&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-90-008
May 1990
Air
IMPROVE
PROGRESS REPORT
-------
EPA-450/4-90-008
IMPROVE
PROGRESS REPORT
By
Marc Pitchford
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, NV 93478
And
David Joseph
Air Quality Office
National Park Service
Denver, CO 80228
U.S. Environmental Protection
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Eoorn 1670
feioago, IL 60604
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
Office Of Air And Radiation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Tnnngie Pone. NC 27711
Mav 1990
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Any mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
EPA-450/4-90-008
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 5
Objectives of the IMPROVE Program 6
Background Visibility Monitoring Network 7
Introduction 7
Site Selection 7
Monitoring Techniques 8
Quality Assurance 17
Data Processing, Reporting, and Status 17
Process to Identify and Document Suspected Visibility
Impairment 30
Voyageurs National Park 31
Petrified Forest National Park 31
Saguaro Wilderness 31
Canyonlands National Park 32
Grand Canyon National Park 32
Moosehorn Wilderness Area 32
Roosevelt Campobello International Park 33
-------
Figures and Tables
Item Title Page(s)
Figure 1 IMPROVE Background Visibility 9
Monitoring Network site map.
Figure 2 Particle analysis lower detection 14
limits.
Figure 3 Particle and optical monitoring 23-25
seasonal data summary.
Table 1 IMPROVE "look-alike" sites. 10-12
Table 2 Transmissometer deployment schedule. 15
Table 3 Related parameters evaluated for 18
Quality Assurance
Table 4 Independent crosschecks. 19
Table 5 Data processing steps. 20-21
Table 6 Particle data status. 26
Table 7 Optical data status. 27
Table 8 Photography archive status. 28
-------
Appendices
Appendix A
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Standard Operating Procedures for IMPROVE
Particulate Monitoring Network
Logsheets Used in Sample Handling
IMPROVE Sample Manual
Gravimetric Mass Startup Procedures
LIPM Startup Procedures
PIXE/PESA Procedures
Ion Contractor Procedures (RTI)
Carbon Contractor Procedures (DRI)
Transmissometer standard Operating Procedures
Manual
Visibility Monitoring and Data Analysis Using
Automatic Camera Systems - Satndard Operating
Procedures and Quality Assurance Document
Transmissometer Systems Field Operator's Manual
Transmissometer Data Collection and Processing
Status of IMPROVE and National Park Service
IMPROVE Protocol Optical Monitoring Networks
Monthly Technical Progress Report Visibility
Monitoring and Data Analysis Program
Monitoring for Reasonably Attributable Impact of
Local Sources at '/oyageurs National Park,
Petrified Forest National Park and Moosehorn
Wilderness
-------
IMPROVE Progress Report
I. Introduction
In Section 169A of the Clean Air Act As Amended August 1977,
Congress declared as a national goal "the prevention of any future,
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from
manmade air pollution." Mandatory class I Federal areas are
national parks greater in size than 6000 acres, wilderness areas
greater in size than 5000 acres and international parks that were
in existence on August 7, 1977. This section required the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations
requiring States to develop programs in their State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) providing for visibility protection in these areas.
EPA promulgated these regulations on December 2, 1980.
Section 51.305 of the 1980 regulations required States to
develop a monitoring strategy for evaluating visibility in the
mandatory class I areas and to provide a mechanism for using any
available data in decisions required by the visibility protection
program. On July 12, 1985, EPA promulgated federal regulations
for, among other things, a visibility monitoring strategy for those
states that did not submit revisions to their SIPs for visibility
protection. The federal effort to develop the entire Section 169A
visibility program is described in more detail by Metsa . ) The
federally promulgated visibility monitoring strategy called for the
establishment of a cooperative visibility monitoring effort between
the EPA and several federal land management agencies: the National
Park Service (NFS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the U. S. Department of
Interior; and the Forest Service (FS) of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture. Interagency Monitoring of PROtected Visual
Snvironraents, or IMPROVE, is the name given to this new federal
monitoring program to address the specific data needs of the
Section 169A visibility protection program.
In consideration of the requirements of the Section 169A
regulatory program, the objectives of the IMPROVE program are:
1. To establish the background visibility levels necessary to
assess impacts of potential new sources,
2. To determine the sources and levels of reasonably
attributable visibility impairment,
3. To collect data useful for assessing progress toward the
national visibility goal, and
-------
4. To promote the development of improved visibility
monitoring technology and the collection of comparable
visibility data.
In order to meet these objectives two distinct monitoring
activities were developed and initiated. A background visibility
monitoring network was established to meet the first objective.
Impairment attribution studies are conducted to meet the second
objective. Long-term operation of this network would allow trends
analysis required to meet the third objective. The fourth
objective is addressed by the documentation of the design and
operations of the monitoring network and attribution studies along
with the preparation of several guidance documents.
To accomplish these activities, a technical steering committee
was formed with representation from the EPA, NFS, FWS, FS and the
BLM. The committee's responsibilities include designing,
deploying, and operating the entire monitoring program; selecting
tile sites for the various background stations and special studies;
developing guidance documents for States and other parties that
must monitor visibility; providing some data analysis and
interpretation; establishing a database that can be accessed by
outside parties and writing periodic status reports to inform the
public of the status of these monitoring initiatives. The
committee has hirad contractors, as needed, to accomplish the above
tasks.
This report summarizes the progress made to date in developing
and implementing the IMPROVE monitoring network. Section II
addresses the background monitoring network and Section III reviews
the impairment attribution monitoring efforts.
42 U.S.C. 7491.
Section 162(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended 1977, 42
U.S.C. 7472(a). A complete list of all the mandatory class
I Federal areas appears at 40 CFR 81.400-437.
45 FR 80084, codified at 40 CFR 51.300 et seq.
50 FR 28544, codified at 40 CFR Sections 52.21 (amended)
and 52.26-52.28.
J. C. Metsa, "Visibility Protection Plans - EPA's
Regulatory Program", Transactions of the Air Pollution
Control Association Specialty. Conference on Visibility
Protection: Research and Policy Aspects, September 7-10,
1986, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming.
-------
II. Background Visibility Monitoring Network
Introduction
The design of the background visibility monitoring network
was constrained by several factors: insufficient resources to
monitor at all of the visibility protected areas, and the lack of
an officially accepted approach for visibility monitoring. The
response by the steering group to these constraints was to
establish and use site selection criteria to determine which of
the visibility protected areas to monitor, and to develop a
quality monitoring approach applied uniformly at each of the
selected locations. The steering committee felt that it was
better to compromise on the number of monitoring locations than
on the ultimate quality and utility of the information gathered.
Site Selection
The steering committee employed site selection criteria in a
review of each of the 156 visibility protected class I areas to
determine which would be a part of the network. There were four
criteria: anticipated changes to the area's visibility, existing
visibility problems, scenic sensitivity and value, and the
representativeness of the data to other visibility protected
areas.
Representatives of the NFS, FS, and FWS researched each of
their visibility protected areas for information pertinent to
the four selection criteria. The areas were discussed
individually at a steering committee meeting and were separated
into four divisions by the majority vote of the IMPROVE
participants (one vote per agency) using the selection criteria
as a guide. Since the best estimates at the time were that the
resources for the program would support about 20 monitoring
sites, the first division was restricted to that number. Areas
grouped into division I were reasonably assured monitoring.
There were 16 areas selected for division II which would be the
next to receive monitoring if cost were lower than anticipated or
if additional funds became available. Divisions III and IV
contained areas with even lower priority for inclusion in the
network.
Of the 20 areas originally selected for background
visibility monitoring (division I), 19 are a part of the network.
One of the 20 selected sites, Superstition Wilderness near
Phoenix, Arizona, had a chronic and determined vandalism problem
that prevented siting a monitoring station there. Tonto
National Monument (not a visibility protected area), a few miles
north of the Superstitions Wilderness, was selected as a
substitute. It is representative of regional air quality in the
-------
Superstitions and has adequate security for the instrumentation.
IMPROVE resources have not allowed the establishment of more than
the originally anticipated 20 sites. The names and locations of
these are indicated on the map shown in figure 1.
Subsequent to the development of the monitoring protocol
used in the IMPROVE visibility background monitoring network, a
number of IMPROVE "look-a-like" sites were established by
individual government agencies. Though these sites are not a
part of the IMPROVE program, the steering committee has
encouraged their establishment by sharing information and
providing advice as requested. As a result, the same monitoring
systems, procedures, and instrument siting criteria are employed
at most of these locations. These site locations can also be
seen in figure 1. The sponsors of these sites have agreed to
exchange data with the IMPROVE program, so that in an importance
sense these sites can be thought of as an extension of the
background visibility monitoring network. Table la lists the
monitoring systems in use at the IMPROVE "look-a-like" sites.
Site identification, location and elevation for both IMPROVE and
IMPROVE "look-a-like" sites are listed in Table Ib.
Monitoring Techniques
The background visibility monitoring approach involves
aerosol, optical, and view monitoring. View monitoring
documents the appearance of the scene, optical monitoring
measures the scene-independent optical condition of the
atmosphere, and aerosol monitoring determines the nature of the
air pollutants responsible for visual impairments. In the
opinion of the steering committee, each of these types of
monitoring are required for visibility 'monitoring of protected
areas.
Aerosol monitoring in the IMPROVE network is accomplished by
a combination of particle sampling and sample analysis. The
sampler employed was designed specifically for the program. It
collects four simultaneous samples: one PM-10 sample (particles
less than 10 micron diameter) on a teflon filter and three PM-2.5
samples (particles less than 2.5 micron diameter) on teflon,
nylon, and quartz filters. Each of the four samples is collected
by a separate subsystem (or module) including everything from the
inlet to the pump with only the support structure and
controller/timer in common. The particle size segregation for
the PM-10 module is accomplished by a wind insensitive inlet
with a 10 micron cutoff, while the PM-2.5 segregation is produced
by passing the sampled air through a cyclone separator. Constant
sample flow (18.9 liters per minute for the PM-10 module and 21.7
liters per minute for each of the PM-2.5 modules) is maintained
by a critical orifice in each module. The IMPROVE sampler is
programed to automatically collect two 24-hour duration samples
-------
Sit*
ACAD
3IBE
3RCA
3RID
CANY
CH:H
CHLA
DENA
GLAC
GHCA
GRSM
JARB
NEVE
MORA
ROMO
SASO
SHEN
TONT
WENI
toss
Site Ham*
Acadia
Big Send
3ryce Canyon
Bridget Wilderness
Canyonlands
Chiricahua
Cratar Lake
Oenali
Glacier
Grand Canyon
Great Smoky Mountains
Jacbidge Wilderness
Mesa Verde
Mount Rainier
Rocky Mountain
San Gorgonio wilderness
State
ME
TX
UT
WY
UT
AZ
OR
AK
MT
AZ
TN
NV
CO
WA
CO
CA
Shenandoan ! 7A
Tonto national Monument
Weninucne Wilderness
'fosemite
AZ
CO
CA
a
HALC
\
»VD-
Figure 1. IMPROVE background visibility monitoring network
including IMPROVE "look-a-like" sites. IMPROVE
sites are listed on this figure.
-------
TABLE la
Non-IMPROVE sites to be operated
under IMPROVE protocol
Site Name
State
IMPROVE
Sampler
Camera
Auto 35 mm
Transmis-
someter
NFS CRITERIA SITES
Arches
Badlands
Bandelier
Carlsbad Caverns
Great Sand Dunes
Guadalupe Mountains
Haleakala
Hawaii Volcanoes
Isle Royale
Lassen Volcanic
Petrified Forest
Pinnacles
Point Reyes
Redwood
Virgin Islands
Voyageurs
Yellowstone
UT
SD
NM
NM
CO
TX
HI
HI
MI
CA
AZ
CA
CA
CA
VI
MN
WY
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
302
S02
S02
S02
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NOAA/IMPROVE
Mauna Loa
HI
(1)
i
NESCAUMA
Bridgeton
Mt Sunapee
Underhill
Whiteface Mtn
Quabbin Reservoir
Mohawk Mtn
Ringwood
i
ME
NH
VT
NY
MA
CT
NJ
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
i
i
TERPA
North Shore
South Shore
CA
CA
+
+
+
+
Modifications to IMPROVE samplers:
S02-Impregnated quartz filter following teflon in PMlO module.
(l)-Two fine teflon modules, one continuous, one downslope
winds only.
(2)-One fine teflon module, two sites with fine quartz module
additional sample on national 1 day-in-6 cycle.
A-Not ooeraced under I.MPHOVE
-------
Table Ib
Monitoring Site Locations
IMPROVE
ID
ACAD
BIBE
BRCA
BRID
CANY
CHIR
CRLA
DENA
GLAC
GRCA
GRSM
JARB
MEVE
MORA
ROMO
SASO
SHEN
TONT
WEMI
YOSE
i
Site Name
Acadia
Big Bend
Bryce Canyon
Bridger Wilderness
Canyonlands
Chiricahua
Crater Lake
Denali
Glacier
Grand Canyon
Great Smoky Mountains
Jarbidge Wilderness
Mesa Verde
Mount Rainier
Rocky Mountain
San Gorgonio Wilderness
Shenandoah
Tonto National Monument
Weminuche Wilderness
Yosemite
Lat
44.22
29.30
37.57
43.05
38.45
32.00
42.88
63.45
48.50
36.07
35.75
41.53
37.12
46.47
40.37
34.12
38.48
33.63
107.48
37.45
Lon
68.16
103.18
112.18
109.48
109.82
109.21
122.70
149.30
113.99
112.17
83.50
115.24
108.29
121.45
105.57
116.56
. 78.12
111.13
37.39
119.35
Elev(ft)
420
3500
8000
8000
5925
5400
6500
2100
4500
6800
2500
6200
7210
5140
7900
5618
3600
2600
8410
5300
NFS CRITERIA SITES
ARCH
BADL
BAND
EVER
GRSA
GUMO
HALE
HAVO
ISRO
LAVO
PEFO
FINN
PORE
REDW
SAGU
VIIS
VOYA
WASH
YELL
Arches
Badlands
Bandelier
Everglades
Great Sands
Guadalupe Mountains
Haleakala
Hawaii Volcanoes
Isle Royale
Lassen Volcanic
Petrified Forest
Pinnacles
Point Reyes
Redwood
Saguaro
virgin Islands
Voyageurs
Washington DC
Yellowstone
38.49
43.45
35.83
25.28
37.45
31.86
20.50
19.26
47.54
40.32
35.00
36.29
38.07
41.33
37.10
48.35
38.55
44.33
109.37
101.56
106.33
30.30
105.30
104.66
156.16
155.16
89.08
121.34
109.30
121.09
122.53
124.05
110.44
93.10
77.00
110.24
5650
2493
6500
0
8200
5400
3800
4100
700
5900
5500
1040
125
760
3080
1140
30
7744
-------
Table Ib, cont.
Nonitoring Site Locations
NESCAUM
ID
BRMA
MOMO
UNDE
QURE
RING
SUMO
WHMO
Site Name
Bridgeton ME
Mohawk Mountain CT
Underbill VT
Quabbin Res. MA
Ringwood St. Park NJ
Sunapee Mtn NH
whiteface Mountain NY
Lat
44.10
41.83
44.53
42.30
41.12
43.32
44.38
Lon
70.73
73.30
72.87
72.33
74.23
72.07
73.85
Elev(ft)
728
1500
1300
1020
605
2700
2100
NOAA/IMPROVE
MALO
Mauna Loa
19.32
155.35
11150
-------
per week. Appendix A-2, the "IMPROVE Sampler Manual" contains a
much more detailed description of the sampler and its operation.
Mass and elemental analyses are conducted on the PM-10
samples. The PM-2.5 samples are analyzed for mass, elements,
ions (including particulate nitrates sampled through a denuder),
organic and elemental carbon, and optical absorption. Figure 2
indicates the lower detection limits of the various analyses for
typical IMPROVE samples. Appendix A, the "Standard Operating
Procedures for IMPROVE Particulate Monitoring Network," describes
the analysis methodology including quality assurance procedures.
The IMPROVE network employs a long path transmissometer for
optical measurements. These instruments measure the amount of
light transmitted through the atmosphere over a known distance.
Transmission measurements are converted to the path-averaged
extinction coefficient by the digital electronics of the
instrument. The light source (transmitter) and light monitoring
(receiver) components of the instrument are separated by a
distance of from one to fifteen kilometers depending on
conditions at the monitoring location. To facilitate deployment
in remote areas where commercial electric power availability is
sparse, the transmitter is typically solar powered. Appendix B,
"Transmissometer Standard Operating Procedures Manual," contains
a more detailed description of the instrument and its use.
The transmissometers are a relatively new instrument having
been employed at a few locations in field comparison and
instrument evaluation studies prior to their selection for the
IMPROVE network. Though they performed well under these
circumstances, it was felt that experience in long term routine
operations at a few sites would be advantageous in order to work
out any unforseen difficulties in hardware or procedures prior to
deploying at all 20 sites. In addition, manpower and funding
resources were not available to deploy all of the transmisso-
meters in a single year. For these reasons, the transmissometsr
deployment was distributed over a two year period as shown in
table 2.
In order to gather optical data prior to the scheduled
installation of its transmissometer, most sites employed
automated 35mm camera systems to document contrast of distant
terrain features. Color transparencies (slides) of suitable
targets are analyzed by a scanning microdensitometer to determine
apparent contrast. An estimate of the path-averaged extinction
coefficient can be calculated from the apparent contrast in the
same manner as with contrast data from teleradiometers.
Extinction coefficient data determined in this way are subject to
a greater uncertainty than those available from the
transmissometer. However, the ability to initiate optical
monitoring concurrent with the other measurements was considered
worth the additional analysis and data'processing effort. [As
13
-------
188 a0
91 55
33 99
74 «4
SO 18
57 73
49 27
40 32
32 30
23 91
UC
_
Li
-
c -
-
EC
Be
_
8
N03 304 N
1 1 / 93
197 78
97 75
37 81
77 80
37 91
S7 97
48 32
38 37
28 '3 ®
—
C 'S «|- ' 0 J ,8 ,8 '
- 1 T-
i..
7,90
"
3 00
Z 33
.J
•"%
1 78J
| -42
j
. !3j.
1
9 35 .
a 57^.
1
1
a 28L
9 30
H -
No
a.
a 24
3 S3
3 99
-V.
J Z 99
In Cd Ac, 1
M Sn i
Ma
Sb 9
Cs Z
Ce La Ba
u Al
Sm P .
F Si
o ri Mo Tb E-
Hf Nb K 3 H
W Sc Pt Zr Au Ta Hg Ca ^ ?b Tp j
- P M Cr Rb 3r Y _
P a Mn _
Zn Go Cu As Se N! 8r Co
1 87
1 33
1 90
a 67
9 33
9 90
Figure 2. Lower detectable limits for IMPROVE sampler in
-------
TABLE 2
Transmissometer deployment schedule.
Site
ACAD
BIBE
BRID
BRCN
CANY
CHIR
CRLA
DENA
GLAT
GRCT
GRSM
JARB
MEVE
MORA
ROMM
SAGO
SHEN
TONM
WEMI
YOSW
Site Name
Acadia National Park
Big Bend National Park
Bridger Wilderness
Bryce Canyon National Park
Canyonlands National Park
Chiricahua National Monument
Crater Lake National Park
Denali National Park
Glacier National Park
Grand Canyon National Park
Great Smokey Mountains NP
Jarbidge Wilderness
Mesa Verde National Park
Mount Rainier National Park
Rocky Mountain National Park
San Gorgonio Wilderness
Shenandoah National Park
Tonto National Monument
Weminuche Wilderness
Yosemite National Park
State
Maine
Texas
Wyoming
Utah
Utah
Arizona
Oregon
Alaska
Montana
Arizona
Tennessee
Nevada
Colorado
Washington
Colorado
California
Virginia
Arizona
Colorado
California
Deployment
Date
11/12/87
12/01/88
7/19/88
*
12/19/86
12/17/88
9/01/88
*
1/20/89
12/18/86
**
*
9/14/88
it * *
12/01/87
n/a
3/09/88
4/19/89
*
9/01/88
i
These sites are scheduled for transmissometsr
deployment but dates have not been set.
Transmissometer may not be installed. A
nephelometer installation is being considered.
*** _
Approval has been
a nephelometer.
received for the installation of
15
-------
indicated below, all sites have camera systems for view
monitoring thus the deployment and operation of camera systems
required no additional effort.]
The primary purpose of the automated 35mm camera systems is
for view monitoring. Three color transparencies per day document
the appearance of a selected scene at each of the IMPROVE sites.
Except for their interim use to estimate the extinction
coefficient (as indicated above), the slides are not routinely
used for quantitative analysis. However, they are considered a
valuable source of information for interpretation of concurrent
measurements, to communicate perceived visual conditions, and
for future qualitative and quantitative investigations. To aide
in the use of the photography, a computer index is maintained
which contains qualitative information on the appearance of the
scene, meteorology, and air quality, as well as identification
information for each color slide. Procedures for the collection,
archival, and documentation of the transparencies are contained
in Appendix C, Visibility Monitoring and Data Analysis Using
Automatic Camera Systems; Standard Operating Procedures and
Quality Assurance Document".
Temperature and relative humidity are also monitored at each
location to aid in the interpretation of the optical and particle
measurements. Liquid water is a labile component of .the
particles which is dependent on the particle composition and
ambient relative humid'ity. The liquid water content of the
particles can have a significant affect on their optical
property. Existing measurement techniques are unable to directly
characterize this important component of the particles. Thus to
estimate the role of the water it is necessary to employ
empirical methods that relate extinction coefficient to the
relative humidity and particle composition. Relative humidity
and temperature are also valuable for distinguishing
precipitation and fog event from air quality related impacts.
Installation of the temperature and relative humidity sensors is
conducted on the same schedule as the transmissometers since both
require automatic data logging equipment.
Data from continuous monitoring equipment (transmissometer,
temperature, and relative humidity sensors) are radio-transmitted
from the data logger at each of the sites to a 'communications
satellite every three hours. The satellite in turn relays the
data to a computer at a ground receiving station. Daily
retrievals of the data, made, possible by this approach, promote
greater feedback on monitoring system performance. Hence
malfunctions are more quickly discovered and remedied. The
Transmissometer Systems Field Operator's Manual, Appendix D
provides more information concerning the temperature, relative
humidity, and satellite data systems.
j. 0
-------
Quality Assurance
The IMPROVE Steering Committee is responsible for overall
quality assurance. This includes the obligation to ensure that
quality assurance and standard operating procedures are well
conceived and documented, that they are updated as necessary, and
that they are followed. Ideally the steering committee would
exercise this responsibility by enlisting the assistance of an
independent quality assurance auditor (ie. one not otherwise
involved in the program). This group or individual would conduct
a complete system audit annually by reviewing documents, visiting
sites and analysis laboratories, challenging the system with
standards and other audit materials, and reporting their
observations and conclusions. However, limited IMPROVE resources
have not allowed contracting for an independent system audit.
Until an independent audit program is established, the function
of system auditor rests with the IMPROVE Steering Committee.
Quality assurance principals are employed in each component
of the monitoring program. All aspects of the monitoring are
documented including site selection, instrument siting,
operations, calibration, maintenance, data processing and
reporting. The details of these are contained in the appropriate
standard operating procedures manuals (appendices A through D)
A number of the measured or derived parameters from the
monitoring program are interrelated (see table 3). This allows
data intercomparisons as a method to evaluate system performance
and to check for outliers. In addition, various aspects of the
program are subject to third party review and cross comparisons
with independent monitoring, sample analysis, or research
efforts. Table 4 summarizes activities of that nature.
An important quality assurance activity is the assessment of
parameter specific accuracy and precision. This is generally an
ongoing process which has not been fully implemented at the time
this report was prepared. The approaches employed to estimate
data uncertainty include error propagation methodology applied to
component uncertainties (e.g. sampler flow, sample blank, and
compositional analyses uncertainties) or direct uncertainty
calculations based upon differences in redundant measurements.
Data Processing, Reporting, and Status
Measurements from the IMPROVE Background Visibility
Monitoring Network are converted to calibrated engineering units
prior to their availability. Table 5 indicates the types of
processes applied to IMPROVE sampler data and Appendix E
describes the processes applied to the transmissometer. A more
complete description of the application of calibration and
correction factors to the data is specified in the appropriate
standard operating manuals (appendices A to E)
-------
TABLE 3
Quality Assurance Comparisons
1. Fine sulfur* vs. fine sulfateb
2. Fine sulfur8 vs. PMlO sulfur*
3. Fine hydrogen vs. fine mass
4. PMlO hydrogen vs. PMlO mass
5. Sum of fine components0 vs. fine mass
6. Sum of PMlO components0 vs. PMlO mass
7. Elemental carbond vs. optical absorption9
8. Organic carbon vs. nonsulfate hydrogen*
9. Fine mass vs. extinction
10. PMlO mass vs. extinction
11. Fine mass components0 vs. extinction
12. PMlO mass components0 vs. extinction
a Sample collected on teflon filter and analyzed using PIXE.
b Sample collected on nylon filter and analyzed using ion
chromatography.
c Fine components are defined as sulfate, soil, elemental
carbon and organic carbon.
d .Sample collected on quartz filter and analyzed using
thermal optical techniques.
* Sample collected on teflon filter and analyzed using LIPM.
f Non-sulfate hydrogen is defined as total fine hydrogen
minus sulfur/4.
-------
TABLE 4a
Intercomparison Tests of IMPROVE Instrumentation
Optical1
Comparison Location
Two Transmissometers with different
path lengths plus a Nephelometer
Grand Canyon, AZ
One Transmissometer, Black Box,
and a Nephelometer
Meteor Crater,AZ
One Transmissometer, Nephelometer,
particle measurements for
extinction budget
Page, AZ
One Transmissometer, Rotating
Disk, and Radiance difference with
natural targets
Grand Canyon, AZ
1 W.C. Malm, G. Persha, R. Tree, H. Iyer, E. Law-Evans, "The
Relative Accuracy of Transmissometer Derived Extinction
Coefficients."
-------
TABLE 4b, cont.
Intercomparison Tests of IMPROVE Instrumentation
Aerosol1
Comparison Location
Mass; Absorption; Sulfur and other
elements; Carbon; Compared against
SFU, VI, Hi-Vols over 30 participants
Glendora, CA
(ARE CSMCS)
Mass; Sulfur and other elements;
Carbon Species; Sulfates and Ions
Compared against SCISAS
Page, AZ
(WHITEX)
Mass; Sulfur and other elements;
Carbon Species; Sulfates and Ions
Compared against SCISAS
Grand Canyon NP
(WHITEX)
Mass; Absorption; Sulfur and other
elements; Carbon Species
Four unit comparison plus SFU
Davis, CA
Mass; Sulfur and other elements
Compared against SCAQS sampler
Los Angeles, CA
(SCAQS)
Individual module field comparisons
at IMPROVE sites
many locations
R.A. Eldred, T.A. Cahill, M. Pitchford and W.C. Malm,
"IMPROVE— A New Remote Area Particulate Monitoring System
for "'isibili-v Studies'1.
-------
TABLE 5
Data Processing Steps
for IMPROVE Particle Sampler
Flow Rate Calculation1
Average Flow
) (T/280)*
Volume Calculation
Volume
V - Q * D * 60/1000
Concentration Calculation
Mass
Optical Absorption
PIXE
PESA
MC
abs
(PST-PRE-O/V
- A * log(PRE/PST)/V
Carbon and
analysis
Ion
where:
T
V
D
MC
PRE
PST
C
b
abs
Average Flow (1/min)
Flow before collection (1/min)
Average flow after collection (1/min)
Temperature (°K)
Volume (m3)
Duration (hours)
Mass concentration (//g/m3)
Filter mass before collection (/vg)
Filter mass after collection (//g)
Control mass (x/g)
absorption coefficient (Mm'1)
1 Flow rate measurement and flow rate calculations
discussed in detail in appendix A, pages 24, 25 and 26.
are
Insignificant elemental contamination in teflon filters.
Typical blank used to estimate spectral background due to x--
rays produced by filter. Subtraction handled internally by
spectral analysis program, producing elemental areal density
(pt) in ng/cm2. Use collection area in cm2.
-------
TABLE 5, cont.
Data Processing Steps
for IMPROVE Particle Sampler
3 Small hydrogen contamination in teflon filter estimated
from series of analysis of clean filters at beginning of
analytical sessions. Method determines areal density (pt) in
ng/cm2.
hydrogen concentration = area x (pt-blank)/V
4 Subtracted from contamination in filter (based on field and
laboratory blanks) and from artifact plus contamination
(based on backup filters in tandem arrangement). Blank
values determined by UC Davis in consultation with
cooperating contractors. Carbon analyses assume collection
area of 3.8 cm2 on quartz filters.
concentration = (measured-blank)/Volume
-------
Computer compatible tapes or floppy disks will be used to
transmit large data records on an annual basis to participants
and others who submit written request to the program steering
committee. Figures 3 (a,b,c and d) are examples of site specific
seasonal data summaries (also see appendix F}. These are
prepared and distributed to participants to provide more rapid
feedback concerning the results of the monitoring.
The status of the data archives are indicated in tables 6,
7, and 8 (also see appendix G) which contain the start dates and
rate of data recovered for the particle sampling, optical
monitoring, and photography, respectively.
23
-------
case
four
H 2!
Mi
2
81
8
Cl
1C
ca
tt
r*
Nl
cu
Zn
As
B*
nt
Pb
OC
we
804
N03
IBSS
Nil
racon
aeithwtic man concentrations distribution of concentrations
d 8«p Cct NOV Mason mininu* mtdian maxinui
> 110 141 41 115 21 37 247
,
B
. ,
9 4
* •
5 2200 2400 1400 2000 500 1800 4200
, ,
• •
Figure 3a.
Sample distribution on concentrations in
nanograms/cubic meter for particles smaller
than 2.5 ^/m except for PM10 mass.
MOT
9/03
9/VI
9/10
9/14
9/17
9/21
U/30
DKIZ
9/03
9/07
9/10
9/U
9/17
9/21
U/30 ...
2942 119.1 121.5 14.2 182.0 269.4 298.5 2.4* 43.2 59.6
Ti f*
4.3 47.9
Ml
0.6*
CU
1.3
Zn
4.2
A*
1.1
Sa
2.4
ac ?b
3.1 10.4
OC
394
IfC
124
304 ND3 FH10
994 126 5510
analytical minium dctactobl* limit) actual concentration is la«s than this Mount
Figure 3b.
Sample 24 hour average concentrations in
nanograms/cubic meter for particles smaller than
2.5 //m except for PM10 mass.
-------
FINE MASS
AMMONIUM SULFATE
AMMONIUM NITRATE
33)
Figure 3c.
Sample data summary of seasonal particulate
spatial patterns.
25
-------
< 250 -
'ft
> ,50 ,
o
* -so-
3
~ 50 -
3 -
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK
Transmissomecer Data Summary — 6 Hour Averages
March 1, 1988 - May 31, 1988
I 111 I ^ U 012
i HI fi i n °r^
11 i 1| rTrq 6 fVf^'fe f*^ f"-025|
i 1 * I I 378
' 1 1 1 I ^
L L . 1 i! L „. ,00
10 20 31 !0 20 30 10 20 31
MARCH APRIL MAY
JL . . All jjil *L i..
fy|ftt W J*\ Kl r ' rtii JIl/l '"jjjll -vj I « '
JW (ft JL. ^VKJ!/ JU*l*w ' Mil 'W._vW' '•VLw""Aw ^
,^*" ^»y ""VAnv^/ « ^w^1 vvtf
STANDARD VISUAL RANGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE * 0 , SVR
'0 0+5 35
|_ ni i 50 02+ '58
90 012 309
' FOR A GIVEN
X — THE SVR IS
•C * = EOUAL TO THE
X L n?' '4 CORRESPONDING
X " M 3VR VALUE.
V I X
-, - - • - 338 -
- - 378
•0 20 3D iO 50 50 70 30 30
CUMULATIVE TREOUENCY '%)
'RANSMISSOMETER OATA RECOVERY STATISTICS
CATEGORY IUM " j
TOTAL POSSIBLE S-^OUR AVERAGES IN THE TIME PERIOD 353 ;oo
USABLE 5-HOUR AVERAGES IN THE TIME PERIOD 3+5 93
Figure 3d.
Sample optical data quarterly summary. Site
specific example for hypothetical monitoring
location.
-------
TABLE 6
Particle Data Status
Sample Inventory for IMPROVE Network
2 March 1988 to 7 May 1988
site
Acadia
Big Bend
Bryce Canyon
Bridger
Canyonlands
Chiricahua
Crater Lake
Denali
Glacier
Grand Canyon
Great Smokey
Jarbidge
Mesa Verde
Mount Rainier.
Rocky Mountain
San Gorgonio
Shenandoah
Weminuche
Yosemite
average
samples
possible
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
samples
valid
72 ( 90%)
80 (100%)
78 ( 98%)
51 ( 64%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
70 ( 88%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
64 ( 80%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
76 ( 95%)
invalid samples
sampler
8
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o -
. 0
0
0
0
0
0.5 (1%)
Methods
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
16
0
0
0
3.3 (4%)
-------
TABLE 7
Optical Data Status
Preml (Mliiary
Transit siaaeter Oau Collection Statistics
far Pre-Operat tonal Test Period
IMPROVE tat UPS IMPROVE Protocol Slt«»
Sltt
1. Acadta HP
2. Badlands NP
3. 3anOeller NM
i. 3tg Send NP
S. Srtdaer v
6. Canyon lands HP
7 Chincanua NM
3. Crater LjKe NP
3. alaeier IP
10. Grand Canyon HP
11. Suadaluoe HP
12. HaMii Volcanoes NP
13. Xesa Veroe «P
Sei-
ner*
I
P
P
[
I
!
Date
Installed
11/12/87
01/14/88
10/05/38
-12/01/88
07/19/88
12/19/86
I «/ 17/89
'
1
I
P
P
!
39/01/88
01/20/89
12/13/86
12/01/88
'
09/14/88
'.4. 'etriHed forest »P! P 04/17/87
j !
15. Pinnacles NX p ] 03/23/88
16. Rocky Hountam Np i [
12/01/87
rear
1987
1988
1989
1988
1989
1988
1989
1989
1988
1989
1987
1988
1389
Test Period Data Collection Statistics ay Season
5-Hour Averaoino Periods
Winter
M. No. Percent
Possible Usable Usafile
364 49 13
360 2S3 70
187 182 48
350 244 57
380 320 38
360 322 39
360 196 54
287 259 90
364 266 73
:60 4 1
19891
1388
1989
1989
1987
1988
1989
1988
1989
1988
1989
—
156 105 67
291 185 S3
364 196 53
360 317 38
360 144 JO
360 311 36
1987)
13881 364 :19 37
19891 360 353 38
i
1388 1
1989 1 360 .93 S3
1988
1989
17. ian uoroonio w [ 34/J9/87
18. Shenanaoan NP
19. Tonto UN
20. Voyaqeurs IP
!
'
!
1
21. Yellowstone NP a
22. rosexits HP ! :
Q3/09/88
04/19/89
36/18/88
09/01/88
1388
1989
1989
1988
364 397 31
360 226 55
Sorino 1 5uimer
M. Ho. Percent
Possible Usiale Usable
368 35 23
368 100 27
368 342 92
368 357 97
368 5 1
368 34S 93
No. Mo. Percent
Possible Usable Usable
388 98 26
368 00
174 30 45
368 358 97
368 193 32
36S 142 38
368 220 59
179 160 99 i 368 270 73
368 365 39 368 356 96
I
278 272 97 I 368 340 32
368 291 79 j 368 59 18
i srsre* ^ e M o v e o
360 118 32
1989 — - — —
;988I
13391 360 110 30
—
rail
No. No. Percent
Possible Usable Usable
74 53
364 139 38
364 183 SO
226 160 70
364 180 *9
364 320 97
364 :51 39
3S4 320 37
364 358 98
—
310 277 39
364 302 32
364 356 37
364 123 33
364 181 49
«.
n —
— Systea not aoeratlnq
• Trans* Issomter not >« installed
1 • IMPROVE
P • IMPROVE Protocol
-------
TABLE 8
Photography Archive Status
Site
ACAD
BIBE
BRID
BRCN
CANY
CHIR
CRLA
^^ C*XT A
I_J ^i\x*
GLAT
GRCT
GRSM '
JARB
MEVE
MORA
ROMM
SAGO
SHEN
TONM
WEMI
YOSW
Camera
Instal .
Date
04/20/85
06/13/86
09/22/86
04/10/84
01/21/87
06/17/86
07/01/86
i
06/14/85
11/23/83
01/04/84
09/08/86
07/15/86
06/21/85
10/25/85
08/13/86
10/29/86
05/09/86
08/12/86
09/07/84
Winter
87
c u
75 54
70 58
71 46
80 5
26 11
88 53
51 33
53 14
78 51
69 31
33 — 3
34 18
79 28
37 25
41 23
73 50
69 61
47 10
80 57
Spring
87
c u
90 56
66 62
34 23
42 25
90 *
80 68
65 49
26 9
98 *
68 51
51 7
97 59
44 17
79 63
• 53 27
48 30
37 36
73 43
75 67
Summer
87
c u
93 61
46 44
75 68
94 79
91 *
96 88
99 91
89 76
99 *
38 21
98 92
80 75
78 42
73 66
99 85
70 55
86 86
85 78
78 76
Fall
87
c u
74 45
91 87
94 56
92 60
93 *
97 91
95 76
90 60
100 *
96 67
79 60
52 41
63 37
84 73
95 53
98 75
58 58
94 66
96 66
Winter
88
c u
41 *
95 85
79 52
99 45
85 *
99 79
85 38
75 *2
98 *
100 59
98 19
95 67
79 23
88 *
36 25
86 64
4
96 57
58 33
c - % of total photographs possible for scene monitoring,
u - % of photographs appropriate for path-averaged
extinction coefficient calculation.
* - No SVR calculations obtained from photographic data
following transmissometer installations.
1 Denali National Park has not yet installed visibility
monitoring equipment mailed Summer of 1986.
2 Teakettle vista was primary target for analysis until
transmissometer installed. Winter 88 collection statistics
are not for the Scenic Garden Wall vista.
3 Insufficient data to calculate any Standard Visual Range.
4 The Superstitions camera system was stolen 11/12/87. No
reinstallation followed.
-------
III. Process to Identify and Document Suspected Visibility
Impairment
In 1985 and 1986, the Department of the Interior responded
to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) request for
information on existing visibility impairment in those mandatory
class I areas managed by the National Park Service (NFS) and Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS).1
The Department of the Interior indicated that there were
five NFS class I areas with existing visibility impairment that
was suspected of being reasonably attributable to a source or
small group of sources. These areas are: Grand Canyon National
Park, Petrified Forest National Park and Saguaro Wilderness in
Arizona; Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota; and Canyonlands
National Park in Utah. The Department also certified that there
were four FWS class I areas with suspected reasonably
attributable impairment: Tuxedni Wilderness in Alaska; Moosehorn
Wilderness in Maine; Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey; and
Cape Remain Wilderness in South Carolina. The State of Alaska
has an approved visibility State Implementation Plan and is
responsible for addressing the visibility impairment in the
Tuxedni Wilderness. EPA subsequently decided that only the
Moosehorn Wilderness of the remaining three areas had visibility
impairment that was probably caused by a single source or small
group of sources.
The Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission also
certified to the EPA that visibility was impaired within the
integral vistas associated with the Roosevelt Campobello
International Park located in Maine and New Brunswick, Canada.
Various monitoring efforts were initiated, beginning in
1986, to attempt to document the existing impairment and the
responsible air pollution sources (see Appendix H). These
studies were funded by the NFS, FWS, and the EPA through the
interagency IMPROVE monitoring program. A summary of the initial
findings of these monitoring efforts at each of the above listed
class I areas is presented below:
November 14, 1985, letter from Susan Recce, Department of
the Interior Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks to Charles Elkins, EPA Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation; and March 24, 1986,
letter from Richard Briceland, NFS Associate Director for
Natural Resources to EPA Central Docket Section, Docket
Number A-85-26.
20
-------
Voyageurs National Park
The IMPROVE program funded Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
(ARS), the NPS's visibility monitoring contractor, to set up 35mm
still and 8mm time-lapse movie cameras at Voyageurs National Park
to assess impacts on the park's visual air quality caused by
nearby sources. The cameras were in operation between October
1986 and April 1988. The resulting color slides and time-lapse
films were reviewed by ARS, NFS staff, and the IMPROVE steering
committee. No distinct, easily identifiable plumes were visible
in the slides or the movies. ARS documented this finding in a
May 5, 1988, report to the EPA chairman of the IMPROVE steering
committee entitled "Monitoring For Reasonably Attributable Impact
of Local Sources At Voyageurs National Park, Petrified Forest
National Park and Moosehorn Wilderness." The NFS and the
Department of the Interior believe that the photographic evidence
available at this time does not support the development of a
revision to the federal implementation plan for Minnesota to
include Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements
and other control measures.
Petrified Forest National Park
The NFS and IMPROVE steering committee directed ARS to
install 35mm and 8mm cameras in Petrified Forest National Park
during March 1987. The photographic systems operated until March
1988. An examination of the photographic data by ARS, NFS, and
IMPROVE indicated no visible plumes within the park. There was
an occasional discoloration visible on the horizon, but it was
not readily attributable to any specific source. ARS documented
this finding in the above referenced report. The NFS and the
Department of the Interior acknowledge that the evidence does not
support development of BART requirements or other control
measures for remedying visibility impairment at Petrified Forest
National Park. If future monitoring programs provide
documentation of visibility impairment caused by a specific
source, the Department of the Interior will certify that to the
SPA and request the commencament of a BART review.
Saguaro Wilderness
The NFS through its contractor ARS, is now deploying one of
che two time-lapse movie cameras used at Petrified Forest and
Voyageurs National Park at Saguaro National Monument. The NFS
will operate this 8mm camera for approximately one year. Part
way through this monitoring period, the San Manuel smelter near
Tucson, Arizona will comply with new more stringent sulfur
dioxide emission limitations that are required by the terms of
the consent decree. IMPROVE will investigate if the time-lapse
movies will reflect an improvement in visual air quality because
of this reduction in the region's sulfur dioxide emissions.
Because the monitoring at Saguaro has only recently begun, there
31
-------
is no specific photographic evidence of reasonably attributable
impairment at this time. If this new monitoring initiative
provides documentation of visibility impairment caused by a
specific source, the Department of the Interior will certify that
to the EPA and request the commencement of a BART review.
Canyonlands National Park
The NPS, the Salt River Project, the Electric Power Research
Institute, and others conducted the Winter Haze Intensive Tracer
Experiment (WHITEX) during a six week period in the winter of
1987. The objective of this study was to quantify the air
pollution impact of a specific source (Navajo Power Plant) on
specific receptors (such as Canyonlands and Grand Canyon National
Parks). During the short duration of the study, it appears that
a Navajo Power Plant contribution was not measured at Canyonlands
National Park. The six week monitoring period may have been
characterized by unusually good meterological dispersion
conditions and fewer haze episodes, which is somewhat atypical of
the usual winter time conditions of the Colorado Plateau region.
The park still continues to experience episodes of haze, and a
second intensive monitoring effort may be undertaken in the next
year or two to monitor the haze and attribute it to specific
sources. As with the above mentioned cases, if new Canyonlands
monitoring initiatives provide documentation of visibility
impairment caused by a specific source, the Department of the
Interior will certify that to the EPA and request the
commencement of a BART review at that time.
Grand Canyon National Park
One of the objectives of the above referenced WHITEX study
was to sample the haze at Grand Canyon National Park and
attribute it to specific sources, such as the Navajo Power Plant.
The analysis of all the data collected during this intensive
monitoring effort is not complete. The NPS and the Department of
the Interior requested the SPA to defer, by twelve months, its
proposed decision on the necessity of BART and other control
measures for the Arizona federal implementation plan pending the
completion of the data analysis and interpretation of the Grand
Canyon data.
Moosehorn Wilderness Area-
The FWS identified the Georgia-Pacific pulp and paper mill
as the probable source of existing visibility impairment in
Moosehorn Wilderness Area. FWS and IMPROVE directed ARS to
install an 8mm time-lapse camera at Moosehorn. The camera was
installed in October 1987. The camera has recorded a visible
plume from the mill nearly every day. Under certain conditions,
the plume appears to cross the boundary and enter the wilderness
area.
-------
Georgia-Pacific has applied for a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit modification from the State of Maine
for a new recovery boiler at the existing mill. The existing
visibility impairment may be reduced if additional air pollution
controls are required by this permit. Consequently, the FWS and
the Department requested that the EPA defer its decision
concerning the necessity of BART controls for Georgia-Pacific
pending the completion of the PSD permit process. The time-lapse
movie camera system will continue to operate throughout the
permit review.
Roosevelt Campobello International Park
Because of the proximity of the above mentioned Georgia-
Pacific mill to the International Park, the Commission requested
the NPS to study potential impacts of the proposed mill
modification on the International Park. The NPS study concluded
that the reductions in emissions associated with the proposed
modification would result in no impairment of visibility in the
International Park or its integral vistas. No IMPROVE monitoring
effort was undertaken at this park.
Following this initial Federal Land Manager certification of
existing visibility impairment in class I areas, the IMPROVE
steering committee and the NPS retained the contractor Desert
Research Institute (DRI) to prepare a report. The objectives of
this report are to identify, describe, and evaluate measurements
and data interpretation methods to:
1. Document the intensity, duration, frequency, and
spatial extent of existing visibility impairment in
class I areas,
2. Attribute visibility impairment to natural and manmade,
local and distant emissions sources, and
3. Relate emissions reductions to visibility improvement.
DRI has completed a draft of this report, entitled "Guidance
on Methods to Investigate Existing Visibility Impairment and
Attribute it to Sources", and is being reviewed by the IMPROVE
committee. This draft addresses the documentation of existing
visibility impairment; and summarizes visibility and aerosol
measurement methods, existing data bases, and receptor modeling
methods of visibility source apportionment. The final report
will be made available to the public and interested groups by the
end of 1989.
33
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing/
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/4-90-008
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPROVE Progress Report
5. REPORT DATE
May 1990
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Marc Pitchford
David Joseph
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 93478
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
In Section 169A of the Clean Air Act as amended August 1977, Congress declared
as a national goal ''the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution."' Mandatory class I Federal areas are national parks
greater in size than 6000 acres, wilderness areas greater in size than 5000 acres and
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. This section required
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations requiring States
to develop programs in their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) providing for visi-
bility protection in these areas. EPA promulgated these regulations on Decemoer 2,
<980.J
This report summarizes the progress made to date in developing and implementing
the interagency monitoring network which supports the effort, Interagency Monitorinq
of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE).
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
:OSATI Field/Group
Visibility monitoring
State Implementation Plans (SIP)
Class I Federal Areas
IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19 SECURirv CL^SS . /Vuv t\enorr<
, 20. SECURITY CLASS , This page;
22
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rav. 4T77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |