# Appendix 10.2

2018 Visibility Projections for CENRAP Class I Area s

(TSD Appendix D)

## APPENDIX D 2018 Visibility Projections for CENRAP Class I Area s Using 2002 Typical and 2018 Base Case Base G Emission Sce nario CMAQ Results and EPA Default Projection Method and Comparison with 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) Glidepaths **Figure D-1: Caney Creek Wilderness Area (CACR), Ar kansas**  **Figure D-2: Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (UPBU), Arkansas**  **Figure D-3: Breton Island Wilderness Area (BRET), L ouisiana**  **Figure D-4: Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness A rea (BOWA), Minnesota**  **Figure D-5: Voyageurs National Park (VOYA), Minneso ta**  **Figure D-6: Hercules Glade Wilderness Area (HEGL), Missouri**  **Figure D-7: Mingo Wilderness Area (MING), Missouri Figure D-8: Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area (WIMO**  **), Oklahoma Figure D-9: Big Bend National Park (BIBE), Texas**  **Figure D-10: Guadalupe Mountains National Park (GUM O), Texas** 

### Figure D-1a. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Caney Creek (CACR),** 

**Arkansas and Worst 20% (W20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 



## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Caney Creek Wilderness - Best 20% Days

11.24 11.24 11.24 11.24 11.24 11.24 11.24 11.24
10.35

**0 2**  **4 6**  **8 10**  **12 14** 

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

**Glide Path Natural Condition (Best Days)**  **Observation Method 1 Prediction**  

### Figure D-1b. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Caney Creek (CACR),**  **Arkansas and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 B ase G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 



## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Caney Creek Wilderness - 20% Data Days

26.36 25.38 22.91 20.45 17.99 15.52 13.06 11.58 22.48

**0 5**  **10 15**  **20 25**  **30**

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

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

### Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at CACR1

**0 50**  **100 150**  **200 250**  **300 350**  **400**

**80 128 143 155 170 173 188 191 200 203 215 218 221 239 242 248 251 2 54 257 260 296 320 341 _ _ Avg**  Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-1c. **Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G mod eled (right) daily extinction for Caney**  **Creek (CACR), Arkansas and Worst 20% (W20%) days in 2002.**  Bext Response (base18g - typ02g) at CACR1 on Worst 20% Days

**-200 -150**  **-100 -50**  **0 50** 

**80 128 143 155 170 173 188 191 200 203 215 218 221 239 242 248 251 2 54 257 260 296 320 341 Avg**  Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-1d. **Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ results (2018-2002) daily extinction**  **for Caney Creek (CACR), Arkansas and Worst 20% (W20 %) days in 2002.** 

## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Upper Buffalo Wilderness - 20% Data Days

26.27 25.29 22.84 20.39 17.94 15.49 13.04 11.57 22.52



### 0 **5 10**  **15 20**  **25 30** 

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  

### Year**Haziness Index (Deciviews)**



### Glide Path **Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation**  **Method 1 Prediction** Figure D-2a. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Upper Buffalo (UPBU),**  **Arkansas and Worst 20% (W20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 

### Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at UPBU1

**0 50**  **100 150**  **200 250**  **300 350** 

**128 143 158 170 173 179 191 197 203 206 215 218 221 224 239 242 248 251 254 257 269 296 320 332 _ Avg**  Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-2c. **Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G mod eled (right) daily extinction for Upper**  **Buffalo (UPBU), Arkansas and Worst 20% (W20%) days in 2002.**  Bext Response (base18g - typ02g) at UPBU1 on Worst 20% Da ys

**-200 -150**  **-100 -50**  **0 50** 

**128 143 158 170 173 179 191 197 203 206 215 218 221 224 239 242 248 251 254 257 269 296 320 332 Avg**  Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-2d. **Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ results (2018-2002) daily extinction**  **for Upper Buffalo (UPBU), Arkansas and Worst 20% (W 20%) days in 2002.** 

## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Breton - 20% Data Days

25.73 24.81 22.51 20.21 17.91 15.61 13.31 11.93 22.72

**0 5**  **10 15**  **20 25**  **30**

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

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

### Figure D-3a. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Breton Island (BRET),**  **Louisiana and Worst 20% (W20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 



## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path

Breton - Best 20% Days

13.12 13.12 13.12 13.12 13.12 13.12 13.12 13.12
12.22

**0 2**  **4 6**  **8 10**  **12 14**  **16**

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

**Glide Path Natural Condition (Best Days)**  **Observation Method 1 Prediction**  

### Figure D-3b. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Breton Island (BRET),**  **Louisiana and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 

### Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at BRET1

**0 20**  **40 60**  **80 100**  **120 140**  **160**

**44 47 74 125 143 179 194 197 200 206 215 239 248 251 254 257 260 263 272 281 284 287 305 311 _ Avg**  Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-3c. **Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G mod eled (right) daily extinction for Breton**  **Island (BRET), Louisiana and Worst 20% (W20%) days in 2002.**  Bext Response (base18g - typ02g) at BRET1 on Worst 20% Day s

**-60 -50**  **-40 -30**  **-20 -10**  **0 10** 

**44 47 74 125 143 179 194 197 200 206 215 239 248 251 254 257 260 263 272 281 284 287 305 311 Avg**  Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-3d. **Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ results (2018-2002) daily extinction**  **for Breton Island (BRET), Louisiana and Worst 20% ( W20%) days in 2002.** 

## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Boundary Waters Canoe Area - 20% Data Days

19.58 19.05 17.72 16.39 15.06 13.73 12.41 11.61 18.30

**0 5**  **10 15**  **20 25** 

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

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

### Figure D-4a. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Boundary Waters**  **(BOWA), Minnesota and Worst 20% (W20%) days using 2 002/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling**  **results.** 

## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path

Boundary Waters Canoe Area - Best 20% Days

6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.16

**0 1**  **2 3**  **4 5**  **6 7**  **8**

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

**Glide Path Natural Condition (Best Days)**  **Observation Method 1 Prediction**  

### Figure D-4b. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Boundary Waters**  **(BOWA), Minnesota and Best 20% (B20%) days using 20 02/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling**  **results.**

### Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at BOWA1

**0 20**  **40 60**  **80 100**  **120 140**  **160**

**11 26 146 149 161 170 176 179 188 197 200 203 242 245 251 275 299 31 4 332 344 347 _ _ _ _ Avg**  Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-4c. **Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G mod eled (right) daily extinction for**  **Boundary Waters (BOWA), Minnesota and Worst 20% (W2 0%) days in 2002.**  Bext Response (base18g - typ02g) at BOWA1 on Worst 20% D ays

**-40 -30**  **-20 -10**  **0 10**  **20**

**11 26 146 149 161 170 176 179 188 197 200 203 242 245 251 275 299 31 4 332 344 347 Avg**  Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-4d. **Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ results (2018-2002) daily extinction**  **for Boundary Waters (BOWA), Minnesota and Worst 20% (W20%) days in 2002.** 

## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Voyageurs NP - 20% Data Days

19.27 18.79 17.58 16.38 15.18 13.98 12.78 12.06 18.37

**0 5**  **10 15**  **20 25** 

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

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

### Figure D-5a. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Voyageurs (VOYA),**  **Minnesota and Worst 20% (W20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 



## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path

Voyageurs NP - Best 20% Days

7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.08

**0 1**  **2 3**  **4 5**  **6 7**  **8 9** 

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

**Glide Path Natural Condition (Best Days)**  **Observation Method 1 Prediction**  

### Figure D-5b. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Voyageurs (VOYA),**  **Minnesota and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 

### Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at VOYA2

**0 20**  **40 60**  **80 100**  **120 140**  **160 180**  **200**

**5 11 71 86 104 131 146 152 170 179 188 197 200 221 242 245 254 260 27 2 284 299 332 344 347 _ Avg**  Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-5c. **Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G mod eled (right) daily extinction for**  **Voyageurs (VOYA), Minnesota and Worst 20% (W20%) da ys in 2002.**  Bext Response (base18g - typ02g) at VOYA2 on Worst 20% Day s

**-40 -35**  **-30 -25**  **-20 -15**  **-10 -5**  **0 5** 

**5 11 71 86 104 131 146 152 170 179 188 197 200 221 242 245 254 260 27 2 284 299 332 344 347 Avg**  Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-5d. **Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ results (2018-2002) daily extinction**  **for Voyageurs (VOYA), Minnesota and Worst 20% (W20% ) days in 2002.** 

## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Hercules-Glades Wilderness - 20% Data Days

26.75 25.72 23.14 20.57 17.99 15.42 12.84 11.30 23.06



### 0 **5 10**  **15 20**  **25 30** 

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  

### Year**Haziness Index (Deciviews)**



### Glide Path **Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation**  **Method 1 Prediction** Figure D-6a. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Hercules-Glade**  **(HEGL), Missouri and Worst 20% (W20%) days using 20 02/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 



## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Hercules-Glades Wilderness - Best 20% Days

12.84 12.84 12.84 12.84 12.84 12.84 12.84 12.84
11.95

**0 2**  **4 6**  **8 10**  **12 14**  **16**

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

**Glide Path Natural Condition (Best Days)**  **Observation Method 1 Prediction**  

### Figure D-6b. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Hercules-Glade**  **(HEGL), Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days using 200 2/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 

### Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at HEGL1

**0 50**  **100 150**  **200 250**  **300 350**  **400**

**5 149 152 170 173 179 188 191 206 215 218 221 224 239 242 245 248 25 1 257 260 269 296 320 341 347 Avg**  Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-6c. **Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G mod eled (right) daily extinction for**  **Hercules-Glade (HEGL), Missouri and Worst 20% (W20% ) days in 2002.**  Bext Response (base18g - typ02g) at HEGL1 on Worst 20% Da ys

**-180 -160**  **-140 -120**  **-100 -80**  **-60 -40**  **-20 0**  **20 40** 

**5 149 152 170 173 179 188 191 206 215 218 221 224 239 242 245 248 25 1 257 260 269 296 320 341 347 Avg**  Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-6d. **Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ results (2018-2002) daily extinction**  **for Hercules-Glade (HEGL), Missouri and Worst 20% ( W20%) days in 2002.** 

## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Mingo - 20% Data Days

28.02 26.98 24.37 21.77 19.17 16.56 13.96 12.40 23.71

**0 5**  **10 15**  **20 25**  **30 35** 

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

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

### Figure D-7a. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Mingo (MING),**  **Missouri and Worst 20% (W20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 



## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path

Mingo - Best 20% Days

13.76 13.76 13.76 13.76 13.76 13.76 13.76 13.76
12.84

**0 2**  **4 6**  **8 10**  **12 14**  **16**

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

**Glide Path Natural Condition (Best Days)**  **Observation Method 1 Prediction**  

### Figure D-7b. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Mingo (MING),**  **Missouri and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 B ase G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 

### Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at MING1

**0 50**  **100 150**  **200 250**  **300 350**  **400**

**20 77 95 158 173 185 188 191 194 197 206 215 218 221 239 242 245 251 272 296 332 341 _ _ _ Avg**  Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-7c. **Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G mod eled (right) daily extinction for Mingo**  **(MING), Missouri and Worst 20% (W20%) days in 2002.** Bext Response (base18g - typ02g) at MING1 on Worst 20% Day s

**-250 -200**  **-150 -100**  **-50 0**  **50**

**20 77 95 158 173 185 188 191 194 197 206 215 218 221 239 242 245 251 272 296 332 341 Avg**  Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-7d. **Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ results (2018-2002) daily extinction**  **for Mingo (MING), Missouri and Worst 20% (W20%) day s in 2002.** 

## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Wichita Mountains - 20% Data Days

23.81 22.72 20.01 17.30 14.58 11.87 9.16 7.53 21.47

**0 5**  **10 15**  **20 25**  **30**

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

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

### Figure D-8a. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Wichita Mountains**  **(WIMO), Oklahoma and Worst 20% (W20%) days using 20 02/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling**  **results.** 

## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path

Wichita Mountains - Best 20% Days

9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.78 9.23

**0 2**  **4 6**  **8 10**  **12**

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

**Glide Path Natural Condition (Best Days)**  **Observation Method 1 Prediction**  

### Figure D-8b. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Wichita Mountains**  **(WIMO), Oklahoma and Best 20% (B20%) days using 200 2/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 

### Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at WIMO1

**0 20**  **40 60**  **80 100**  **120 140**  **160 180**  **200**

**29 83 95 101 110 113 125 128 131 143 170 173 176 179 218 221 224 242 245 254 260 269 272 344 _ Avg**  Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-8c. **Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G mod eled (right) daily extinction for Wichita**  **Mountains (WIMO), Oklahoma and Worst 20% (W20%) day s in 2002.**  Bext Response (base18g - typ02g) at WIMO1 on Worst 20% Da ys

**-60 -50**  **-40 -30**  **-20 -10**  **0 10** 

**29 83 95 101 110 113 125 128 131 143 170 173 176 179 218 221 224 242 245 254 260 269 272 344 Avg**  Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-8d. **Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ results (2018-2002) daily extinction**  **for Wichita Mountains (WIMO), Oklahoma and Worst 20 % (W20%) days in 2002.** 

## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Big Bend NP - 20% Data Days

17.30 16.62 14.93 13.24 11.55 9.86 8.17 7.16 16.69

**0 2**  **4 6**  **8 10**  **12 14**  **16 18**  **20**

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

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

### Figure D-9a. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Big Bend (BIBE),**  **Texas and Worst 20% (W20%) days using 2002/2018 Bas e G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 



## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path

Big Bend NP - Best 20% Days

5.78 5.78 5.78 5.78 5.78 5.78 5.78 5.78 5.64

**0 1**  **2 3**  **4 5**  **6 7**  **8**

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

**Glide Path Natural Condition (Best Days)**  **Observation Method 1 Prediction**  

### Figure D-9b. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Big Bend (BIBE),**  **Texas and Best 20% (B20%) days using 2002/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling results.** 

### Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at BIBE1

**0 20**  **40 60**  **80 100**  **120**

**29 71 89 92 95 101 110 113 116 119 125 128 131 143 167 191 218 221 23 0 242 245 254 275 329 _ Avg**  Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-9c. **Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G mod eled (right) daily extinction for Big**  **Bend (BIBE), Texas and Worst 20% (W20%) days in 200 2.**  Bext Response (base18g - typ02g) at BIBE1 on Worst 20% Day s

**-7 -6**  **-5 -4**  **-3 -2**  **-1 0**  **1 2** 

**29 71 89 92 95 101 110 113 116 119 125 128 131 143 167 191 218 221 23 0 242 245 254 275 329 Avg**  Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-9d. **Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ results (2018-2002) daily extinction**  **for Big Bend (BIBE), Texas and Worst 20% (W20%) day s in 2002.** 

## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Guadalupe Mountains NP - 20% Data Days

17.19 16.49 14.74 12.99 11.23 9.48 7.73 6.68 16.35

**0 2**  **4 6**  **8 10**  **12 14**  **16 18**  **20**

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

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

### Figure D-10a. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Guadalupe**  **Mountains (GUMO), Texas and Worst 20% (W20%) days u sing 2002/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km**  **modeling results.**



## Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide Path Guadalupe Mountains NP - Best 20% Days

5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.95 5.74

**0 1**  **2 3**  **4 5**  **6 7** 

**2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 204 8 2052 2056 2060 2064**  **Year Haziness Index (Deciviews)** 

**Glide Path Natural Condition (Best Days)**  **Observation Method 1 Prediction**  

### Figure D-10b. **2018 Visibility Projections and 2018 URP Glidepat hs in deciview for Guadalupe**  **Mountains (GUMO), Texas and Best 20% (B20%) days us ing 2002/2018 Base G CMAQ 36 km modeling**  **results.**

### Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at GUMO1

**0 10**  **20 30**  **40 50**  **60 70**  **80 90** 

**74 83 92 95 122 131 137 146 161 164 167 170 173 176 191 218 221 245 2 51 254 260 266 272 329 _ Avg**  Julian Day in Worst 20% groupbEXT (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-10c. **Comparison of observed (left) and 2002 Base G mod eled (right) daily extinction for**  **Guadalupe Mountains (GUMO), Texas and Worst 20% (W2 0%) days in 2002.**  Bext Response (base18g - typ02g) at GUMO1 on Worst 20% Day s

**-35 -30**  **-25 -20**  **-15 -10**  **-5 0**  **5**

**74 83 92 95 122 131 137 146 161 164 167 170 173 176 191 218 221 245 2 51 254 260 266 272 329 Avg**  Julian DayDelta Bext (1/Mm) **bCM bSOIL**  **bEC bOC**  **bNO3 bSO4** 



### Figure D-10d. **Differences in modeled 2002 and 2018 Base G CMAQ results (2018-2002) daily**  **extinction for Guadalupe Mountains (GUMO), Texas an d Worst 20% (W20%) days in 2002.**