

emissions modeling system developed for the WRAP (Chitjian and Mansell, 2003a; Chitjian and 

Mansell, 2003b; Mansell, 2005). The activity and emission factor data and sources are described 

below. A description of the emission estimation methodology, as well as summaries of the 

ammonia emission estimates are also provided. 

Like the windblown dust model, the implementation of the modeling system for the 

development of ammonia emissions for the Treasure Valley Airshed emissions inventory requires the 

use of a Cartesian modeling grid domain that is larger than Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties. As 

such, the emission estimates described below include additional Idaho counties, as well as neighboring 

counties in Oregon. Figure 3-6 displays the modeling domain for which ammonia emissions were 

estimated. In addition, the model requires hourly gridded meteorological data and generates emission 

estimates for each hour for the entire time period considered. For the DEQ inventory, these estimates 

are aggregated to counties and summed across all hours of calendar year 2008, as described below. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-53

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 Domain for Ammonia Emissions Development 

Data Collection

Input data required by the model for each subcategory (i.e., livestock, fertilizer 

application, natural soil, domestic sources, wild animals, etc.) include: 

• Activity data; 

• Emission factors; and 

• Temporal variations. 

In addition, land use/land cover data and meteorology data for the inventory domain were 

used to run the model. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-54

Livestock Activity Data 

Ammonia emissions from livestock were developed using county-level head counts and 

dairy and beef cattle feedlot estimates provided by the DEQ (Strachan, 2009). The DEQ 

obtained these data (i.e., headcounts for dairy cattle and beef cattle on feedlots, including specific 

locations of dairies and feedlots) from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. However, in 

order to avoid disclosure of detailed information regarding any particular dairy or feedlot, DEQ 

subsequently aggregated these data to the 4-km grid cells within the modeling domain. The 

gridded dairy and beef cattle data for all Idaho counties were then used to spatially allocate 

county-level headcounts for 2008, obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS, 2009a). All other livestock ammonia emissions (i.e., poultry, swine, sheep and 

horses) within Idaho were estimated based on 2007 county-level head counts, which were 

obtained from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2009) and spatially allocated using 

gridding surrogates. For the portions of the two Oregon counties (i.e., Baker 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, poultry and swine were obtained from NASS (NASS, 

2009a). Table 3-24 summarizes the county-level livestock activity data for calendar year 2008. 

Livestock Emission Factors 

The approach used in the WRAP ammonia model does not treat the individual processes 

leading to ammonia emissions from various manure management practices, as has been the 

subject of recent research in the emission inventory development community. Instead, emission 

factors based on a “whole animal” approach are used. The emission factors are based on a recent 

literature review and are presented in Table 3-25 (Chinkin 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 Emission 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 that 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 developed using inverse modeling results (Chinkin 

et al., 2003; Gilliland et al., 2003). The factors were further adjusted to reflect the current ORD-
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-56

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 warmest months and minimum emissions during the 

late fall, as opposed to the coldest months. The minimum in the fall is explained by the 

relatively dry conditions at that time of the year. 

Table 3-26. Monthly Livestock Allocation Factors 

Month Temporal Allocation Factor 

January 67 

February 75 

March 75 

April 82 

May 126 

June 164 

July 183 

August 154 

September 115 

October 73 

November 51 

December 51 

 The diurnal variation of livestock ammonia emissions was also previously investigated 

(Chitjian and Mansell, 2003a). In general, the literature reports an increase in daytime emissions 

relative to nighttime emissions. A theoretical equation (i.e., Russell and Cass equation) was 

developed to predict diurnal emission variations as a function of meteorological data (Russell 

and Cass, 1986). The Russell and Cass equation relates hourly ammonia emission rates to 

temperature and wind speed as follows: 

Where: 

Ei = emission rate at hour i from animal waste decomposition; 

A = daily total emission rate for ammonia from animal waste = ∑ Ei; 

Ti = ambient temperature in degrees Kelvin at hour i; and 

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

m/s). 

( ) Ei ∝ [2.36 Ti −273 /10 ]Vi A
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-57

Although the seasonal and diurnal variations presented above are empirically based, they 

are consistent with the theory that greater temperatures and greater wind speeds will result in 

larger ammonia volatilization rates. 

For the 2008 DEQ inventory, the Russell and Cass equation was used to provide the 

diurnal variation of livestock ammonia emissions. This approach is consistent with first principal 

assumptions and with measurements showing increased ammonia release with increased 

temperature and wind speed. The monthly livestock allocation factors shown in Table 3-26 were 

used to allocate annual emission estimates to each month of the year. 

Fertilizer Application Activity 

Although the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) was contacted in order to 

obtain local county-level data, ISDA only maintains these data at a state-wide basis. Additionally, 

ISDA’s state-wide data did not include details on the specific types of fertilizers applied, as 

required by the WRAP GIS NH3 model. Therefore, ammonia emissions from fertilizer application 

were developed using monthly county-level fertilizer activity data obtained from the Carnegie 

Mellon University (CMU) Ammonia Model input database developed from the USDA’s National 

Agricultural Statistics Survey (NASS) (Strader et al., 2004). Table 3-27 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 application were based upon data 

from the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2002) as recommended by the WRAP model 

methodology (Chitjian and Mansell, 2003b). Emission factors for fertilizer application are 

presented in Table 3-28. As discussed in the 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): 

a = 0.3125× pH −1.01
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 3-58

Final, August 31, 2010

Table 3-27. 2008 Annual Fertilizer Application Data by Type and County (kg/ye

County State 

Anhydrous 

Ammonia 

Aqueous 

Ammonia 

Nitrogen 

Solutions Urea 

Ammonium 

Nitrate 

Ammonium 

Sulfate 

Ammonium 

Thiosulfate 

Ammoni

Phospha

Ada Idaho 313,638 14,867 332,092 898,450 300,150 284,480 48,777 3,050Adams Idaho 12,072 571 12,766 34,549 11,540 10,930 1,876 117Blaine Idaho 107,032 5,077 113,318 306,690 102,476 97,060 16,658 1,041Boise Idaho 4,426 210 4,690 12,698 4,243 4,020 689 43Camas Idaho 60,099 2,845 63,575 172,068 57,507 54,452 9,336 584Canyon Idaho 1,562,920 74,098 1,655,040 4,478,000 1,495,900 1,416,830 243,278 15,191Custer Idaho 34,458 1,632 36,479 98,748 32,971 31,237 5,365 334Elmore Idaho 541,010 25,648 572,460 1,549,100 517,810 490,700 84,235 5,257Gem Idaho 94,452 4,472 99,886 270,264 90,382 85,546 14,695 917Gooding Idaho 446,610 21,192 473,140 1,281,720 428,290 405,640 69,552 4,348Jerome Idaho 669,030 31,704 707,470 1,916,560 640,480 606,120 104,098 6,502Lincoln Idaho 151,368 7,163 160,234 432,790 144,836 137,088 23,523 1,473Owyhee Idaho 432,650 20,498 457,880 1,239,260 413,780 392,120 67,301 4,206Payette Idaho 259,124 12,298 274,398 741,760 248,242 235,088 40,327 2,519Twin Falls Idaho 1,131,320 53,482 1,201,180 3,269,500 1,091,410 1,038,610 177,732 11,252Valley Idaho 19,078 904 20,181 54,558 18,260 17,288 2,968 185Washington Idaho 193,948 9,191 205,400 555,660 185,754 175,930 30,170 1,884Baker Oregon 177,090 6,235 301,240 796,800 97,240 155,110 8,280 623Malheur Oregon 1,320,700 46,564 2,248,600 5,944,000 726,000 1,157,000 61,724 4,651
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-59

Table 3-28. Ammonia Emissions Factors for Fertilizer Application 

Fertilizer Type %N volatized as NH3 kg NH3/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 emission 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 fertilizer emissions are expected as temperature and 

wind speed affect ammonia production and volatilization. The 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 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, lands 

throughout the region based on data for calendar year 2007 (NASS, 2007). The primary purpose 

of the CDL Program is to use satellite imagery to provide acreage estimates to the Agricultural 

Statistics Board for the state’s major commodities and produce digital, crop-specific, categorized 

geo-referenced output products. These data were reviewed and processed for use in the 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-60

windblown dust model. Figure 3-3 (windblown dust section) presents a display of the final land 

use/land cover data for the 4-km modeling domain. 

Natural Soil Emission Factors: 

Natural soil ammonia emissions were estimated based on emission factors developed 

from recent research (Battye et al., 2003; Chinkin et al., 2003); these emission factors are 

presented in Table 3-29. 

Table 3-29. Ammonia Emission Factors for Native Soils 

Land type Emission Factor (kg/km2-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 emissions from native soils based on several 

environmental variables including monthly rainfall, surface air temperature, solar radiation, soil 

texture, land cover type and vegetative type (Potter et al., 2001). The model first calculated the 

available mineral nitrogen substrate for ammonia emissions and then modified this value by 

applying scalars for soil surface temperature (Ts), pH, and soil moisture content (M). The scalars 

are of the form: 

 

where ‘c’ is a constant, which determines the sensitivity to pH. The study authors used ‘c’ 

values of 1.3 (i.e., consistent with measurements made) and 10 (i.e, to produce results with 

minimal pH effects). The emission factors presented in Table 3-29 were modified for 

temperature and pH effects using these scalars using a ‘c’ value of 1.3. Soil temperature and soil 

moisture content are taken from the meteorological data used for the project as discussed below. 

( )

( ) M

pH c Ts

× −

⎪

⎭

⎪

⎬

⎫

⎪

⎩

⎪

⎨

⎧

+ ⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡ − × ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+ +

1

1 10

1

273.16

2729.92 0.09018
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-61

Natural Soil Temporal Variation 

The temporal allocation of native soil ammonia emissions were calculated using the 

emission factor scalars described above, which are temporally resolved based on the hourly 

meteorological data. 

Domestic Sources Activity Data 

Domestic sources of ammonia emissions considered in the current inventory include 

human respiration and perspiration, disposable and cloth diapers and domestic pets (cats and 

dogs). Ammonia emissions from domestic sources 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 for human perspiration and respiration. The number 

of cats and dogs are scaled based on total population. County-level estimates of infant 

populations are used to estimate ammonia emissions from cloth and disposable diapers. The 

2008 county-level population estimates are presented in Table 3-30 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 69,193
2008, 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 Factors 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 NH3/person-yr 

Human Respiration 0.0035 lb NH3/person-yr 

Cloth Diapers 6.9 lb NH3/infant-yr 

Disposable Diapers 0.36 lb NH3/infant-yr 

Domestic Sources Temporal Variation 

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

Wild Animal Activity Data 

Although ammonia emissions from wild animals constitute a comparatively small portion 

of the 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 were obtained from the Carnegie Mellon University 

(CMU) Ammonia Model input database (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 NH3 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 Factors 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 (NASS, 2007). LULC data is directly used for 

estimating natural soil ammonia emissions, as well as for spatial allocation of livestock and 

fertilizer application emissions, as described below. The land use classifications available in the 

CDL database are presented in Table 3-33. Figure 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 emissions. The State Soil Geographic Database 

(STATSGO) was used to specify the soil pH necessary for the development of the emission 

inventory for the project (USDA, 1994). Figure 3-8 displays the mean soil pH for the DEQ 

modeling domain.

Meteorology 

Gridded hourly meteorological data required for the model include wind speeds, ambient 

temperatures, soil temperatures and soil moisture and are based on the MM5/WRF model 

simulation results provided by DEQ (Zhang, 2009). 

Emission Calculation

Model Application 

A GIS-based modeling system was used to generate the gridded ammonia emissions 

inventory incorporating various improvements as implemented for the WRAP (Chitjian and 

Source Emission Factor Unit 

Black bears 4.536 kg NH3/animal-yr 

Grizzly bears 4.536 kg NH3/animal-yr 

Elk 24.48 kg NH3/animal-yr 

Deer 4.536 kg NH3/animal-yr 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010

3-64

Table 3-33. CDL Classifications and NH3 Model Cross-References 

CDL Code NH3 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 NH3 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 Herbaceous NLCD Non-Crop 

181 9 NLCD-Pasture/Hay NLCD Non-Crop 

182 10 NLCD-Cultivated Crop NLCD Non-Crop 

190 8 NLCD-Woody Wetlands NLCD Non-Crop 

195 8 NLCD-Herbaceous Wetlands NLCD Non-Crop 
2008, 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 Development 
2008, 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 

Database
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-68

Mansell, 2003a; Chitjian and Mansell, 2003b; Mansell, 2005). The county level activity data were 

used in conjunction with the emission factors and environmental factors described above to 

generate a gridded inventory of ammonia emissions on the DEQ 4-km resolution modeling domain. 

The gridded emission inventory was temporally resolved hourly. 

The modeling system applied gridding surrogates (described below) to the county-level 

emission estimates on an annual basis (or monthly for fertilizer application emissions). The 

effects of soil pH on the emission factors for fertilizer application were applied to the annual 

gridded ammonia emission estimates. Other environmental factors were incorporated in the 

temporal allocation modules since these factors impact the diurnal variation of emissions through 

gridded, hourly temperatures and wind speeds. For natural soil emissions estimates, the effects 

of soil conditions (pH and moisture) and meteorological data were both incorporated in the 

emissions estimates during the temporal allocation process. 

Spatial Surrogate 

The GIS model used for estimating ammonia emissions applied gridded spatial surrogates 

to county-level activity and emission factor data to generate gridded hourly emission estimates. 

Spatial surrogates were developed based on population and land use/land cover data. The land 

use data used for the project was processed for developing spatial surrogates through aggregation 

of individual land use classes into more broadly defined classes for spatial allocation of 

emissions. The spatial surrogate codes, associated land use classes and descriptions, as used in 

the model, are presented in Table 3-35 and displayed graphically in Figure 3-7 above. Each 

ammonia emission source category considered was then cross-referenced to the appropriate 

spatial surrogate code (both primary and secondary surrogate assignments), as shown in Table 3-

36. It should be noted that for beef and dairy cattle emissions, spatial surrogates were only used 

for the portions of the domain within Washington. Within Idaho, beef and dairy cattle were 

spatially allocated based on the gridded distribution of dairies and feedlots, as discussed above. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-69

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 – Evergreen 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 + Grasslands 14 – Forest + Shrub + Grasslands 

Emission Results 

The GIS NH3 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 counties intersecting the grid cell in 

proportion to the area of each of these counties within the grid cell. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-70

Annual 2008 ammonia emissions by source category are presented in Table 3-37 for Ada, 

Canyon and Elmore counties. Annual emissions were calculated by summing hourly emission 

estimates across all days in calendar year 2008. A comparison with previous inventories 

developed for calendar year 2010 by ERG/ENVIRON (ENVIRON and ERG, 2002) shows that 

the 2008 annual ammonia emission estimates for the Ada and Canyon counties are relatively 

consistent with the current estimates based on the WRAP GIS-based NH3 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 Methodologies – Ozone and PM Season 

After the annual area source emissions were estimated using the methodologies described 

in the various subsections of Section 3.1, the daily ozone season and PM season emission 

estimates were developed. The ozone season extends from April 1 through October 31 (i.e., 214 

days), while the PM season is from November 1 through February 29 (2008 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 data were not available, then U.S. EPA’s default 

temporal allocation profiles from its emissions modeling clearinghouse were used instead (U.S. 

EPA, 2002b). 

3.2.1 Fuel Combustion 

As part of the fuel survey mailed out to fuel dealers and distributors, monthly fuel 

quantity data were requested. In general, fuel respondents were able to furnish relevant monthly 

statistics. In a few cases, respondents were contacted by phone to clarify the appropriate 

seasonal distribution. These monthly fuel quantity data were used to develop seasonal fuel 

quantities which were then divided by the number of days in the season resulting in seasonal 

daily fuel use. As pointed out by several respondents, it should be noted that the monthly fuel 

quantity data were based upon fuel deliveries and not actual consumption. As a result, the 

reported monthly fuel quantity data probably lead consumption by a few weeks (i.e., fuel would 

ordered and stockpiled prior to the winter heating season). 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-71

Table 3-37. 2008 Annual Ammonia Emissions 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 4,805 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-72

3.2.2 Residential Wood Combustion 

Annual residential wood quantities were allocated to the ozone and PM seasons based 

upon results from the residential wood combustion survey (Aurora, 2010). The seasonal 

fractions were derived from survey responses concerning the number of times a particular device 

(i.e., fireplace, woodstove, insert, or pellet stove) was used each month. Seasonal fractions were 

estimated for each county and device type. These seasonal fractions were then multiplied by the 

annual residential wood quantities resulting in seasonal wood quantities. Finally, these seasonal 

wood quantities were then divided by the number of days in each season. 

3.2.3 Paved Road Dust 

The temporal allocation factors developed for 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 roadway type are shown in Table 3-38. As 

shown, emissions are higher in the PM season than the ozone season due to emissions potentials 

that were generally higher in the PM season than in the ozone season. Although precipitation 

factors and temporal activity factors have the effect of decreasing emissions in the PM season 

relative to the ozone season, differences in emission 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 emissions was performed in the same way as 

described in Section 3.2.3 for paved road dust. Although it is possible that unpaved road dust 

temporal allocations may differ from paved road dust allocations, there were no seasonal activity 

data available specific to unpaved roads. Therefore, paved road temporal allocations were 

assumed. Summer and winter road surface material silt content estimates taken from the 

TVRDS were used for the ozone and 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 roadway 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 estimates due to seasonal precipitation adjustments 

and higher estimated activity levels in the ozone season. 

Table 3-38. 2008 Seasonal Paved Road Dust Emission Estimates 

PM Season (TPD) Ozone Season (TPD) 

Roadway Type PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5

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 0.3
2008, 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 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5

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 established for the five commercial cooking 

subcategories. Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally distributed throughout the 

year, so seasonal daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366. 

3.2.6 Construction 

Inclement weather can possibly affect construction activities in the winter. The seasonal 

profile for construction activities was developed using precipitation adjustment factors based on 

the number of days with at least 0.01 inches of rain as shown in Table 3-4 and Table 3-7. For 

any day with precipitation, it was assumed that either construction activity did not occur or that 

the construction activities did occur did not have emissions due to wet soil. 

3.2.7 Architectural Surface Coatings 

Idaho-specific temporal usage patterns were not identified for architectural surface 

coatings. Therefore, the U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions 

modeling clearinghouse were used for architectural surface coating (U.S. EPA, 2002b). This 

temporal allocation profile is shown in Table 3-40. 

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 Transportation Department and the Canyon Highway District 

were contacted regarding the seasonality of traffic marking application (Morrison, 2010b; 

Newlun, 2010; Richard, 2010c). These staff indicated that generally traffic marking application 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-75

corresponds with the ozone season months and is not conducted during the winter (i.e., PM 

season). Therefore, daily ozone season traffic marking emissions were calculated by dividing 

annual emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days). 

3.2.9 Industrial Surface Coating 

Idaho-specific temporal usage patterns were not identified for industrial surface coating. 

Therefore, the U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions modeling 

clearinghouse were used for the 13 industrial surface subcategories (U.S. EPA, 2002b). The 

assignment of these temporal allocation profiles is shown in Table 3-41. The monthly values 

shown in Table 3-41 represent the monthly fractional value out of an annual total of 1,000. The 

ozone season and PM season factors are calculated by summing up the monthly fractional values 

for the respective seasons and then dividing by 1,000. 

Table 3-41. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignments for Industrial Surface 

Coating Subcategories 

Subcategory 

Profile 

ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Ozone 

Factor 

PM 

Factor 

Factory 

Finished Wood 173 81 81 82 82 82 86 86 86 85 85 85 81 0.5908 0.3273 

Wood Furniture 287 84 84 79 79 79 84 84 84 86 86 86 84 0.5826 0.3383 

Metal Furniture 287 84 84 79 79 79 84 84 84 86 86 86 84 0.5826 0.3383 

Paper 257 83 83 82 82 82 84 84 84 84 84 84 83 0.5846 0.3333 

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 degreasing 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 Allocation Profile Assignment for Degreasing 

Category 

Profile 

ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Ozone 

Factor 

PM 

Factor 

Degreasing 253 83 83 81 81 81 84 84 84 85 85 85 83 0.5846 0.3343 

3.2.11 Other Per Employee Emission Factor Source Categories 

No Idaho-specific seasonality could be established for two of the per employee emission 

factor source categories (i.e., autobody refinishing and industrial refrigeration/cold storage). 

Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally distributed throughout the year, so 

seasonal daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366. 

For graphic arts, the U.S. EPA’s default temporal allocation profiles from its emissions 

modeling clearinghouse were used (U.S. EPA, 2002b). This temporal allocation profile is shown 

in Table 3-43. 

Table 3-43. Temporal Allocation Profile Assignment for Graphic Arts 

Category 

Profile 

ID Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Ozone 

Factor 

PM 

Factor 

Graphic 

Arts 257 83 83 82 82 82 84 84 84 84 84 84 83 0.5846 0.3333 

3.2.12 Bakeries and Consumer Solvents 

No Idaho-specific seasonality could be established for the per capita emission factor 

source categories (i.e., consumer bakeries and solvents). Therefore, it was assumed that 

emissions were equally distributed throughout the year, so seasonal daily emissions were 

calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366. 

3.2.13 Dry Cleaning 

Although the dry cleaning survey included a question regarding month-to-month 

variations, 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 0.3313 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

3-77

3.2.14 Asphalt Application 

Local staff at the Idaho Transportation Department and the Canyon Highway District 

were contacted regarding the seasonality of asphalt application (Morrison, 2010b; Newlun, 2010; 

Richard, 2010b). These staff indicated that generally asphalt application corresponds with the 

ozone season months and is not conducted during the winter (i.e., PM season). Therefore, daily 

ozone season asphalt emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by the number of 

days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days). 

3.2.15 Pesticide Application

As discussed below in Section 3.2.20, it was assumed that all tilling and harvesting 

activities occur during the ozone season. Based upon this assumption, it is also reasonable to 

assume that most pesticide application also occurs during the ozone season (i.e., between tilling 

and harvesting). The crop profiles examined during the development of the annual pesticide 

application emissions indicate only minimal amounts of pre-planting or off-season pesticide use. 

Daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by the number of days in the 

ozone season (i.e., 214 days). 

3.2.16 Gasoline Distribution 

The gasoline distribution statistics were originally provided on a monthly basis. These 

monthly gasoline quantities were then used to develop seasonal gasoline quantities which were 

then divided by the number of days in the season resulting in seasonal daily gasoline use. 

3.2.17 Wastewater Treatment 

As part of the fuel survey mailed out to wastewater treatment facilities, monthly 

treatment quantities were requested. In general, the treatment facilities were able to furnish 

relevant monthly statistics. In a few cases, respondents were contacted by phone to clarify the 

appropriate seasonal distribution. These monthly treatment quantities were used to develop 

seasonal treatment quantities which were then divided by the number of days in the season 

resulting in seasonal 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 throughout the year, so 

seasonal daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366. 

3.2.19 Open Burning (Yard Waste and Household Waste)

No definite seasonality could be established for the open burning of yard waste and 

household waste. Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally distributed throughout 

the year, so seasonal daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366. It is 

possible that an announced burn ban might prevent open burning on a particular day with poor 

air quality, but the open burning would likely only be postponed to the next allowable burn day 

and would not significantly affect the overall temporal profile. It is also possible that an 

announced burn ban might also be ignored. 

3.2.20 Agricultural Tilling and Harvesting 

Based upon the Idaho Crop Progress and Condition Reports issued by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS, 2009b), the weekly crop progress (from April 6 to 

October 28) was identified. These weekly progress reports indicate regional climate, crop 

growth progress, and percent planted and harvested for the primary Idaho crops in four different 

regions. Nearly all of the Idaho crops within Ada, Canyon, and Elmore counties are planted and 

harvested during the crop progress reporting period. Since the crop progress reporting period 

very closely corresponds to the ozone season, it was assumed that all tilling and harvesting 

activities occur during the ozone season. Daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual 

emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days). 

3.2.21 Agricultural Burning – Fields 

As indicated in Section 3.1.21, agricultural field burning was only allowed between 

September 1 and October 31, 2008. Daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual 

emissions by the number of days in the ozone season (i.e., 214 days). 

3.2.22 Agricultural Burning – Irrigation Ditches 

As indicated in Section 3.1.22, irrigation ditch 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 equally distributed throughout the year, so seasonal daily emissions 

were calculated by dividing annual emissions by 366. 

3.2.24 Other Fires 

The Idaho Fire Incident Reporting System (IFIRS) did not provide any seasonal 

distribution of structure fires or vehicles. Therefore, it was assumed that emissions were equally 

distributed throughout the year, so seasonal daily emissions were calculated by dividing annual 

emissions by 366. 

3.2.25 Windblown Dust 

As discussed in Section 3.1.25, 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 all days in the season (April through October) 

and dividing by the total number of days in the ozone season. Similarly, PM season emission 

estimates were obtained by summing across all hours from November through February and 

dividing by the total number of days in the PM season. 

3.2.26 Ammonia Emissions 

As discussed in Section 3.1.26, the GIS NH3 model was run for each day in the 2008 

calendar year on the 4-km modeling domain. Annual emissions were calculated by summing 

hourly emission estimates across all days in calendar year 2008. Ozone season day 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 across all hours from November through February 

and dividing by the total number of days in the PM season. 

3.3 Emission Results 

The 2008 annual area source emissions are presented in Table 3-45 (all counties), 3-46 

(Ada County), 3-47 (Canyon County), and 3-48 (Elmore 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 Area Source Emissions – All Counties 

Aggregated 

Source Category 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3 

(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 

Activitiesa 0 0 104 0 161 16 51 

Industrial Surface 

Coating 0 0 3,235 0 0 0 0 

Other Surface Coatingb 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 

Applicationc 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 Disposald 0 0 88 0 0 0 1 

Agricultural Burning 0 0 20 174 31 31 0 

Other Agriculturale 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, autobody refinishing, and traffic markings. c Includes dry cleaning, graphic arts, asphalt application, and pesticides application. 

d Includes landfills and wastewater treatment. e Includes agricultural 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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3 

 (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 

Activitiesa

 0 0 67 0 94 9 10 

Industrial Surface 

Coating 0 0 2,229 0 0 0 0 

Other Surface Coatingb 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 

Applicationc 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 Disposald 0 0 63 0 0 0 1 

Agricultural Burning 0 0 5 44 8 8 0 

Other Agriculturale 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, autobody refinishing, and traffic markings. c

Includes dry cleaning, graphic arts, asphalt application, and pesticides application. 

d

Includes landfills and wastewater treatment. 

e

Includes agricultural 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 Area Source Emissions – Canyon County 

Aggregated 

Source Category 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3 

 (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 

Activitiesa

 0 0 32 0 59 6 39 

Industrial Surface 

Coating 0 0 905 0 0 0 0 

Other Surface Coatingb 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 

Applicationc 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 Disposald 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 

Agricultural Burning 0 0 13 111 20 20 0 

Other Agriculturale 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, autobody refinishing, and traffic markings. c Includes dry cleaning, graphic arts, asphalt application, and pesticides application. 

d Includes landfills and wastewater treatment. e Includes agricultural 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 Area Source Emissions – Elmore County 

Aggregated 

Source Category 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3 

 (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 

Activitiesa

 0 0 5 0 8 1 3 

Industrial Surface 

Coating 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 

Other Surface Coatingb 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 

Applicationc 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 Disposald 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 

Agricultural Burning 0 0 2 19 3 3 0 

Other Agriculturale 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, autobody refinishing, and traffic markings. c Includes dry cleaning, graphic arts, asphalt application, and pesticides application. 

d Includes landfills and wastewater treatment. e Includes agricultural tilling, agricultural harvesting, and beef cattle feedlots. 

3.4 QA/QC Procedures 

For the area source inventory development, the procedures described in the project 

IPP/QAP (ERG and ENVIRON, 2009) were used to check, and correct when necessary, the area 

source emission estimates. Area source emissions were estimated using calculational 

spreadsheets. Separate spreadsheets were developed for each area source category; these 

category-specific spreadsheets were then linked to a summary spreadsheet. The calculational 
2008, 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 scanned PDF format, ERG manually transcribed the 

data into an Access database using a front-end form. All input data were checked against the 

returned survey forms by senior ERG staff for accuracy. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

4-1

4.0 2008 ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES 

On-road mobile source emissions were estimated 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 model. For Ada and Canyon counties, the emissions 

were estimated on a link basis using the CONCEPT-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 model, 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 modeling; 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 using MOBILE6, but DEQ has initiated work with 

MOVES to ultimately replace MOBILE6-based emissions. 

Table 4-1. On-Road Motor Vehicle Categories 

ALVW = adjusted loaded vehicle weight 

GVWR = gross vehicle weight rating 

LVW = loaded vehicle weight 

On-road motor vehicle emissions were estimated for Ada, Canyon and Elmore counties 

as part of the Treasure Valley Airshed emission 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; 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 in 2008 and future years and estimated annual and average PM and ozone 

season day emissions for 2008, 2015 and 2023. ENVIRON 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 Vehicles (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 estimate emissions from on-road motor vehicles 

including transportation network information and traffic counts for developing temporal profiles, 

These data are described below. 

Boise Transportation Network and Temporal Profiles 

The CONCEPT-MV model calculates motor vehicle emissions on an hourly basis by 

vehicle class. The primary source of activity data comes from transportation 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 transportation network data used for the Boise 

network were provided by the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho 

(COMPASS). The traffic volume link data from 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 link. 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 temporal 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 temporal profiles were provided by the Idaho 

Transportation Department (ITD) (Fugit, 2010). The data consisted of twelve months of 2009 

observations from automatic traffic recorder (ATR) 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 Sites 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 sites experienced equipment trouble during that 

month, so the January observations from 2008 were substituted. 

The roadway type definitions used in CONCEPT-MV are those of the FHWA roadway 

classification system, shown in Table 4-3. The temporal profiles were constructed for these 

roadway classes, and the TDM data were also mapped to these classes. 

Table 4-3. FHWA Roadway 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 generated from the closest roadway type were assigned to the 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

4-4

missing types. Table 4-4 displays the roadway 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 length bins, lanes, and 15 minute intervals 

in each hour. 

2) Each observation hour was checked for completeness; 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 completeness; 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 and 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 profiles, sites with fewer 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 calculated 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 sum 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

Hour

Fraction 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 urban interstates is presented 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 for all roadway types is presented in Figure 

4-3. In general, there is greater 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

Day

Fraction 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

Month

Fraction of Total Traffic

Rural Principal Arterial

Rural Minor Arterial

Urban Interstate

Urban Principal Arterial

Urban Minor Arterial
2008, 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 vehicle type, especially 

of heavy and light-duty vehicle types that are matched with MOBILE6 emission factors. 

CONCEPT requires only hourly vehicle mix profiles, 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 provided by ITD as that used to create the total 

volume temporal profiles. The vehicle lengths were converted to the MOBILE vehicle classes in 

a two-step process. First, the lengths were mapped 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 development 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 Vehicle 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 Unclassifiable 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

4-8

Table 4-6. Fractional Allocation 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) – Condensed Class 1 (Motorcycles) 

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

trucks) 

• ITD Length Bin 3 (23-39.9 feet) – Condensed Class 5-7 (Single unit trucks, small 

truck/trailer combinations) 

• ITD Length Bins 4 and 5 (40-69.9 feet, 70 feet 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 Class 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 fractions of Classes 2 and 3 in the 2000 national 

Vehicle Travel Information System (VTRIS) dataset were used by roadway type. These relative 

splits are presented in Table 4-7. The split factors 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 hourly vehicle mix profiles from Sunday through 

Saturday for urban interstates and urban minor arterials. 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 July 
2008, 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 emissions 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 distribution 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 considered 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 inclusion in the National Emission 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 differences 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 distributions for light duty vehicles 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 describe the MOBILE6 inputs 

used in the base year 2008 modeling for anti-tampering parameters, inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) programs and all other inputs, respectively. 

Table 4-8. 2008 MOBILE6 Inputs 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 MOBILE6 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 

Fuel Reid Vapor Pressure Other Months: 15 Other Months: 15 

(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 modeling setup and results of the February 

episode. 

Region Definition

The CONCEPT modeling region was 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 dataset used in the modeling was generated 

by DEQ from archived University of Washington (UW) MM5 and WRF model forecast runs. In 

2008, UW switched their forecasting system from MM5 to WRF on April 15. UW provided a 

program to convert WRF outputs back to MM5 data format. Therefore, one portion of DEQ's 
2008, 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 O3 and 

PM2.5 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 VMT activity by vehicle class and day of week. 

Figures 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 show emissions by episode day for TOG, NOx and PM2.5, respectively. 

Figure 4-10 shows the average minimum 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 distribution 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 day

Emissions (tons)

MC

LDGV

LDGT2

LDGT1

LDDV

LDDT

HDGV

HDDV

Figure 4-7. TOG Emissions by Day Showing Vehicle Class Contributions 
2008, 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 day

Emissions (tons)

MC

LDGV

LDGT2

LDGT1

LDDV

LDDT

HDGV

HDDV

Figure 4-8. NOx 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 day

Emissions (tons)

MC

LDGV

LDGT2

LDGT1

LDDV

LDDT

HDGV

HDDV

Figure 4-9. PM2.5 Emissions by Day Showing Vehicle Class Contributions 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

4-18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

02012008 Fri

02022008 Sat

02032008 Sun

02042008 Mon

02052008 Tue

02062008 Wed

02072008 Thu

02082008 Fri

02092008 Sat

02102008 Sun

02112008 Mon

02122008 Tue

02132008 Wed

02142008 Thu

02152008 Fri

Temperature (F)

 Min Temp

 Max Temp

Figure 4-10. Daily Minimum and Maximum 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 Vehicles (LDGV) Hourly VMT Profiles by 

Episode Date 
2008, 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 Vehicles (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 Weekday Episode Day (Wednesday 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 Distribution 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 the Boise network are the LDGV and LDGT1 

vehicle classes. The daily TOG emissions shown 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 NOx and the highest contributor to PM2.5 vehicle 

emissions in the Boise network. Although HDDV makes up a low percentage of the VMT, 

HDDV vehicles have significantly higher emission rates of both NOx and PM2.5. 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 NOx emissions are LDGV, LDGT1, and LDGT2. 

Unlike HDDV, these light gasoline vehicle classes 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 the overall emissions by day of week (e.g., 

Tuesdays [February 5 and February 12] have the same PM2.5 emissions, etc.) not seen in TOG or 

NOx charts (Figures 4-7 and 4-8). This is because, unlike TOG and NOx, PM2.5 has no 

temperature dependency in the MOBILE6 model. PM2.5 emissions depend only on fuel property 

inputs (specifically, fuel sulfur) and VMT. The entire February episode used a single winter fuel 

so the day-to-day changes in PM2.5 emissions are only due to the VMT variation between days of 

the week. 

4.1 Emission Calculation Methodologies – Annual 

DEQ ran CONCEPT-MV for four months to represent the four seasons 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 number 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 developed 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 changes 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 calculated as the sum of 

emissions over the four seasons. 

4.2 Emission Calculation Methodologies – Ozone and PM Season 

For Ada and Canyon counties, the average O3 season daily emissions were computed by 

dividing the modeled summer season total emissions for each county by the number of days in 

summer. Similarly, average PM2.5 season daily emissions were estimated 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 O3 and PM2.5 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 season day emissions for each county. July 

average emissions were used to best represent 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 NOX SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3

Ada 5,114.3 27.2 4,022.0 45,574.2 125.2 75.6 311.6

Annual Canyon 3,138.5 12.7 3,093.9 33,553.8 60.4 37.0 143.5

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 Contributions to 2008 Ada County Annual 

Emissions 
2008, 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 Contributions 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 Contributions to 2008 Elmore County Annual 

Emissions 
2008, 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 Contributions 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 Contributions to 2008 Canyon County 

Average Ozone Season Day Emissions 
2008, 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 Contributions 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 Contributions to 2008 Ada County Average 

PM Season Day Emissions 
2008, 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 Contributions 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 Contributions to 2008 Elmore County Average 

PM Season Day Emissions 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

4-28

4.4 QA/QC Procedures 

DEQ implemented ENVIRON’s quality assurance (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 reviewed all DEQ run scripts and log files. 

Finally, ENVIRON generated an additional QA comparison of emissions between the four 

months and three years with detail 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, ENVIRON 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 SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY 

Nonroad mobile sources encompass a wide variety of equipment types that either move 

under their own power or are capable of being moved from site to site. Nonroad mobile 

equipment sources, not licensed or certified as highway vehicles, are defined as those that move 

or are moved within a 12 month period and are covered under the U.S. EPA's emissions 

regulations as nonroad mobile sources. There are three types of nonroad mobile sources: 

nonroad equipment, locomotives, and aircraft 

5.1 Emission Calculation 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 categories shown below; Treasure Valley emissions 

from all listed categories but airport ground support equipment were estimated using the 

NONROAD model. 

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

• Airport ground support (e.g., 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 garden 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 equipment emissions using the NONROAD model 

are equipment population and activity data, and allocation factors. Nonroad equipment 

population by county is estimated in the model by geographically allocating national engine 

population through the use of econometric indicators, such as construction valuation. U.S. EPA 

encourages state and local agencies to develop local data from surveys, but such work is 

expensive and difficult to carry out, and only a few agencies in the country have done so. 

However, some local information for Idaho populations was available and these data were used 

to update the NONROAD model data as described below. 

Pleasure Craft and Recreational Equipment Population 

Pleasure craft and recreational equipment population data were collected 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 pleasure craft and recreational equipment population. 

Although county-level registration data were available, county-level data were not used for 

county allocation purposes. Registration is not considered to be a suitable surrogate for pleasure 

craft or recreational equipment activity because these types of equipment are often used in 

counties other than where they are registered. The current U.S. EPA NONROAD allocation 

method uses water surface area for pleasure craft and the number of RV parks and recreational 

camps (NAICS code 72121X) from County Business Patterns because they are considered to be 

better indications of actual usage in each area. 

Table 5-1 shows a comparison of NONROAD model default and Parks and Recreation 

derived by-county population estimates for 2008. 

Table 5-1. 2008 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 387 773 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-3

One potential source of double-counting could not be eliminated in the recreational 

marine data. The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation does not make a distinction in its 

boat registrations for boats that are completely non-motorized (i.e., sailboats with no on-board 

engines). Although these boats do not contribute to emissions, there was no way to determine 

the fraction of the registered boats that fit this category. It was assumed that these nonmotorized sailboats comprise a negligible portion of the recreational marine population. 

Agricultural Equipment Population 

Agricultural equipment population estimates obtained from the 2007 Census of 

Agriculture (USDA, 2009) were used to modify the NONROAD default population files. Table 

5-2 shows the NONROAD model default and revised agricultural equipment populations. Given 

the large differences in agricultural tractor population estimates between the NONROAD model 

and the Census of Agriculture, it is important to note that the Census of Agriculture statistics may 

not be fully compatible with the NONROAD model activity estimates (hours per year). 

NONROAD equipment population estimates may consider only those pieces of equipment that 

are active, while the Census of Agriculture counts all equipment types including those pieces of 

equipment that are rarely used. In the NONROAD model, agricultural equipment population 

estimates are derived by allocating the nationwide population to the state level according to the 

fraction of harvested cropland within each state; statewide population is then allocated to the 

county level using the same metric. The advantage of using the Census of Agriculture is that it 

contains actual population estimates for specific types of agricultural equipment in each county, 

as opposed to the NONROAD model, which relies on the scaling of nationwide data to the 

county level. 

Table 5-2. NONROAD Model 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 34 
2008, 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 Service (NASS) (NASS, 2009a; NASS, 2009b). This information was 

used to develop the monthly agricultural equipment usage profile shown in Figure 5-1. Similar 

to the default profile, the local profile shows high activity for agricultural equipment in the 

summer, and it also incorporates higher activity in spring and fall months due to planting and 

harvesting operations which occur during these seasons. 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Local

NR default

Figure 5-1. Local Off-Road Agricultural Equipment Monthly Temporal Profile 

Construction Equipment Temporal Profile 

Telephone interviews were conducted with municipal government staff located within the 

inventory domain with knowledge of various types of construction (McCain, 2010; Winterfeld, 

2010; Walter, 2010; Chase, 2010; Girard, 2010). Based on employee input, local construction 

equipment monthly temporal profiles were estimated as shown in Figure 5-2. Similar to the 

default profile, the local profile shows high activity for construction equipment in the summer, 

and it incorporates higher activity in the late spring months relative to the default profile. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-5

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 Equipment Monthly Temporal Profile 

Lawn and Garden Equipment Temporal Profiles 

Lawn and garden equipment temporal profiles were developed using a methodology 

similar to what was applied to develop lawn and garden equipment temporal profiles for the 

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (ECR, 2005). Lawn and garden equipment was 

divided into four usage associations: lawn-related, soil-related, leaf-related, and wood-related, 

the details of these usage associations are shown in Table 5-3. 

Staff from the City of Boise Park and Recreational Service Department (Woodward, 

2010; Teddicken, 2010), Ada County Highway District (Mills, 2010) and the City of Nampa 

Parks (Moran 2010) were contacted regarding monthly temporal profiles for the usage of each of 

these types of equipment. Based upon these local data, local lawn and garden equipment 

seasonal usage profiles were estimated as shown in Figures 5-3 and 5-4. The NONROAD 

default temporal profile is a single profile applied to all types of lawn and garden equipment and 

shows the highest activity in the summer and relatively lower activity in the spring and fall and 

very little activity in the winter. Local data indicated that lawn-related equipment usage was 

highest in the summer, as expected, with activity in the spring slightly higher than activity in the 

autumn and very low activity in the winter. For soil-related equipment, the highest activity was 
2008, 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 equipment activity was estimated to be the highest in 

the spring due to wood cutting activity that occurs during this season. 

Table 5-3. Lawn and Garden Equipment Temporal Profile Groupings 

Equipment Type Usage Association 

Front 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 Leaf-Related Lawn and Garden Equipment 

Monthly Temporal Profiles 
2008, 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 and 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 record monthly averages from the Western Regional 

Climate Center for the following stations: Boise WSFO Airport (Ada County), Nampa Sugar 

Factory (Canyon County), and Mountain Home (Elmore 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 Gasoline 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 11.5 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-8

Annual base year 2008 nonroad equipment emissions are shown in Table 5-5 and Table 

5-6 by county and equipment type, respectively. A majority of the nonroad equipment emissions 

for all pollutants were emitted in Ada County. Like most nonroad emission inventories, the 

primary source of VOC and CO emissions was lawn and garden equipment which is primarily 

made up of gasoline fueled equipment. The highest contributors to NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and 

NH3 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 NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3

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 Nonroad Equipment Emissions by Equipment Type (Ada, 

Canyon, and Elmore Counties Combined) 

Category VOC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3

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 equipment [GSE], for 2008 were obtained from work 

performed to develop U.S. EPA’s 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI2008). Activity data 

for aircraft emissions are landing-takeoff cycles (LTOs), and emission factors are primarily from 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System 

(EDMS). 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-9

The FAA EDMS model combines specified aircraft and activity levels with default 

emissions factors in order to estimate annual inventories for a specific airport. Aircraft activity 

levels in EDMS are expressed in terms of LTOs, which consist of the four aircraft operating 

modes: taxi and queue, take-off, climb-out, and landing. Default values for the amount of time a 

specific aircraft spends in each mode, or the time-in-modes (TIMs), are coded into EDMS. 

Aircraft emissions were estimated for four aircraft categories: 

• Air carriers (i.e., larger turbine-powered commercial aircraft with at least 60 seats or 

18,000 lbs payload capacity); 

• Air taxis (i.e., commercial turbine or piston-powered aircraft with less than 60 seats 

or 18,000 lbs payload capacity); 

• General aviation aircraft (i.e., small piston-powered, non-commercial aircraft); and 

• Military aircraft. 

Airport GSE includes equipment such as fuel trucks, cabin service truck, baggage belt 

loaders, and pushback tugs and tractors. Auxiliary power units are used to power ventilation, 

cooling, and heating systems when an aircraft’s engine is off and to provide power to start the 

main aircraft engines. 

Necessary LTO activity and emissions data in database format, as well as aircraft 

emissions documentation (ERG, 2010) were obtained from U.S. EPA’s NEI2008 website (U.S. 

EPA, 2010b). 

The Boise airport was the only airport in the study region for which EDMS was run with 

airport specific activity data. For all other airports, LTO data were applied to average LTO timein-mode and emission factors. Additional calculations were performed to estimate ammonia 

emissions, which were not included in the NEI2008 data. For ammonia, air carriers and military 

aircraft were assumed to be dominated by turbine-powered aircraft running lean, thus producing 

a negligible amount of ammonia. For general aviation and air taxi piston engine aircraft LTOs, 

ammonia emissions were estimated using a fleet-average fuel consumption rate from the EDMS 

data for piston engines, operational mode-specific fuel flow rates weighted by the typical time 

spent in each mode, average hours of operation estimated from FAA data, and a grams per gallon 

emission factor for non-catalyst light-duty gasoline engines. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-10

Airport GSE and APU emissions were estimated for the NEI2008 by using EDMS 

activity defaults associated with commercial aircraft LTOs and time-in-mode. Airport GSE 

emission factors in EDMS are derived from EPA’s NONROAD2005 model. The main change 

to NONROAD2008 emission rates was incorporating recreational marine diesel and spark 

ignition engine standards; airport ground equipment emission rates did not undergo major 

changes. The NONROAD model estimates county level 2008 airport GSE populations by 

growing historic national population to 2008, and allocating national population according to 

2002 National Emission Inventory (NEI2002) NOx emissions. The NEI2008 airport GSE 

emission estimates were used because these emissions were based on actual 2008 commercial 

aircraft data rather than estimates based on growth projections and allocations used in the 

NONROAD model. 

Aircraft associated emissions (including aircraft, APUs, and airport GSE) are presented 

by airport in Table 5-7 and graphically by emission source in Figure 5-5. Consistent with LTO 

activity distribution, Treasure Valley 2008 aircraft associated emissions were dominated by a 

few major airports: Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field, Caldwell Industrial, and Nampa Muni. 

Together, these airports accounted for 80 percent or more of the aircraft emissions for all 

pollutants, except for NH3. NOx and SO2 emissions are dominated by commercial aircraft, while 

VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, and NH3 emissions are primarily from general aviation aircraft. 

5.1.3 Locomotives 

Locomotive emissions are a significant source of NOx and PM emissions. The 

overwhelming majority of locomotive activity in the United States is from a handful of Class 1 

freight railways, and only one of these, Union Pacific, operates in the Treasure Valley study region. 

Railroads 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 line-haul locomotives are 

usually not based at any individual rail yard, and so can operate over a wide region, even across 

the entire country. Switching locomotives are based at individual rail yards for a longer period 

(i.e., 6 months or longer) and therefore operate close to that rail yard. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-11

Table 5-7. 2008 Aircraft Associated Emissions by Airport (Tons/Year) 

Facility Name VOC NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3

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 0.012 0.0006 

St. Alphonsus 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000 

St. Luke’s Boise Medical Center 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 0.001 0.0000 

Young 0.080 0.005 0.847 0.017 0.012 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 0.06 
2008, 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 NH3

Fraction of Ttoal Emission(tons/yr)

APU 

Airport GSE

Military Aircraft

General Aviation

Air Taxi

Commercial Aircraft

Figure 5-5. 2008 Aircraft Associated 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 Administration (FRA) with the permission of the Class 1 railroad 

(Union Pacific) in the region. Smaller railroads received a data request for 2008 line-haul and 

switching locomotive activity estimates. Switching 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 emission calculations were gathered from the FRA 

and through data requests. The primary activity data collected under this program are gross 

tonnage (combines the weight of the locomotives, cars, and freight) that are combined with the 

rail link length to estimate gross ton-miles of freight movements (Wright, 2010). Permission was 

obtained from the Class 1 railroad Union Pacific to release the railroad specific activity data for 

2008 within the study domain. Public databases of rail activity for the National Transportation 

Atlas Database only provide link-level mainline activity in activity ranges (BTS, 2009), but the 

FRA data gathered specific activity for the purpose of estimating emission inventories. The FRA 
2008, 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 quality 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 shapefiles 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 applications. Rail links were spatially defined polylines that contain a 

large amount of attributes describing a link. The link data relevant to the project included the rail 

line spatial descriptions, as well as the specific activity. The node descriptions were latitude and 

longitude point estimates with actual sinuous link length between nodes. The rail owner field 

defined the primary owner and other 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 activity 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 mainline links were representative of line-haul 

tracks and non-mainline links were representative of switch or siding tracks. In addition to the 

link route data, the FRA link nodes file spatially described the beginning and end point 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-14

coordinates of every link. The detailed FRA freight tonnage data were cross-referenced with the 

mainline link route data. Figure 5-6 shows the network densities within 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 activity 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 Pacific 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 consumptiona 226 gal/day 

Annual fuel consumption 44,070 gal/year 

a

 Fuel consumption based on 24 hours of operation per day 
2008, 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 converted rail gross tonmiles to fuel consumption using railroad freight efficiency to estimate fuel consumption for each 

rail link. The U.S. EPA guidance provided fleet averaged emission factors in terms of grams per 

gallon. This calculation is as follows: 

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 retrofit standards. Existing Tier 0, 1, and 2 

engines will be subject to retrofit at the time of rebuild; so the engines will be rebuilt gradually 

throughout their remaining useful life. The emission standards and 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 cycle (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 (NOx), and particulate matter (PM) 

in terms of grams per gallon for the calendar years from 2006 to 2040. These U.S. EPA 

forecasts included the impact of new engine emissions standards and the expected rates of new 

locomotive purchases and older locomotive retirements. 

E = FT × M × FE × EF
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-16

Table 5-10. Locomotive Emission Standards for Line-haul (Duty Cycle) Engines 

Emission Standard 

Applicable 

Year 

HC 

(g/hp-hr) 

CO 

(g/hp-hr) 

NOx

(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 – finala 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 – finala 2008/2010 0.55 5.0 7.4 0.22 

Tier 2 – original 2005 0.30 1.5 5.5 0.20 

Tier 2 – finala 2010/2013 0.30 1.5 5.5 0.10 

Tier 3 2012-2014 0.30 1.5 5.5 0.10 

Tier 4b 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 NOx standard can be a 1.4 NOx + HC standard.

Table 5-11. Locomotive Emission Standards for Switching (Duty Cycle) Engines 

Emission Standard 

Applicable 

Year 

HC 

(g/hp-hr) 

CO 

(g/hp-hr) 

NOx

(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 – finala 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 – finala 2008/2010 1.20 2.5 11.00 0.26 

Tier 2 – original 2005 0.60 2.4 8.10 0.24 

Tier 2 – finala 2010/2013 0.60 2.4 8.10 0.13 

Tier 3 2012-2014 0.60 2.4 5.00 0.10 

Tier 4b 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 NOx standard can be a 1.3 NOx + 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 railroads for all calendar years. The SO2 emission rates 

were determined by converting the fuel sulfur where the fuel sulfur level was assumed to be 351 
2008, 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 Factors for Calendar Years 1999 and Earlier 

Locomotive Type 

HC 

(g/hp-hr) 

CO 

(g/hp-hr)

NOx

(g/hp-hr)

PM 

(g/hp-hr) 

Fuel Consumption

(hp-hr/gallon) 

Line-Haula 0.48 1.28 13.0 0.32 20.8 a

Line-haul locomotives over the line-haul duty-cycle. 

Table 5-13. Average Line-Haul Locomotive Emission Factors 

Class 1 Class 2/3 Line-Haul 

Year 

HC 

(g/gal) 

NOx

(g/gal) 

PM 

(g/gal) 

HC 

(g/gal) 

NOx

(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 terms 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-wide activity were obtained from the AAR (AAR, 

2009). Table 5-14 presents the average system-wide fuel efficiency as well as the individual 

system-wide fuel efficiency for the Class 1 railroad operating in the study region. Combining the 

emission factors in Table 5-13 with the fuel efficiency 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 Railroad Emission Factors for 2008 

Year Railroad 

HC 

(g/GTM) 

CO 

(g/GTM) 

NOx

(g/GTM) 

PM 

(g/GTM) 

2008 Average 0.0092 0.027 0.172 0.0052 

2008 UP 0.0087 0.026 0.164 0.0050 

The emissions factors from Table 5-15 were applied to the FRA activity data by link and 

summed by county; the line-haul emissions results are shown in Table 5-16. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-18

Table 5-16. 2008 Line-haul Locomotive Emissions (Tons/Year) 

Railroad County HC VOC CO NOx PM10 SO2 NH3

UP Ada 14.68 15.46 43.43 275.70 8.32 3.06 0.19

Canyon 17.91 18.86 52.97 336.24 10.15 3.74 0.23

Elmore 31.11 32.76 92.03 584.18 17.63 6.49 0.40

Total 74.30 78.23 219.79 1395.13 42.10 15.50 0.96

INPR Ada 0.41 0.43 0.82 8.52 0.20 0.004 0.07

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 includes whole trains, sets of cars, and repositioning equipment 

along the mainline rail lines. The switching locomotives that reposition or short haul freight 

along the mainline were captured under the line-haul gross tonnage, so only the in-yard activity 

was considered for switching locomotive emissions estimates to avoid double counting the 

activity. 

Shift schedules or other estimates of the hours of operation for switching locomotives 

were requested in order to identify the total engine hours of operation at each yard. In general, 

typical shifts were eight or twelve hours using one or two locomotives in tandem. The number 

of hours for each shift was assumed to be the engine operating time; however, this could be an 

overestimate if the engines have idle reduction devices or operators are encouraged to shut off 

the engines during inactive periods of the shift. 

At any given time, the roster of switching 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 relatively constant fleet mix. The reported switching 

engines ranged from 1,200 to 3,800 rated horsepower. The switching locomotive models were 

all either Tier 0 or precontrolled with no Tier 1 or 2 models. The data in Table 5-17 represented 

the 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 Activity Data for the Nampa Yard 

Number 

Days per 

Week Days per Year 

Hours per 

Day Hours per Year 

Switcher No. 1 5 260 4.5 1170 

Switcher No. 2 5 260 7.5 1950 

Switcher No. 3 5 260 8.0 2080 

Switcher No. 4 1 52 7.5 390 

Switcher No. 5 5 260 7.5 1950 

Base emission factors and expected forecasted emission rates for switching locomotives 

were provided in U.S. EPA documentation (U.S. EPA, 2008) and are shown in Table 5-18. 

Table 5-18. Switching Locomotive Emission Factors 

Year 

HC 

(g/gal) 

CO 

(g/gal) 

NOx

(g/gal) 

PM 

(g/gal) 

2008 14.5 27.8 243 5.5 

2015 12.6 27.8 215 4.8 

2023 9.5 27.8 172 3.7 

A daily fuel consumption estimate of 226 gallons of 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 hour activity resulting in a per hour fuel 

consumption of 9.42 gallons. Annual fuel consumption 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 fuel consumption rate to estimate per yard 

emissions as shown in Table 5-19. 

FC = A×C
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-20

Table 5-19. Estimated Switching Locomotive Emissions in 2008 

Year 

Fuel 

Consumption 

(gal) 

HC 

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

CO 

(tons) 

NOX 

(tons) 

PM10

(tons) 

SO2

(tons) 

NH3

(tons) 

2008 71,002 0.92 0.96 1.82 18.94 0.45 0.01 0.15 

PM2.5 emission estimates were estimated based on PM10 emission estimates. The 

percentage of PM10 emissions expected to be PM2.5 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 yard. 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 tracks may also reach into Ada County. 

The 2008 annual emissions by source category are provided in Table 5-20. 

Table 5-20. 2008 Annual Locomotive Emissions by Source Category 

SCC SCC Description County FIPS 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 0.15

 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-21

5.2 Emission Calculation Methodologies – Ozone and PM Season 

After the annual nonroad mobile source emissions were estimated using the 

methodologies described in Section 2.4.1, the daily ozone season and PM season emission 

estimates were developed. The ozone season extends from April 1 through October 31 (i.e., 214 

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

121 days). 

5.2.1 Nonroad Equipment 

Ozone and PM season daily emission estimates for nonroad equipment were based on 

NONROAD model runs for the summer and winter season, respectively. Fuel properties for the 

ozone and PM2.5 season were set to summer and winter season values, respectively, as described 

in Section 2.4.1.1. Climate inputs were derived based on ozone 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, respectively. Since most equipment (except 

snowmobiles and snowblowers) were used more frequently in the summer compared to the 

winter, ozone season emissions are greater than PM season emissions in all counties. 

Table 5-21. 2008 Seasonal Nonroad Equipment Emissions by County 

County VOC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3

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 0.007 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-22

Table 5-22. 2008 Seasonal Nonroad Equipment Emissions by Equipment Type 

(Ada, Canyon, and Elmore Counties Combined) 

Category VOC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NH3

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, the monthly distribution of activity for the 

Boise airport in the Treasure Valley study region was obtained from the FAA’s Air Traffic 

Activity Data System (ATADS) (FAA, 2010). The ATADS is the official source for historical 

monthly or annual air traffic statistics for airports with FAA-operated or FAA-contracted traffic 

control towers. The average seasonal activity fractions were calculated by aircraft type from the 

ATADS dataset. The seasonal activity fractions (shown in Table 5-23) were then applied to the 

Treasure Valley annual emission by aircraft type to derive the ozone and PM season emissions. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-23

Table 5-23. Fraction of Aircraft 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 activity and typical of 

locomotive emission inventories, emissions are assumed to be constant year-round. The daily 

emissions were determined by dividing the annual emissions by 365 days per year. 

The 2008 ozone and PM season daily emissions by source category are provided in Table 

5-24. 

Table 5-24. 2008 Ozone and PM Season Daily Locomotive Emission Estimates by 

Source Category 

SCC SCC Description County FIPS 

NOx

(tpd) 

SO2

(tpd) 

VOC 

(tpd) 

CO 

(tpd) 

PM10

(tpd) 

PM2.5

(tpd) 

NH3

(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 0.0004
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

5-24

5.3 QA/QC procedures 

In order to ensure the highest quality emissions estimates, a number of different QA/QC 

steps were implemented during the development of the nonroad mobile source emissions 

inventory. These are outlined below: 

• Nonroad Equipment 

− NONROAD model inputs, outputs and message files were checked by the data 

generator and reviewed by QA/QC staff. 

− QA/QC staff reviewed local data collected and evaluated against national 

defaults. 

− Base year emission inventories were compared to U.S.EPA NEI inventories. 

• Aircraft 

− Aircraft compilation spreadsheets were reviewed by QA/QC staff. 

− For airports in the FAA TAF database, NEI2008 LTO activity was checked 

against FAA TAF activity. 

• Locomotives 

− Locomotive spreadsheets were reviewed by the data generator and reviewed by 

QA/QC staff to assure that calculation inputs and equations were correct. 

− Senior QA/QC staff approved emission estimation methodologies and reviewed 

the reference activity data for validity. 

− Source identification and data collection were approved by the DEQ staff. 

− Senior QA/QC staff confirmed thorough pollutant coverage. 

− QA/QC staff reviewed and approved the emission factors and activity data used 

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/ENVIRON team provided review of DEQ’s 2008 

biogenic emissions inventory. This review was summarized in a technical memorandum 

submitted to DEQ (Mansell and Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009); this technical memo is provided in 

Appendix F. The technical memo examined the available biogenic emission inventory modeling 

systems, as well as the land cover and vegetation data required for implementation of these 

models. The review also focused on a comparison between DEQ’s biogenics inventory 

developed using the Biogenic Emission Inventory System (BEIS) and an alternative inventory 

developed by ENVIRON using the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosol from Nature 

(MEGAN). 

6.1 Emissions Calculation Methodologies – Annual 

Input from DEQ modeling staff indicate that the BEIS emission estimates should be 

incorporated into the draft final report and its emission inventory (Hardy, 2010). Therefore, the 

annual biogenic emission summaries for BEIS from Table 2 of the memo were used (Mansell 

and Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009). 

6.2 Emissions Calculation Methodologies – Ozone and PM Season 

Monthly biogenic emission summaries for BEIS from Table 2 of the memo were used to 

develop ozone and PM season daily emissions (Mansell and Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009). The 

monthly emissions from April to October were summed and then divided by 214 (i.e., the 

number of days in the ozone season) to derive ozone season daily emissions. Likewise, the 

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 (Tables 7-5 through 7-16), NO was considered to be 

equivalent to NOx while isoprene was not included since it is a VOC species. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-1

7.0 2015 AND 2023 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORIES 

The development of the 2008 base year emissions inventory was described in Sections 

2.0 through 6.0. This was followed by the development 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 section. In general, the projection methodologies 

identified in the IPP/QAP were used; however, some minor adjustments were made based upon 

projections information availability and are identified herein. 

7.1 Development of 2015 and 2023 Projection Factors 

7.1.1 Point Sources 

In an effort to ascertain the future plans for expansion, etc., (on which to base growth 

factors) for the point source facilities located in the Treasure Valley, a total of 18 permitted point 

source facilities were contacted by telephone in May 2010. The facility contacts were informally 

surveyed regarding overall short- and long-term growth and expansion plans. The 18 permitted 

point source facilities constituted the 10 largest VOC emitting facilities, the 3 largest NH3

emitting facilities, and the 5 largest emitting facilities for each of the other pollutants; in some 

cases, a particular facility was a significant emitter of multiple pollutants. Of the 18 facilities 

contacted, a total of 14 contacts responded to the request for information. The facilities that 

responded included the following (listed alphabetically): 

• Boise Packaging and Newsprint 

• C & B Quality Trailer Works 

• Fiber Composites LLC 

• Micron Technology 

• MotivePower 

• Mountain Home Air Force Base 

• Northwest Pipeline 

• Pacific Press Publishing Association 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-2

• Plum Creek Northwest Lumber 

• Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center 

• Sinclair Boise Products Terminal 

• Sorrento Lactalis 

• TASCO – Nampa 

• Tesoro Refining and Marketing 

Based on these contacts’ responses, the overall short-term outlook (i.e., out to 2015) for 

these facilities is essentially “maintenance of the current status quo”; while the long-term outlook 

(i.e., out to 2023) is basically “unforeseeable”, but some minimal growth is expected. The recent 

economic recession apparently has dampened most expectations for growth in the near-term with 

most facilities moving into a survival posture until the recession has passed. Given these 

anecdotal responses, a 2015 growth factor of 1.0000 (i.e., no growth) and a 2023 growth factor 

of 1.1000 (i.e., minimal 10 percent growth between the 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 processing capacity from 4 million 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 expanded 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 projections were developed using a variety of sources of 

projections data. These are described below. 

7.1.2.1 Fuel Combustion 

 All fuel combustion area source categories (i.e., distillate, natural gas, liquefied 

petroleum gas [LPG], kerosene, and wood for the industrial, commercial/ institutional, and 

residential sectors) were estimated using projections data from the Annual Energy Outlook 

(AEO) published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) (EIA, 2010). Regional 

consumption projections for the Mountain Census Division (i.e., Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-3

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) were used to develop growth factors for 

2015 and 2023. 

7.1.2.2 Population 

Population projections were used to develop projection factors for a wide range of area 

source categories where population is an appropriate surrogate for growth. These categories 

include the following: 

• Commercial cooking (i.e., charbroiling and frying) 

• Architectural surface coating 

• Graphic arts 

• Consumer solvents 

• Open burning (i.e., yard waste and household waste) 

• Wastewater treatment 

• Structure fires 

• Vehicle fires 

 Population projections for Ada and Canyon counties were obtained from the 

Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) (COMPASS, 2010). 

However, county-level population projections were not available for Elmore County; therefore, 

the overall state-level population projections for Idaho were used as a surrogate for Elmore 

County (U.S. Census, 2005b). The population projections for 2015 were used directly, while the 

population projection for 2023 was derived from a linear interpolation of the 2020 and 2025 

population projections. 

7.1.2.3 Industrial Output 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 refrigeration/cold storage 

Appropriate output projections were selected at the 4-digit NAICS level from data 

obtained from Economy.com (Economy.com, 2010). The growth factors 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 limited arable land, cyclical commodity prices, and a 

number of other factors. As a result, long-term averages of county-level agricultural acreage 

were used to develop appropriate projection factors. Specifically, the total average acreage of 

significant Idaho field crops (i.e., alfalfa, barley, corn for grain, corn for silage, potatoes, 

sugarbeets, and wheat) from 1988 to 2007 was calculated. Data were obtained from the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (NASS, 2010). The projection factor is the ratio of this 

total average acreage divided by the 2008 acreage for these same crops. The 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 vehicle miles travelled (VMT) projections were 

developed for estimating projected on-road motor vehicle emissions (see Section 3.1.3). These 

future year VMT projections were also used to 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 occur in the future or no appropriate growth surrogate 

could be reasonably determined. These categories included the following: 

• Traffic markings 

• Asphalt application 

• Irrigation ditch burning 

• Beef cattle feedlots 

7.1.2.7 Ammonia Sources 

With the exception of ammonia from industrial refrigeration/cold storage, ammonia 

emissions were estimated using an ammonia model as described in the previous progress reports. 

The projected ammonia emissions were also modeled using the same model. Finally, a few area 

source categories emitting ammonia were assigned no growth (i.e., a growth factor of 1.0000). 

The following assumptions were made for the various modeled ammonia emission source 

categories: 

• Population projection factors described above (Section 7.1.2.2) were used for 

domestic ammonia emissions; 

• Long-term agricultural average projection factors described above (Section 7.1.2.4) 

were used for fertilizer emissions; and 

• No growth was assumed for livestock (i.e., due to apparent cyclical production 

trends), wild animals, and soils 

7.1.2.8 Road Dust 

Future year 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 demand model (TDM) output for 2015 and 2025. 

COMPASS 2015 VMT estimates were used directly while 2023 VMT was estimated by linearly 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-6

interpolating between the 2015 and 2025 data provided by COMPASS. No change in paved road 

dust emission rates was estimated based on the assumption of unchanged future maintenance 

practices. 

Future year emissions for unpaved road dust were estimated using the same methodology 

as the base year. In Ada County, a reduction in VMT of 1.95 percent per year was assumed per 

the Ada County conformity documentation (COMPASS, 2005). For all other areas, VMT was 

assumed unchanged from 2008 based on conversations with local highway districts and 

municipalities which indicated that even minimal projected conversion of unpaved to paved 

roads in future years would be dependent on funding levels. No change in unpaved road dust 

emission rates was estimated based on the assumption of unchanged future maintenance 

practices. 

7.1.3 On-Road Motor Vehicles 

Ada and Canyon county emissions in future years 2015, 2023, and 2030 were estimated 

within CONCEPT-MV. COMPASS provided DEQ and ENVIRON 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 dataset, 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 generate 2023 dataset for CONCEPT. Some of the 

MOBILE6 input parameters were updated in 2015, 2023, and 2030 (i.e., limited to changes in 

anti-tampering parameters and inspection and maintenance [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 similar to the 2008 Ada County programs described in Tables 4-

8 and 4-9, except for the program change to biennial 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, and 2030 MOBILE6 Inputs by County: 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, and 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 estimated 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 standards. The MOBILE6 national default registration 

distribution was used in all three 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 distribution 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 stringent vehicle emission 

standards. 

2008 Elmore County VMT was projected to 2015 and 2023 using scaling factors based 

on the COMPASS TDM outputs for 2008, 2015 and 2025. The COMPASS TDM includes linklevel volumes and distances (thus VMT) by urban and rural roadway types that were readily 

classifiable into the three road types of the original 2008 Elmore County total VMT: “interstate,” 

“arterial,” and “other” for roadways that were not interstate or arterial. VMT estimates for 

2023 were calculated by linearly interpolating VMT between 2015 and 2025 datasets. The final 

projection factors for rural interstates, rural arterials and rural “other” roadways were developed 

by scaling 2015/2008 and 2023/2008. The projected VMT and future year emission factor sets 

were used to estimate future year emissions using the same approach as the base year modeling. 

7.1.4 Nonroad Mobile Sources 

The 2015 and 2023 nonroad mobile source projections 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 effects of all “on the books” regulations. The 

model also contains growth factors for all equipment types, which have been derived by U.S. 

EPA from a proprietary database of equipment sales for several years. 

The NONROAD model was run for 2015 and 2023 analogous to what was done for 2008. 

Climate, local population, and temporal profiles used in the base year inputs were similarly used 

in the development of future year emissions. Fuel properties remained unchanged from base 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-10

year estimates, except for the nonroad diesel sulfur level which was set to 15 ppm for 2015 and 

2023 as required by the federal Tier 4 nonroad diesel rule. 

7.1.4.2 Aircraft 

Aircraft emissions were projected to future years from the 2008 emissions, by airport and 

aircraft type, using LTO forecasts available from the FAA. Aircraft and APU emission factors 

were assumed to be unchanged over time. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

has promulgated NOx and CO emission standards for commercial aircraft (exempting general 

aviation and military engines from the rule) (ICAO, 1998); the majority of engines are already 

meeting this standard. U.S. EPA officially promulgated the ICAO standards for air carriers in a 

final rule in November 2005. 

The historic and projected LTO data by airport are available online from the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area 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 develop future year growth factors for all aircraft 

types by airport. Growth factors were calculated as the ratio of the sum of LTOs by airport and 

aircraft type in each future year to the sum of LTOs by airport and aircraft type in 2008. For 

airports that were included in the 2008 analysis, but are not in the FAA TAF database, 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 sum of LTOs by aircraft type in 2008 over the 

entire Treasure Valley study region. These future year growth factors were then applied to 2008 

emission estimates by airport and aircraft type to develop future year emission inventories. Base 

year LTOs and future year growth factors are shown in Table 7-3. 

Auxiliary power unit activity growth was assumed equivalent to commercial aircraft 

activity growth estimates. Airport GSE engines 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 over time. Therefore, airport GSE projection 

factors must incorporate estimates of both activity growth and fleetwide emission rate decreases 

due to fleet turnover. Airport GSE fleetwide emission rate decreases were calculated based on 

the NONROAD model estimates of emission changes by fuel type in airport GSE emissions due 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-11

to fleet turnover. To incorporate future year activity growth in airport GSE, commercial aircraft 

growth rates were applied. 

Table 7-3. Base Year Aircraft LTO Activity 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 

databasea 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 

databasea 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 

databasea 130% - 138% 104% a Emissions projected for these airports 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 using a least squares regression analysis of 

annual fuel consumption obtained from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) for six 

years between 1999 and 2008 (AAR, 2009). Within the study domain the only Class 1 railroad 

operating was Union Pacific (UP). To accurately forecast activity, UP nationwide fuel 
2008, 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 locomotive emissions; it is expected that the short-line 

and switching activity will have similar growth to the estimates for the mainline railroad (i.e., 

UP) that operates in the study domain. Based on the least squares linear regression analysis, a 

growth rate of 4,264,472 gallons of fuel per year was estimated. 

Table 7-4. Union Pacific Historic Fuel Consumption 

Year Fuel (gallons) 

1999 1,252,111,733 

2002 1,325,049,398 

2005 1,362,933,944 

2006 1,382,778,469 

2007 1,338,300,581 

2008 1,240,874,008 

The growth rate was applied to the 2008 fuel consumption to generate 2015 and 2023 

estimates of 1,270,725,311 gallons and 1,304,841,085 gallons, respectively. The 2015 and 2023 

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 relative to the locomotive fleets (U.S. EPA, 1997a; 

U.S. EPA, 1997b; U.S. EPA, 2008). Based on the U.S. EPA reports estimates of future year 

average emissions by the fleet type, representative emissions reductions from 2008 to 2015 and 

2008 to 2023 were extracted. 

7.1.5 Biogenic Sources 

Although it is expected that there will be year-to-year variability in biogenic emissions, it 

is not possible to predict this variability. Therefore, the 2008 biogenic emission estimates were 

also used for the 2015 and 2023 emission inventories. 

7.2 2015, 2023, and 2030 Inventory Summaries 

Using all of the projection factors described in Section 7.1, the 2015 and 2023 projected 

emissions inventories were developed. In addition, the on-road motor vehicle emission 

inventories for Ada and Canyon counties were developed 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 7-5 
2008, 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 Emissions Summarized by Source Type 

County 

Source 

Type 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2 

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10 

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 17,492.2 

 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-14

Table 7-6. 2015 County-Level Annual Emissions Summarized by Source Type 

County 

Source 

Type 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2 

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10 

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 17,811.6 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-15

Table 7-7. 2023 County-Level Annual Emissions Summarized by Source Type 

County 

Source 

Type 

NOx 

(tpy) 

SO2 

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10 

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2 

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10 

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 41.7 331.5 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-16

Table 7-9. 2008 County-Level Ozone Season Emissions Summarized by Source 

Type 

County 

Source 

Type 

NOx

(tpd) 

SO2 

(tpd) 

VOC 

(tpd) 

CO 

(tpd) 

PM10 

(tpd) 

PM2.5 

(tpd) 

NH3

(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 54.4 
2008, 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 

NOx

(tpd) 

SO2

(tpd) 

VOC 

(tpd) 

CO 

(tpd) 

PM10 

(tpd) 

PM2.5 

(tpd) 

NH3

(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 55.3 
2008, 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 

NOx

(tpd) 

SO2

(tpd) 

VOC 

(tpd) CO (tpd) 

PM10 

(tpd) 

PM2.5 

(tpd) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpd) 

SO2

(tpd) 

VOC 

(tpd) 

CO 

(tpd) 

PM10

(tpd) 

PM2.5

(tpd) 

NH3

(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 1.0 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-19

Table 7-13. 2008 County-Level PM Season Emissions Summarized by Source 

Type 

County 

Source 

Type 

NOx

(tpd) 

SO2

(tpd) 

VOC 

(tpd) 

CO 

(tpd) 

PM10 

(tpd) 

PM2.5 

(tpd) 

NH3

(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 39.4 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-20

Table 7-14. 2015 County-Level PM Season Emissions Summarized by Source 

Type 

County 

Source 

Type 

NOx

(tpd) 

SO2

(tpd) 

VOC 

(tpd) 

CO 

(tpd) 

PM10 

(tpd) 

PM2.5 

(tpd) 

NH3

(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 40.2 

 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

7-21

Table 7-15. 2023 County-Level PM Season Emissions Summarized by Source 

Type 

County 

Source 

Type 

NOx

(tpd) 

SO2

(tpd) 

VOC 

(tpd) 

CO 

(tpd) 

PM10 

(tpd) 

PM2.5 

(tpd) 

NH3

(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 Season On-Road Emissions for Ada and 

Canyon Counties 

County 

Source 

Type 

NOx

(tpd) 

SO2

(tpd) 

VOC 

(tpd) 

CO 

(tpd) 

PM10 

(tpd) 

PM2.5 

(tpd) 

NH3

(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 0.8 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

8-1

8.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY DATA FORMATTING 

As indicated in the discussion of contract scope in Section 1.2, all contract tasks have 

been completed. The emissions results presented in this final report have been generated using 

either 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 Emissions (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 applicable, local temporal and speciation profiles 

were also provided in spreadsheet format. Computer scripts developed with Perl were then used 

to re-format emissions data for SMOKE. These script procedures were implemented by 

ENVIRON, who routinely performs these procedures and has developed a robust set of scripts, 

including limited internal data consistency checks, to accomplish this task. 

Besides the final emissions inventory report, all 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 defensible 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. “Modeling mineral aerosol production 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 Doug Amick (Greenleaf Deparment of Public 

Services) and John Grant (ENVIRON). April. 

Anderson, 2010. Personal communication between John Anderson (Nampa & Meridian 

Irrigation District) and Marty Wolf (ERG). January 26. 

Aurora, 2010. State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality’s Residential Wood 

Combustion Inventory Survey: Treasure Valley Airshed. August 2008 to July 2009. Final 

Report. Aurora Research Group, Sacramento, CA. January. 

Baker, 2010. Personal communication between Carla Baker (City of Caldwell) and John Grant 

(ENVIRON). April. 

Barnard, 2003. Personal communication between Bill Barnard (MACTEC Engineering & 

Consulting, Gainesville, FL) and Gerry Mansell (ENVIRON). April. 

Barr, 2010. Personal communication between Don Barr (City of Nampa Public Works 

Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23. 

Battye, W., V.P. Aneja, and P.A. Roelle, 2003. “Evaluation and improvement of ammonia 

emission inventories.” Atmospheric Environment 37: 3873-3883. 

Bequeath, 2010. Personal communication between Casey Bequeath (Nampa Highway District) 

and John Grant (ENVIRON). April. 

Boise, 2010. Boise City Code. Internet address: http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/ 

City_Clerk/CityCode/ 

Bowman, 2010a. Personal communication between Von Bowman (Notus-Parma Highway 

District No. 2) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January. 

Bowman, 2010b. Personal communication between 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 Administration. Internet Address: http://www.bts.gov/ 

publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/ 

Caldwell, 2010. Personal communication between City of Caldwell Streets Department and 

Marty Wolf (ERG). August 24. 

CARB, 1997. “Section 7.11 – Supplemental Documentation for Windblown Dust – Agricultural 

Lands.” Area Source Methods. California Air Resources Board, Emission Inventory Analysis 

Section, Sacramento, CA. April. 

CARB, 2003a. “Section 7.4 – Agricultural Land Preparation.” Area Source Methods. 

California Air Resources Board, Emission Inventory Analysis Section, Sacramento, CA. 

January. 

CARB, 2003b. “Section 7.5 – Agricultural Harvest Operations.” Area Source Methods. 

California Air Resources Board, Emission Inventory Analysis Section, Sacramento, CA. 

January. 

CARB, 2004. “Section 7.6 – Livestock Husbandry.” Area Source Methods. California Air 

Resources Board, Emission Inventory Analysis Section, Sacramento, CA. May. 

Chase, 2010. Personal communication between Doug Chase (Idaho Transportation Department) 

and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January. 

Chatenet, B., Marticorena, B., 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 Demonstration of the FY 2006-

2010 Northern Ada County TIP. Report No. 11-2005. Community Planning Association of 

Southwest Idaho. September. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

9-3

COMPASS, 2010. Ada and Canyon county population forecasts for 2015, 2020, and 2025. 

Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS). 

DenBleyker, A., A. Pollack, J. Grant, and M. Jimenez, 2010. Peer Review of CONCEPT-MV 

Work. Technical memorandum prepared for Christopher Ramsdell, Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality. May 21. 

DEQ, 2006. 2005 Mobile Sources Emissions Inventory Report. Internal Technical 

Memorandum prepared for Christopher Ramsdell by Jen Cole. Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality. October. 

Economy.com, 2010. 4-digit NAICS-level Industrial Output Projections in Constant 2000 

Dollars. Moody’s Economy.com, West Chester, PA. May. 

ECR, 2005. Improving Model Inventory Data: Temporal Profiles, Final Technical Report. 

February. 

EEA, 2002. Joint EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook, Third 

Edition. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. 

EIA, 2010. Annual Energy Outlook 2010. DOE/EIA-0383(2010). Energy Information 

Administration. April. 

EIIP, 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 Improvement 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 International 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’ Association by ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA; 

Eastern Research Group, Inc., Sacramento, CA; and Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV. 

ERG and ENVIRON, 2009. 2008, 2015, and 2023 Emissions Inventories for the Treasure 

Valley Airshed – Inventory Preparation Plan and Quality Assurance Plan. Prepared for the 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality by Eastern Research Group, Inc., Sacramento, CA 

and ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA. July 15. 

ERG, 2010. Documentation for Aircraft Component of the National Emissions Inventory 

Methodology. Eastern Research Group. April. 

Etymezian, V., H. Kuhns, J. Gillies, M. Green, J. Chow, S. Kohl, and J. Watson, 2002. Treasure 

Valley Road Dust Study. Final Report. Prepared for Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality by Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

FAA, 2008. Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Internet 

address: http://aspm.faa.gov/main/taf.asp 

FAA, 2010. Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS). Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

Internet address: http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/main/atads.asp 

FRA, 2009. Locomotive Activity Dataset. Federal Railroad Administration. 

Fugit, 2010. Electronic automatic traffic recorder data provided by Scott Fugit (Idaho 

Transportation Department). January 

Gill, 2010. Personal communication between Dave Gill (Atlanta Highway District) and John 

Grant (ENVIRON). January. 

Gilliland, A.K., R.L. Dennis, S.J. Roselle, and T.E. Pierce, 2003. “Seasonal NH3 emissions for 

the eastern United States based on ammonium wet concentrations and inverse modeling”. 

Atmospheric Environment 43: 5197-5206. 

Girard, 2010. Personal communication between Rich Girard (Ada County Highway District) and 

Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

9-5

Gluch, 2010. Personal communication between Jim Gluch (Glenns Ferry Highway District) and 

John Grant (ENVIRON). January. 

Grant, 2010. MOBILE6 input files provided by John Grant, ENVIRON. January 18. 

Green, 2010. Personal communication between Brad Green (City of Middleton Public Works 

Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23. 

Hardy, 2010. Personal communication between Rick Hardy (Idaho DEQ) and Alison Pollack 

(ENVIRON). May 25. 

Harvel, 2010. Personal communication between Rick Harvel (City of Mountain Home Public 

Works Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 20. 

Houck, J.E. and B.N. Eagle, 2006. Control Analysis and Documentation for Residential Wood 

Combustion in the MANE-VU Region. Technical Memorandum 4 (Final Report) prepared for the 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, Inc. by OMNI Environmental Services, 

Inc., Beaverton, OR. December 19. 

Hunter, 2009. Personal communication between Dan Hunter (Canyon County) and Gopi Manne 

(ERG). November. 

Hutchinson, 2010. Personal communication between Ted Hutchinson (Ada County Solid Waste 

Management Department) and Marty Wolf (ERG). January. 

ICAO, 1998. Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection Fourth Meeting Report. 

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 Irrigation Districts (map). Idaho Department of Water 

Resources. October 30. Internet address: http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterManagement/ 

WaterRelatedDistricts/PDFs/MAP%20FOR%20CANYON%20COUNTY.pdf 

IDWR, 2007. Irrigation Organizations with Service Areas in Ada County (map). Idaho 

Department of Water Resources. April 11. Internet address: http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/ 

WaterManagement/WaterRelatedDistricts/PDFs/IrrMapAdaCounty.pdf 

IPM Center, 2010. Idaho crop profiles. National Information System for the Regional IPM 

Centers, Raleigh, North Carolina. Internet address: http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/ 

CP_form.cfm 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

9-6

Karnowski, 2009. Summary reports from the Idaho Fire Incident Reporting System (IFIRS) 

provided by Cheryl Karnowski (Idaho State Fire Marshal). November 19. 

Kennedy, 2010. Personal communication between Frank Kennedy (Nampa Highway District 

No. 1) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23. 

Lane, 2010. Personal communication between Craig Lane (Wilder Deparment of Public Works) 

and John Grant (ENVIRON). April. 

Mansell, G.E., 2003a. Revised Windblown Fugitive Dust Emission Estimation Methodology. 

Technical memorandum prepared for Michael Uhl, Department of Air Quality Management, 

Clark County, NV. October 6. 

Mansell, G.E., 2003b. Summary of WRAP Fugitive Dust Methodology Assumptions Model 

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 Air Partnership by ENVIRON International 

Corporation, Novato, CA. 

Mansell, G.E., R. Morris and M. Omary, 2004. Recommendations and Model Performance 

Evaluation for the Phase II Windblown Fugitive Dust Emission Project. Technical 

memorandum prepared for the WRAP Dust Emission Joint Forum. July. 

Mansell, G. and T. Sakulyanonvittaya, 2009. Review of DEQ Biogenic Emission Inventory for 

the Treasure Valley. Revised technical memorandum prepared for Christopher Ramsdell and 

Rick Hardy, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. December 31. 

Marticorena, B., Bergametti, G., Gillette, D., and Belnap, J. 1997. “Factors controlling 

threshold friction velocity in semiarid and arid areas of the United States.” J. Geophysics 

Research 102 (D19): 23277-23287. 

McCain, 2010. Personal communication between Mike McCain (City of Mountain Home, 

Public Works Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January. 

Midwest, 2006. Midwest RPO Candidate Control Measures – Asphalt Paving. Interim White 

Paper. Midwest Regional Planning Organization. March 10. Internet address: 

http://www.greenpatch.com/pdf/Midwest_OTC_VOC_laws.pdf 

Mills, 2010. Personal communication between Jon Mills (Ada County Highway District) and 

Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January. 

Moran, 2010. Personal communication between Earl Moran (City of Nampa Parks and 

Recreation Department) and Lan 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 Fraction of Particulate Matter in Fugitive Dust. Draft Project 

Report. Prepared for the Western Regional Air Partnership by Midwest Research Institute, 

Kansas City, MO. August 17. 

NASS, 2007. Cropland Data Layer. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. Internet address: http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/SARS1a.htm. 

NASS, 2009a. NASS website, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Internet address: http://www.nass.usda.gov/ 

NASS, 2009b. Idaho Crop Progress and Condition Reports, Issue ID-CW1408 (Week Ending 

April 6, 2008) through Issue ID-CW4308 (Week Ending October 26, 2008). National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Internet address: 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Idaho/Publications/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/ 

index.asp 

NASS, 2010. Quick Stats for Ada, Canyon, and Elmore Counties, Idaho. National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. Internet address: 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Idaho/index.asp 

Newlun, 2010. Personal communication between Gail Newlun (Idaho Transportation 

Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). January 27. 

Nobel, 2010. Personal communication between Randy Nobel (Ada County Highway District) 

and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 23. 

Norris, 2010a. Personal communication between David Norris (Golden 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 between Ken Olmanson (Idaho Northern Pacific 

Railroad) and Tim Sturtz (ENVIRON). January. 

Pace, T.G., 2003. A Conceptual Model to Adjust Fugitive Dust Emissions to Account for Near 

Source Particle Removal in Grid Model Applications. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

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 Urban 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 between Timothy Richard (Canyon Highway District 

No. 4) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January. 

Richard, 2010b. Personal communication between Timothy Richard (Canyon Highway District 

No. 4) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 20. 

Richard, 2010c. Personal communication between Timothy Richard (Canyon Highway District 

No. 4) and Gopi Manne (ERG). January 27. 

Russell, A.G. and G.R. Cass, 1986. “Verification of a Mathematical Model for Aerosol Nitrate 

and Nitric Acid Formation and Its Use for Control Measure Evaluation.” Atmospheric 

Environment 20: 2011-2025. 

Sierra, 2006. Development of Fleet Characteristics Data for the Idaho On-Road Motor Vehicle 

Fleet. Sierra Research, Inc. January. 

Stanford, K., R. Silasi, T.A. McAllister, and K.S. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, 2009. “Behavior of 

feedlot cattle affects voluntary oral and physical interactions with manila ropes.” Journal of 

Animal Science 87: 296-303. 

Sterling, 2010. City/county codes (Caldwell, Eagle, Garden City, Greenleaf, Kuna, Meridian, 

Middleton, Mountain Home, Nampa, Parma, Star, Wilder, Ada County, and Canyon County), 

Sterling Codifiers, Coeur d’Alene, ID. Internet address: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/ 

Strachan, 2009. Personal communication between Sara Strachan (Idaho Department of 

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 between Ed Teddicken (City of Boise Parks and 

Recreation Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

9-9

Tindall, 2010a. Personal communication between Wayne Tindall (Mountain Home Highway 

District) and John Grant (ENVIRON). January. 

Tindall, 2010b. Personal communication between Wayne Tindall (Mountain Home Highway 

District) and Marty Wolf (ERG). August 24. 

U.S. Census, 2005a. 2002 Economic Census (Sector 72: Accommodation and Food Services: 

Subject Series – Misc. Subjects: Principal Menu Type or Specialty for the United 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 Population 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/counties/asrh/CC-EST2008-alldata.html 

U.S. Census, 2010. Building permit database. Internet address: http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/ 

bldgprmt.shtml 

USDA, 1994. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Data Base, Data use information, 

Miscellaneous Publication Number 1492. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, National Soil Service Center. Internet address: http://www.essc.psu.edu/ 

soil_info/. December. 

USDA, 1997. Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates for U.S. Field Crops, Agricultural 

Handbook Number 628. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

USDA, 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture, Idaho State and County Data (Volume 1 Geographic 

Area Series, Part 12), AC-07-A-12. U.S. Department of Agriculture. February 4. Internet 

address: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/ 

Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Idaho/index.asp 

USDA, 2010. Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. Internet 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, Regulatory Support Document (RSD), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, April. 

U.S. EPA, 1997b. Emission Factors (EF) for Locomotives. EPA420-F-97-051. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. December. 

U.S. EPA, 2002a. Review of Emission Factors and Methodologies to Estimate Ammonia 

Emissions from Animal Waste Handling. EPA-600/R-02-017. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. April. 

U.S. EPA, 2002b. Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse Temporal Allocation Files. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. April 29. Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/

emch/temporal/index.html 

U.S. EPA, 2006. Documentation for the Final 2002 Nonpoint Sector (FEB 06 version) National 

Emission Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. 

U.S. EPA, 2007. Development Work for Improved Heavy-Duty Vehicle Modeling Capability 

Data Mining – FHWA Datasets. EPA/600/R-07/096. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

July. 

U.S. EPA, 2008. Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA): Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from 

Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per 

Cylinder. EPA420-R-08-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March. 

U.S. EPA, 2009a. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the 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. Internet 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 Factors – Volume 1: Stationary Point 

and Area Sources (AP-42), Fifth Edition (and subsequent updates). U.S. Environmental 

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

Carolina. 
2008, 2015, 2023 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventories 

Final, August 31, 2010 

9-11

U.S. EPA, 2010b. U.S. EPA’s NEI2008. Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/ 

2008inventory.html). 

U.S. EPA, 2010c. Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 2010 (MOVES2010) model. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Internet address: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm 

USGS, 2010. National Hydrography Dataset. U.S. Geological Service. Internet address: 

http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html 

Waldinger, 2009. Personal communication between Mary Ann Walldinger (COMPASS) and 

Alison Pollack (ENVIRON). August. 

Waldinger 2010. Personal communication between Mary Ann Walldinger (COMPASS) and 

John Grant (ENVIRON). January. 

Walter, 2010. Personal communication between Craig Walter (City of Boise, Public Works 

Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January. 

Walters, 2010. State-level gasoline statistics provided by Dar Walters, Idaho Tax Commission. 

Webb, 2009. Personal communication between Steve Webb (City of Boise, Buildings 

Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). November. 

Winterfield, 2009. Personal communication between Steve Webb (Elmore County, Growth and 

Development Department) and Gopi Manne (ERG). November. 

Winterfeld, 2010. Personal communication between Bob Winterfeld (Elmore County, Growth 

and Development Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January. 

Woodward, 2010. Personal communication between Mike Woodward (City of Boise Parks and 

Recreation Department) and Lan Ma (ENVIRON). January. 

WRCC. 2009. Idaho Climate Summaries: Period of Record General Climate Summaries. 

Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute. December. 

Wright, 2010. Personal communication between Raquel Wright (Federal Railroad 

Administration) and Tim Sturtz (ENVIRON). January. 

York, 2010. Personal communication between Wendy York (Sorrento Lactalis) and Marty Wolf 

(ERG). May 5. 

Zhang, 2009. Personal communication regarding MM5 modeling from Wei Zhang (Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality). August 8. 
APPENDIX A 

 LISTING OF PBR AND UNPERMITTED 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 Alternative 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 Biodynamics 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 Woodworking Black Dog Fabrications 

A P & D Group - Energy Amity Elementary School Black Stone Construction 

A Shade Better Painting Amoco Oil Company Blackers Furniture (Formerly Known As) 

A&B Custom Mfg.,Inc. Anai's Janitorial & Chemical 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 Disposal Co., Inc. 

Accord Technology LLC Army Barracks (Former) Asbestos Boise Airport Snow Removal Equip Bldg 

Accura Bullets LLC Arnold Machinery Co Boise Boise Army Navy 

Ace Quality Floor Covering Arnold Machinery 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 & Technology 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 Corp 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 Office Systems Boise Independent Sd Boise Hs 

Advanced Auto Cosmedics Automotive Collision Tech Inc. Boise Mobile Equipment 

Advanced Bio-Energy Systems LLC Avid Aircraft Inc. Boise Muffler 

Advanced Casting Technology Avid Aviation Boise Parks & Recreation Dept 

Advanced Environmental Tech Services Avis Rent A Car Boise Product Terminal Big West Oil Co 

Advanced Thermographic Imaging B & A Automotive Boise Ranch Golf Course 

Aegis Technologies B & D Automotive Boise School District Facility Yard 

Agri-Lines Irrigation Inc. B & K Fabricators Boise Senior High School 

Agripro Biosciences Inc. B and J Farm Boise 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 Trucking Booth Memorial School 

Alameda Chemical & Scientific Inc. Battery Exchange (The) Borah Building 

Albertsons – Multiple Stations Baxter Foundry & 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 Trucking & Excavating Creekside Tile & Stone, LLC 

C A C Machineworks Chief Joseph Elementary School Creekstone and Assoc.Construction L.L.C. 

C Wright Construction Co., Inc. (1677700335) Chinden 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 Stelt 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 Packaging D & R Antifreeze Recycling 

Capital Senior High School Cloverdale 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 Coatings Plus Dale's Auto Care 

Capitol Polysteel LLC Cole Elementary School Dale's Service Co 

Cardinal Health 200 Inc. Cole Village Chevron Dan Van Grouw Dairy 

Caribbean Tan College Blvd Body Shop Dan Wiebold Ford 

Carlisle Spring Brake Products Collister Elementary School Dan Wiebold Ford Detail Bldg 

Carousel and Syringa Farms Collister Exxon Dan's Ferry Service 

Carquest Automotive Finishes Garden City Color Craft Painting Inc. Darigold-Boise 

Carquest Automotive Finishes Nampa 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 Paint & Coatings Co Caldwell Davison Air Svc 

Caxton Printers Ltd Combined Districts Crushing Fund DEBCO Construction 

CDI - Proposed Parking Lot Comfort Suites Motel Deco Rock of Idaho 

Cecil D Andrus Elementary School Commercial Fuel Recycling LLC Deerflat Sand & Gravel 

Cenex Land Olakes Community Activities Center Degroot Dairy 

Cenex Lol Express Center Nampa Community Health Clinics Inc. Dehryl A Dennis Prof-Tech Center 

Centennial Elementary School Compass Public Charter 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 Cutting 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 Corp 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 Market Disruptive Technologies 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 Property 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 Technologies, LLC Dry Lakes Dairy 

Eagle High School Feed Service Inc. Caldwell Gem Stop #9 

Eagle Hills Elementary School Fiberglass Systems Inc. Gempler Trucking 

Eagle Masonry and Stone, Inc. Fiberguide Ind Inc. General Electric of Boise 

Eagle Middle School Finley 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 Repair Inc. Glenns Ferry Elementary School 

East Canyon Elementary School First Choice Curbing and Concrete LLC Glenns 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 Agricultural Chemical Group Glenns Ferry Sd 192 

Eby Brothers Inc. Food Glenwood Station #37 

Ecco Foothills Chevron Global Travel Office Bldg 

Ecological Auto Technologies, Inc. Formal 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 - Former 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 Elementary 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 Elementary School Greenlight Technologies 

Environmental Mgt Solutions Inc. Gc1 Frontier 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 Synergies, 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-Mix Nampa Hailstone Furriers, LLC 

Evergreen Environmental Group Inc. Galaxy Airbrush 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 Community 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 Gem 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 Stop #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 Security Prison J R Simplot Transportation 

Hoffman Auto Body Idaho National Guard Bldg 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 Boise 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 Service 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 & Hospital Jb's Custom Woodworking, Inc. 

House of Stone, LLC (The) Idaho Statesman (The) Jefferson Elementary School 

Houser Autobody Idaho Tank & Culvert Inc. Jefferson Middle School 

Houser Autobody Inc. Idaho Technology Solutions Jefferson West Apartments 

Howards Archery Shoppe Idaho Truck Specialties Jeffs Stone & Tile Works 

Howe Bros Body & Paint Idaho Truck Specialties LLC Dba Cobalt Jemmett Consulting and Research Farm 

Hpc Scientific LLC Idaho Virtual Academy 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 Deere 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 School District of Boise Justo's Grocery 

ID Agri Caldwell Indian Creek Demo Project 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 Hygiene 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 Industrial 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 Products 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 Truck 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 Soilbuilders Micron Systems Integration 

Kiddie Kandids J R Simplot Soilbuilders Boise Micron Technology Fab D 

Kimco Design & Manufacturing J R Simplot Soilbuilders 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 Transportation 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 Painting 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 Childhood School MK Corporate Flight Div 

L & G Trucking Madison Elementary School Monroe Elementary School 

L & L Furniture Inc. Maple Grove 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 Corporation Motivepower Truck & Engine Annex 

L. C. Realization Corp. Marian Pritchett 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 Elementary 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 Testing & 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 Stores 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 School Mountain View Equipment Caldwell 

Les Bois Junior High School May Trucking Co Nampa Mountain View Equipment Meridian 

Les Bois Transport MBG Mold Be Gone LLC Mountain View High School 

Lewis and Clark Elementary Center McKinley Elementary School Mousers Auto Body 

Lewis and Clark Middle School McMillan Elementary School MP Mask Technology Center LLC 

Liberty Charter School McAlvain Construction Inc. MT Cove High School 

Liberty Elementary School McClures Machine Shop Mtn Home AFB Primary School 

Liberty Elementary School McDonald 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 Plaza Nampa Chamber of Commerce 
A-6

Lithia Body & Paint of Boise Medes Concrete 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 Melba Middle School Prime Land Development 

Lithocraft Melba Quick Stop Producers Lumber 

Lithographics Inc. Melva Engineering Producers Supply Co-Op 

Little Cattle Co Memphis Construction Producers Supply Co-Op 

Little Country Alpacas Meridian Academy Prominence Information Technologies, Inc. 

Little Russia International Foods, LLC Meridian 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 Meridian Elementary School Protran Transmission No 3 

Long Creek Mining LLC Meridian Fence 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 District 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 Chemical Quality Curbing and Concrete LLC 

Nampa Sd 131 Pacific Pride Card Loc Quarter Circle Dj Ranch 

Nampa Senior High School Pacific Recycling Boise Quinn Robbins Co., Inc. 

Nampa State Fish Hatchery Pacific Recycling Nampa Quirt Leatham Trucking Inc. 

Nampa Teen Parent Alternative High School Pacific Steel & Recycling Nampa Qwest Communications 

Nampa Wellhouse Pacific Steel Fabricators R & M Steel Co 

Nascar HOF Commemorative Brick Program Pacific Steel Hides 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 Early Childhood Center Rambo Crushing Company 

Neighborhood Housing Service Parma Co Rays Auto Body Repair Inc. 

Nelson-Deppe Inc. Parma High School 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 Truck 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 Elementary School River Chief Marine LLC 

Northwest Childrens Home6 Peregrine Industries Inc. River Moss Technologies, LLC 

Northwest Development Company Performance Design LLC River Rock Sand & Gravel LLC 

Northwest Mill Creek LLC Perma Green Lawn Co River Valley Elementary School 

Northwest Nazarene University Perma Green 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 Laboratory Riverside Funeral Service & Crematory 

Northwest Technologies Inc. Peterson Town and Country Riverstone Aviation, LLC 

Northwest Trailer Service Pete's Woodcraft 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 Elementary 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 International Rocky Mountain Soil Stabl. & Dust Control 

Odd Fellows Building Pipe Inc. Rolling Hills Public Charter School 

Office Complex Pixtech Inc. Ronald W. Van Auker Inc. 

Oil Express Plant Health Technologies Ron's Lake Shore Service 

Olin Microelectronic Materials Plexus 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 Automotive and Transmission Supreme Court Library 

Overland Auto Body Precision Collision Repair Swift & Company Beef 

Overland Printers Precision Fencing Swiss Village Cheese Co 

Owners Choice Precision Flight Symms Fruit Ranch 

Owyhee Elementary School Precision Flight Inc. Syngenta Seeds Inc. 

Owyhee Elementary School Precision Propeller Svc Inc. Syngenta Seeds Inc. 

Oxarc Inc. Preco Automotive Electric Syngenta Seeds Inc. 

Oz-Lo Industrial Preco Electronics Inc. Syringa Middle School 

Roosevelt Elementary School Preco Safety Products Syringa Property Mgt Inc. 

Roosevelt Elementary School Pressure Treated Timber 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 Petroleum LLC T.A. Dibble Excavation Inc. 

Rubens Body Shop Inc. Snickerdoodle Bakery Tablerock Printing 

Rule Sales & Service Inc. Softspikes Tablerock Printing Inc. Grove 

Rustic Wood Creations SOS Environmental Target Buick 

Ryder Truck Rental South Junior High 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 Elementary School Techni Chem Corporation 

Sage Valley Intermediate School Spangler Bros Auto Body Repair Technology Solutions 

Saia Motor Freight Line Inc. Boise Spear Technologies LLC Tektoniks Corp and Sundance Const Mgmt 

Sams Club – Multiple Stations Specialty Environmental Svcs Inc. Ten Lane 

Sam's Scrub Metal Specialty Environmental 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 Services 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. Michael's Cathedral The Home and Garden Store 

Schober Farms St. Michael's Cathedral The Home Depot 

SCP Global Technologies Staker & Parson Companies (1677700373) The Mode Building 

SCP Global Technologies Sw2 Staker & Parson Companies Boise East The Preferred Company 

SCP Global Technologies Wstprk Staker & Parson Companies Joplin The Strand Bldg 

Scuglia Fabrication Staker & Parson Company (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 Chevron Thermo Fluids Inc. Nampa 

Selway Fabrication, LLC Statell Ltd Thomas Jefferson Charter School 

Service City Auto Paint Statewide Transport Inc. Thomas Nicholson 

Seubert Excavators Inc. (1677700100) Steed Construction Inc. Thornton Hog Farm 

Seubert Excavators Inc. (1677700103) Steel Resources Inc. Thoroughbred Collision Center 

Seven Mile Lounge Steelblu LLC Tiegs Farms Inc. 

Seven Oaks Elementary School Steelhead Collision Center Inc. Tikal Bakery 

SFP Food Service Stenick Betty Tile & Stone Installations 

Shadow Hills Elementary School Sterling 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-Stones 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 Inc. (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 School 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 Collision 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 Branch Western States Equipment Fairview Ave 

Trans Continental Transport Inc. Sunset Nursery Western States Equipment Meridian 

Transportation SVCS Inc. Sunset Sports Building 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 Service, 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 Intermountain Research Station Westpark Shopping Center 

Treasure Valley Institute For Children's Arts USDA SCS Westpoint Transportation Inc. 

Treasure Valley Math/Science Center USDA Wildlife Serv Parker Kelly 27197 Westside Body Works 

Treasure Valley Vw Inc. USDOC National Weather Service West Valley Millwork 

Trebar Kenworth Sales Boise USDOI WPR Arrowrock 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 Line Inc. Whitecliff Technologies, LLC 

Trinity Trailer Manufacturing Inc. VA Medical Center Whiteman Industries Inc. Braniff 

Tri-Stone Services Vale Wine Company Whiteman Industries S Business 

Truck Equipment Corp Boise Vallad & Sons 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 Middle School Wilderness Ranch Wtp 

Union Carbide Corp Linde Div Van Buren 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 Inc. 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 Manufacturing, Inc. Wilson Elementary School 

United Parcel Service Boise Ryan Vassar Trucking 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 Victorious 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 Min 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 Mart 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 Shopping 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 Construction Site Zilog Incorporated 

US DOJ Dea Drug Lab Boise Maple Grove Washington Elementary School Zion Luthern School 

US DOJ Dea Drug Lab Boise Summerwind Washington 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 Inventory 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 inventory fulfills the 10-year update requirement of 

the EPA-approved North Ada County PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and will also allow 

study of ozone formation and particulate concentrations in the valley. The scope of the inventory 

includes all stationary industrial sources of air pollution that operated during calendar year 2008. 

To achieve our inventory objectives, your cooperation as an operator of a permitted industrial 

facility is important for accurate collection of data related to your specific 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 participation in this project is required.

Our Point Source Survey Tool (POSST) Web application will be used to collect your data. If you 

already provided a full emissions inventory for calendar year 2008, please disregard 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 the 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 accounted for in your data submittal made to POSST. 

POSST provides specific screens that you will use to record the required information; these 

include facility, stack, emissions unit (point), process, and pollutant. Some of the requested 

information and calculations will take time to complete, 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 submittal. 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 Main Page before you begin data entry in order 

to minimize confusion. For further assistance, 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 username and password, respectively: 

«UserName» «Password» 

Upon completion and final submission of all emissions 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 Material 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 Information Management Systems Coordinator 

c: Bruce Louks, MMEI Manager 
«Date__Sent» 

«Contact_Full_Name» 

«Facility» 

«Address» 

«City» «State» «Zip» 

RE: 2008 Treasure Valley Emissions Inventory 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 inventory fulfills the 10-year update requirement of 

the EPA-approved North Ada County PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and will also allow 

study of ozone formation and particulate 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 inventory objectives, your cooperation as an owner or operator of a 

facility is important for accurate collection of data related to your specific 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 participation 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 complete, 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, and telephone or e-mail assistance 

are available to help you with your data entry and submittal. Please read the User’s Manual 

before you start in order to minimize any confusion. 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 username and password, respectively: 

«UserName» «Password» 

Upon completion and final submission of all emissions data entries to the 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 (FUEL DEALER AND DISTRIBUTOR 

SURVEY, DRY CLEANING SURVEY, WASTEWATER TREATMENT 

SURVEY, AND LANDFILL SURVEY) 
Fuel Dealers 

«Date_Project_Letter_Sent» 

«Facility» 

«Address» 

«City», «State» «Zip_Code» 

RE: Treasure Valley Emissions Inventory Project – 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 their precursors for the Treasure Valley (Ada, 

Canyon, and Elmore counties). The scope of this inventory includes all stationary 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 fuel supplier/distributor is required to 

ensure completion of a comprehensive inventory 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 residential 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 supplier and distributor amounts combined. 

Please complete the attached survey and sales table, 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 Information 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 QUALITY
RETURN 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 firewood) in Ada, Canyon, or Elmore counties? ______ 

If “yes”, proceed to Question #2. If “no”, please return this page of the survey only, with the contact information 

listed above and your certification 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 information broken out by county 

(Ada, Canyon, or Elmore) and sector (industrial, commercial/ 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 provide the following fuel characteristics (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 sellers/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 companies 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 2008 
RETURN 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 (also 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 Oil 
RETURN THIS PAGE 

«Date_Project_Letter_Sent» 

«Facility» 

«Address» 

«City», «State» «Zip_Code» 

RE: Treasure Valley Emissions Inventory 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 their precursors for the Treasure Valley (Ada, 

Canyon, and Elmore counties). The scope of this inventory includes all stationary 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 required 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 will 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 table, 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 Information 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 QUALITY
RETURN 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 listed above and your certification at the bottom completed. 

2. Please check the appropriate line(s) for all dry cleaning solvents used by your facility and supply the 2008 annual 

amount of each solvent purchased and sent 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 certification at the bottom both completed. For all other solvents used, please 

provide a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for each one when returning your survey submittal to DEQ. 

3. For each dry cleaning machine 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 week that dry cleaning equipment is operating? ___________ 

5. What is the average number of hours per day that dry cleaning equipment is operating? ____________ 

6. Describe any seasonal or month-by-month variations 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 cleaners 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 North 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 West Washington Street 83702 

Martinizing Dry Cleaning 116 East 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 South 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 

Eagle Custom Care Cleaners 228 East Plaza Street 83616 

Seabreeze Dry Cleaners 621 East 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 West State Street 83669 

J'S Cleaners 723 Main Street 83605 

Caldwell One Hour Martinizing 903 Blaine Street 83605 

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 83648 
RETURN THIS PAGE TO DEQ – Attention: Chris Ramsdell 

«Date_Project_Letter_Sent» 

«Facility» 

«Address» 

«City», «State» «Zip_Code» 

RE: Treasure Valley Emissions Inventory Project – 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 their precursors for the Treasure Valley (Ada, 

Canyon, and Elmore counties). The scope of this inventory includes all stationary 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 required and will ensure completion of a 

comprehensive inventory of all emission sources related to wastewater treatment. A brief 

questionnaire is enclosed that asks specific questions pertaining to 2008 treatment plant 

operations within Ada, Canyon, or Elmore counties. 

Please complete the attached survey, sign, 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 with this important project. 

Sincerely, 

Christopher Ramsdell 

Emissions Inventory & Air Information 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 QUALITY
RETURN THIS PAGE TO DEQ – Attention: Chris Ramsdell 

Treasure Valley Wastewater Treatment Data Collection Survey 

Facility Name: 

Address: 

Phone Number: Fax Number: 

Contact Name: 

• What is the composition of the wastewater treated by your facility? (Provide responses in terms of %.): 

 Industrial %

 Commercial %

 Residential %

• Please provide the monthly quantities of wastewater treated by your 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 wastewater treatment facilities in Ada, Canyon, and Elmore 

counties. Attached is a comprehensive list of these facilities. Please list any other facilities not on this list that 

should be surveyed: 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

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: 
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 Wastewater Treatment Plant 

City of Kuna Wastewater Treatment Plant 

City of Meridian Wastewater Treatment Plant 

Eagle Sewer District Wastewater Treatment Plant 

Ada 

Star Water and Sewer District Wastewater Treatment Plant 

City of Caldwell Wastewater Treatment Plant 

City of Greenleaf Wastewater Treatment Plant 

City of Middleton Wastewater Treatment Plant 

City of Nampa Wastewater Treatment Plant 

City of Notus Wastewater Treatment Plant 

City of Parma Wastewater Treatment Plant 

Canyon 

City of Wilder Wastewater Treatment Plant 

City of Glenns Ferry Wastewater Treatment Plant 

Elmore City of Mountain Home Wastewater Treatment Plant 

Mountain Home AFB Wastewater Treatment Plant 
DO NOT RETURN THIS PAGE

«Date_Project_Letter_Sent» 

«Salutation» «Contact_Full_Name» 

«Facility» 

«Address» 

«City», «State» «Zip_Code» 

RE: Treasure Valley Emissions 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 their 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 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 landfill owner or operator 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 asks specific questions 

pertaining to landfill location, capacity, air emission controls, and other parameters. 

Please complete the attached eight-question survey 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 Information 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 QUALITY
DO 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 m3

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 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: _____________________ 
APPENDIX D 

AURORA RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION SURVEY REPORT
Prepared for 

STATE OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY’S

RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION INVENTORY SURVEY: 

TREASURE VALLEY AIRSHED

AUGUST 2008 TO JULY 2009

FINAL REPORT

JANUARY, 2010 

SUBMITTED BY: 

DAWN MORLEY CHAVERO & 

NAOMI E. HOLOBOW, PH.D. 

FOR
State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality

2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey 

Final Summary Report – January, 2010 

 Page 2

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE HIGHLIGHTS (4 PAGES).................................................................................................................. 3 

Project Background and Objectives.............................................................................................................. 7 

Methodology.................................................................................................................................................. 7 

Results & Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 11 

Inventory of Heating Devices ..................................................................................................................11 

General Population Results ............................................................................................................11 

Individual County Results................................................................................................................12 

Comparison with 1997 Results .......................................................................................................13 

Percentage Burning at Least 4 Times in Past Year................................................................................14 

General Population Results ............................................................................................................14 

Individual County Results................................................................................................................15 

Comparison with 1997 Results .......................................................................................................16 

OVERALL WOOD CONSUMPTION.......................................................................................................17 

General Population Results ............................................................................................................17 

Individual County Results................................................................................................................19 

Comparison with 1997 Results .......................................................................................................20 

WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES WITHOUT AN INSERT ACTIVITY....................................................21 

General Population Results ............................................................................................................21 

Individual County Results................................................................................................................26 

Comparison with 1997 Results .......................................................................................................26 

PELLET STOVE ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................30 

General Population Results ............................................................................................................30 

Individual County Results................................................................................................................34 

Comparison with 1997 Results .......................................................................................................34 

WOOD BURNING STOVE & FIREPLACE WITH INSERT INVENTORY ..............................................34 

WOOD STOVE OR FIREPLACE WITH INSERT ACTIVITY ..................................................................37 

General Population Results ............................................................................................................37 

Individual County Results................................................................................................................41 

Comparison with 1997 Results .......................................................................................................41 

BARBEQUE, FIRE PIT OR SMOKER ....................................................................................................42 

General Population Results ............................................................................................................42 

Individual County Results................................................................................................................46 

Comparison with 1997 Results .......................................................................................................46 

STATE TAX DEDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM ..............................................................................46 

General Population Results ............................................................................................................46 

Individual County Results................................................................................................................48 

DEMOGRAPHICS...................................................................................................................................48 
State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality

2008 Residential Wood Combustion Telephone Survey 

Final Summary Report – January, 2010 

 Page 3

STATE OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY’S

RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION INVENTORY SURVEY: 

TREASURE VALLEY AIRSHED

AUGUST 2008 TO JULY 2009

EXECUTIVE HIGHLIGHTS (4 PAGES) 

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%

6% 7% 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 hours. 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 19971

 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 old2

); 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 representative 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. Residential 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 Ada 

(222 interviews) and Canyon (45 interviews) counties only. 2

 In order to speak with someone under 18 years of age, by law 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 residents4

, 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 branching 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 exchanges and working blocks in the 

United States. The database information is regularly updated four 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 other commercial or institutional services, are screened out. 

Disconnects have traditionally been one of the most inefficient parts of random digit sampling. STS PreID normally identifies 

50% to 75% of all disconnects in any RDD sample. 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 collection 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. Interviewer 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 recording 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 (χ2) 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 first 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 significant differences between 2008 results7 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 current sampling strategy in that only residents of Ada (83% or 222 

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 based on proportions estimated from the U.S. Census: 67% Ada, 29% Canyon, and 4% 

Elmore). For the purposes of the 1997 comparison, we re-weighted 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 and 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 difference 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 therefore might not be directly comparable and should be treated with 

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%

6% 7% 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 months9

 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%

49% 50%

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 barbecue, 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 Processe

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 was 
State 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 Pellet

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 only11 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 the 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.) 

WOODBURNING FIREPLACE WITHOUT INSERT: FREQUENCY OF BURNING FROM AUGUST, 2008 TO JULY, 2009

(AMONG THOSE WHO SAID THEY BURNED WOOD LEAST 4 TIMES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS) 

APPROXIMATELY 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. 

FIREPLACE (NO 

INSERT) BURNING 

ACTIVITY PERCENT 

MONDAY – FRIDAY

AMONG THOSE RESPONDING 

(N=71)

SATURDAY & SUNDAY

AMONG THOSE RESPONDING 

(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 hour

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. 

WEEK DAY BURNING 

ACTIVITY PERCENT (ADA

CANYON ONLY)

1997

AMONG THOSE 

RESPONDING (N=54

2008 

AMONG THOSE RESPONDIN

(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

WEEKEND BURNING 

ACTIVITY PERCENT

(ADA & CANYON ONLY

1997 

AMONG THOSE 

RESPONDING (N=54

2008

AMONG THOSE RESPONDIN

(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 2008
State 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 fireplace without an insert)

79%

8%5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%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% 9% 8%

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 2008
State 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.) 

PELLET STOVE: FREQUENCY OF BURNING FROM AUGUST, 2008 TO JULY, 2009

(among those who said they burned pellets at least 4 times in the past 12 months) 

Approximately 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 

19-24 

times 

25+ 

times Don’t Know 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 their 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.] 

PELLET STOVE 

ACTIVITY 

PERCENT 

MONDAY – FRIDAY

AMONG THOSE RESPONDING 

(N=21)

SATURDAY & SUNDAY

AMONG THOSE RESPONDING 

(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 you 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 commercial 
State 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 median12 of 800 pounds of pellets 

consumed by stove users. The responses (including don’t know responses) 

were categorized and are displayed in the following graph. 

Figure 22 

What is the average number 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 50th percentile, whereby 50% of the responses fall 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 stove 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 users 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 insert 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 

RESPONSE COUNT PERCENT COUNT PERCENT COUNT PERCENT

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 37

 Is 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? 

RESPONSE COUNT PERCENT COUNT PERCENT COUNT PERCENT

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

2008
State 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 heaviest 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. 

WOOD STOVE: FREQUENCY OF BURNING FROM AUGUST, 2008 TO JULY, 2009

(among those who said they burned wood at least 4 times in the past 12 months) 

Approximately 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 

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 average 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 weekend 
State 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. 

WOOD STOVE /

FIREPLACE INSERT 

ACTIVITY PERCENT 

MONDAY – FRIDAY

AMONG THOSE RESPONDING 

(N=122)

SATURDAY & SUNDAY

AMONG THOSE RESPONDING 

(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 PM
State 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 counties 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/FIRE PIT/SMOKER: FREQUENCY OF BURNING FROM AUGUST, 2008 TO JULY, 2009

(among those who said they burned pellets at least 4 times in the past 12 months) 

Approximately 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 

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

BARBEQUE, FIRE PIT 

& SMOKER ACTIVITY 

PERCENT 

MONDAY – FRIDAY

AMONG THOSE RESPONDING 

(N=85)

SATURDAY & SUNDAY

AMONG THOSE RESPONDING 

(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 discussed 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 program, 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

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS

GENDER

PERCENT OF 

TREASURE 

VALLEY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF ADA 

COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF 

CANYON COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF 

ELMORE COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

Female 56% 55% 59% 49% 

Male 44% 45% 41% 51% 

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 

TYPE OF RESIDENCE

PERCENT OF 

TREASURE 

VALLEY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF ADA 

COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF 

CANYON COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF 

ELMORE COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

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% 

YEAR HOUSE 

WAS BUILT

PERCENT OF 

TREASURE 

VALLEY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF ADA 

COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF 

CANYON COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF 

ELMORE COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

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

LENGTH OF TIME LIVING 

AT THIS RESIDENCE

PERCENT OF 

TREASURE 

VALLEY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF ADA 

COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF 

CANYON COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF 

ELMORE COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

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% 

LENGTH OF TIME LIVING 

IN TREASURE VALLEY

PERCENT OF 

TREASURE 

VALLEY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF ADA 

COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF 

CANYON 

COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF 

ELMORE COUNTY 

RESPONDENTS

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 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 
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

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 primary 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 emission inventory was prepared by the DEQ and 

ENVIRON. 

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, 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 months to represent the four seasons: January, 

April, July and October. Each full month was run for 2008, 2015 and 2023. DEQ then computed 

average daily emissions in each month and multiplied by the number of days in each season to 

estimate annual emissions. DEQ implemented ENVIRON’s quality assurance (QA) tool to 

generate a series of detailed graphs showing different 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 track with temperature and VMT temporal changes 

by day of week. Finally, ENVIRON performed 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 scripts and log files and found only one minor 

inconsistency. In the 2008 modeling, July was run in Mountain Daylight Time (MDT) and 

October, April and January were all 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 DEQ about the matter and DEQ confirmed the mistake was in the 2008 

modeling. DEQ will redo the base year modeling and will update the Emission Inventory 

originally compiled by ENVIRON. 

FUTURE YEAR COMPARISONS 

Multiple factors cause differences in the on-road 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 2008 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) decrease 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 2015/2023 for light duty gasoline vehicles. The 

frequency of I/M programs in both counties decreased from annual in 2008 to biennial in 2015 

and 2023. The market share of fuels sold in Ada 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, with detail by emissions mode. Figures 1 and 2 

show that VOC and NOX decrease significantly over calendar years despite increasing VMT; 

this is due to cleaner engine technologies becoming 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 brake and tire wear. By contrast, 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 Oct

Emissions (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 Oct

Emissions (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 Oct

Emissions (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 Oct

Emissions (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, Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality 

cc: Paula Fields; Eastern Research Group 

From: Gerard Mansell and Tanarit Sakulyanonvittaya, ENVIRON International 

Corporation 

Date: 8 December 2009 – Revised 31 December 2009 

Subject: Review of IDEQ Biogenic Emission Inventory for the Treasure Valley 

INTRODUCTION 

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (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. ENVIRON and Eastern Research Group (ERG) have 

been contracted to compile a complete 2008 annual inventory of all anthropogenic emission 

sources for the three counties within the Treasure Valley Airshed – Ada, Canyon and Elmore 

Counties. In addition to the development of anthropogenic emissions, ENVIRON has also been 

tasked with a review of IDEQ’s biogenic emission inventory. 

This Technical memorandum summarizes the available biogenic emission inventory modeling 

systems, landcover and vegetation data required for implementation of these models, and 

provides a review of IDEQ’s biogenic emission inventory and comparisons 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 applications, including ozone SIPs 

and PM Maintenance Plans, as well as for use in urban and regional scale 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 Interactions 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 result of biological activity from land-based 
 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

vegetative species and nitric oxide (NO) emissions 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 similar to those used in earlier versions of the 

BEIS model. The seven primary inputs to BEIS3 models are: 

• Spatially and temporally resolved meteorological data including temperatures, solar 

radiation and surface pressures 

• Spatially resolved, species-specific vegetation 

• Species-specific biogenic emissions factors (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 version 3 (BELD3). The BELD3 consists of 1-km 

horizontal resolution for 230 different land use types. The previous version, BELD2, was used in 

most BEIS2 applications and consisted 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 and 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 environmental conditions (i.e. 30oC and 1000 umol· m-2· s-1 PAR for 

isoprene and 30oC for monoterpenes, other VOCs, and NO). The emissions factors are stored in 

an ASCII file. This emission factors file also includes a winter adjustment factor and a leaf area 

index (LAI) for each land use type. Leaf area index (LAI) is defined as the total one-sided, or 

one half of the total all-sided, green leaf area per unit ground surface area11. In BEIS3, LAI is 

used to adjust the isoprene emissions for the effects of PAR penetrating 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 are input into a program called Normbeis3. The Normbeis3 program 

estimates normalized emissions (at 30oC and 1000 umol· m-2· s-1 PAR environmental conditions) 

by multiplying the emissions factor by the appropriate land use for each grid cell. These biogenic 

emissions data are reported in grams of Carbon or grams of Nitrogen per 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, speciation profiles, and the normalize emissions 

generated after the execution of Normbeis3. The speciation profiles are 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 into Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) 

modeling system. SMOKE also includes the ability to convert the NetCDF BEIS3 output files 

into a binary format recognized by the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions 

(CAMx) model.

Global Biosphere Emissions and Interactions System (GloBEIS) 

The BEIS series of models are the product of collaboration between researchers at the EPA and 

the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). GloBEIS, (Global Biosphere Emissions 

and Interactions System) is a biogenic emissions modeling system developed by NCAR and 

Environ International Corporation, based on the BEIS emission 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 and Aerosol from Nature (MEGAN) 

The Biological-Atmospheric Interactions (BAI) group of the Atmospheric 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 (Guenther et al., 2006; Sakulyanontvittaya, 2008). It is 

driven by land cover, weather, and atmospheric 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 incorporated as an on-line component of 

chemistry/transport and earth system models. 

Several improvements and modifications to previous versions of the MEGAN model have been 

implemented recently: 

• Accounting for spatial variations in soil NOX emissions. 

• Accounting for genetic variations in methanol, 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 radiation 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 allow 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 Biogenic Emission Landcover Database version 3 

(BELD3) in NetCDF format BELD3 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 county-level forest and agricultural datasets from 

other sources such as the U.S. department of Agriculture’s Census of Agriculture and U.S. Forest 

Service Eastwide Forest Inventory and Analysis Database (EWDB). 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 three I/O API NetCDF files: BELD3_A, BELD3_B, and 

BELD3_TOT. For North America, BELD3 data has been developed by USEPA in both NetCDF 

and ASCII format. The gridded BELD3 data is broken up into two files (BELD_A and 

BELD_B) as the I/O API limits the number of variables in any single NetCDF 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 area 
 Page 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-specific biogenic emissions factors (including a winter adjustment) 

for 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 environmental 

conditions. Leaf area index (LAI) is used to adjust the isoprene emissions for the effects of PAR 

penetrating through the leaf canopy. 

The three general landcover types (agricultural cropland, forest lands and other land types) based 

on the BELD3 database are displayed in Figures 1 through 3 for the IDEQ 4-km modeling 

domain. Note in these displays, all tree species are aggregated as are all agricultural crops and 

other landcover types (including urban 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 Index (LAI), tree fraction and plant species 

composition. These variables are determined based primarily on satellite observations, such as 

~1 km2

 Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and 30 m resolution 

LANDSAT data. Additionally, biogenic VOC (BVOC) and NO emissions vary considerably on 

spatial scales ranging from a few meters to thousands of kilometers. The MEGAN model 
 Page 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 resolution 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 based 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. Estimates for a particular region can be improved 

by using higher resolution satellite imagery and ground observations of landcover characteristics 

data. 

The two main inputs to MEGAN are ECMAP and plant functional type fraction (PFTF) data. 

The ECMAP input file provides gridded annual emission factors for 20 MEGAN species and 

monthly leaf area index (LAI) data. It also includes optional daily average temperature and solar 

radiation data, which will be ignored if online calculation 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/brush, cropland and herbaceous. 

SCT Distribution (ECMAP) 

A species-specific emission factor distribution requires accurate estimates of plant species 

distributions. This should be accomplished using a landcover database with sufficient detail for 

representing a relatively constant species composition type. The MEGAN version 2.0 SCT 

database (SCTv2.0) is described 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/brushland, cropland and other herbaceous) with the 

remainder of the cell considered barren with 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 based on AVHRR data (Hansen et a. 2000). 

The Hansen et al. (2003) database provides an estimate of the fraction 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 broadleaf and needleleaf fractions. The Hansen et al. (2000) landcover database 

was combined with a simple scheme to divide non-tree vegetation into shrub, grass and crop 

fractions. The global coverage of these data provides a convenient approach for characterizing 

the entire earth system and these estimates provide reasonable results when averaged over large 

scales. However, Guenther et al. (2006) demonstrated that there are large uncertainties in the 

PFTv2.0 estimates on local scales and showed that emission estimates varied considerably for 
 Page 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 provide temperature and PAR data to MEGAN, which are generated 

by the TPAR2IOAPI pre-processor. Environment 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 estimate PAR from the selected MCIP solar radiation data assuming half 

of the solar radiation is in the 400-700 nm spectrum. 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 emission factors and plant functional types for 

the IDEQ 4-km modeling domain. 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 MEGAN database as can be seen in Figure 4 which 

displays the isoprene emission factors which are highly dependent on accurate characterization 

of tree species. Plant functional types, displayed 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 emissions modeling is presented and discussed in this section. 

Additionally, comparisons are presented between IDEQ’s inventory and 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 SMOKE2.5. 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 developers that for SIP purposes BEIS was an 

appropriate model to use until the large differences in isoprene emissions between BEIS and 

MEGAN can be resolved. 

The processing approach utilized by IDEQ for its biogenic emissions 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 data and emissions factors and produce 

gridded normalized biogenic emissions for 35 species/compounds. The gridded land use 

data was prepared with EPA’s spatial allocator 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 active radiation (PAR) 

of 1000 μmol/m2

s. Additionally, gridded summer and winter leaf area indices (LAI) were 

also generated. 

2. Tmpbeis3 was utilized to read the gridded, normalized emissions from Normbeis3 and 

meteorological data from the MCIP-processed MM5/WRF meteorological fields. More 

specifically, the following MM5/MCIP meteorological variables are used by Tmpbeis3 to 

compute hour-specific, gridded biogenic emissions from the normalized emission fluxes: 

• surface temperature (“TEMP2”) 

• surface pressure (“PRSFC”) 

• total incoming solar radiation at the surface (“RGRND”) 

• convective (“RC”) and non-convective (“RN”) rainfall 

The emissions for the species modeled by BEIS3.14 were converted to CO, NO, and the 

SAPRC99 VOC species utilized in CMAQ via the use of the SAPRC99 speciation profile. 

In addition, an optional seasonal switch file, BIOSEASON, was utilized to determine whether 

to use summer or winter emissions factors for 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 given grid cell, and winter 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, gridded 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 intersecting the grid cell in proportion to the 

area of each of these counties within 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 applied 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 entire calendar year 2008. Countylevel emission totals for NO, CO, TOG and Isoprene were developed using GIS processing 

approaches, similar to those used by IDEQ, to allocate gridded emissions data to counties. For 

consistency, the gridded BEIS biogenic emissions provided by IDEQ were also reprocessed 

along with the MEGAN biogenic emissions to generate county-level emission totals for Ada, 

Canyon and Elmore Counties. 

Table 2 presents summaries by county and pollutant for the three county area of the Treasure 

Valley. Results are presented for NO, CO, total VOC (TOG) and isoprene emissions from both 

the BEIS and MEGAN biogenic model applications 
ENVIRON 

773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 ● Novato, California 94998 USA

(Tel): 415-899-0700 z (Fax): 415-899-0707 z www.environcorp.com

Table 2. Monthly biogenic emission summaries for BEIS and MEGAN for the three county Treasure Valley Are

 NO CO TOG 

Model Month Ada Canyon Elmore Ada Canyon Elmore Ada Canyon Elmore 

January 8.1 10.6 14.9 32.6 24.2 113.9 123.0 87.1 402.6 February 9.4 12.7 19.2 36.6 28.7 127.7 147.3 109.9 465.9 March 12.1 16.1 25.8 51.1 39.9 168.7 221.5 163.1 637.3 April 16.3 21.2 33.5 84.1 63.5 257.5 418.4 294.6 1,076.7 May 22.1 29.2 51.4 227.0 156.8 621.4 1,246.2 814.4 2,870.8 June 25.8 34.7 59.2 330.7 224.1 951.3 2,001.9 1,284.3 4,803.3 July 32.7 42.2 80.5 571.7 388.6 1,675.6 3,702.0 2,394.7 9,029.4 August 30.9 39.4 76.0 513.5 344.2 1,505.4 3,194.2 2,044.1 7,815.1 September 23.3 29.7 56.7 281.8 184.7 848.6 1,537.1 966.0 3,947.4 October 18.3 23.1 44.5 167.7 107.2 482.3 791.1 473.8 2,020.5 November 13.9 17.5 34.2 88.7 55.3 262.8 348.6 207.2 975.1 December 9.1 12.0 19.2 37.7 27.8 138.9 147.3 103.2 500.5 

BEIS 

Annual 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 

January 1.0 0.7 1.4 8.9 4.0 17.8 40.2 16.0 87.9 February 1.3 1.1 1.7 12.8 6.9 23.1 55.2 30.7 108.7 March 2.2 1.8 2.7 25.0 13.3 39.4 124.2 60.1 199.9 April 5.1 4.5 6.1 71.0 42.0 117.5 487.0 270.4 840.8 May 13.1 12.3 18.8 193.8 119.1 384.1 1,408.0 666.4 3,098.6 June 17.9 22.2 31.8 262.1 222.3 710.7 2,002.6 1,314.0 6,264.7 July 30.9 49.0 57.6 389.9 434.5 1,171.8 3,106.7 2,508.8 10,728.9 August 23.5 34.4 43.0 260.6 269.3 770.7 1,949.6 1,422.2 6,581.0 September 10.3 13.8 19.0 101.4 98.9 308.3 621.2 459.9 2,164.8 October 4.8 5.9 9.3 41.4 35.8 124.3 207.3 141.7 700.6 November 2.2 2.1 4.1 16.9 11.2 50.3 63.3 35.6 212.4 December 0.8 0.7 1.3 7.2 4.2 14.9 26.5 13.3 55.4 

MEGAN 

Annual 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 
 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 variation of biogenic NO, CO, TOG and Isoprene 

emissions, respectively, for Ada County. Both BEIS and MEGAN derived emissions are 

displayed. Corresponding displays of monthly biogenic emissions from both models are 

presented in Figures 14 through 17 for Canyon County, 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, except 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-derived biogenic emissions of NO and CO are 

lower than those derived from the BEIS model, while biogenic VOC, and especially biogenic 

isoprene, emissions are estimated to be considerably 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 seasonal variations with higher 

biogenic emissions during the spring and summer months compared to the winter and fall 

seasons. 

IDEQ Biogenic NOx Emissions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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

700

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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

4000

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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

1800

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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

60

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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

500

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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

3000

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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

800

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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

90

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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

1800

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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

12000

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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

6000

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Tons

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 gridded biogenic emissions developed 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 biogenic 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 the corresponding gridded emissions for the month 

of July, in tons per month. 

Differences in the spatial distributions of emission 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 differences 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 biogenic 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 biogenic 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\Desktop\TEMP\IDEQ_bio_Tech_Memo_31Dec09.doc 

CONCLUSIONS 

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality developed biogenic emissions as part of their 

SIP-quality emissions inventory using the BEIS model, version 3.19. ENVIRON reviewed the 

inventory, with respect to input data, including landcover and vegetation and meteorology, and 

model application. In addition a comparison was made between biogenic emissions generated 

using the BEIS model and an alternative biogenic modeling system, MEGAN. 

Based on the inventory review conducted by ENVIRON, IDEQ’s biogenic emissions inventory 

development, including input data and processing, 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 BEIS biogenic emissions 

model appears to reasonably represent biogenic emissions for the region given the model and 

databases used. A comparison of the BEIS-derived emissions and those derived from the 

MEGAN model are consistent given the various differences model formulations and input 

databases, particularly the more highly spatially resolved landcover and vegetation data. Both 

models exhibit the appropriate seasonal and spatial variations as expected. Differences in 

emission levels between the two model applications 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., Janetos, A.C., and Loveland, T.R., A new global 

1km data set of percent tree cover derived from 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 Emissions 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 Emissions 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 classifier, International Journal 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\Desktop\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 Commission. December, 1999. 
APPENDIX G 

DETAILED AREA SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARIES
G-1

Table G-1. 2008 Annual Ada County Area Source Emissions (tpy) 

SCC SCC Description 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 Electrical 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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 - Aircraft 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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3

(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 

NOx

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

NH3

(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