Washington
                                                        State
                                                   Visibility Study
                                                         June
                                                         1983

 R.  W. Beck arid -Associates
          •»             _
Washington 'Department .of Ecology

-------
              May 1983
          WASHINGTON STATE
          VISIBILITY STUDY

         1982 FINAL REPORT
                 by

     R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES

                and

THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
  Washington Department  of  Ecology
       Contract Number 82-085
  Washington Department  of Ecology
           Project Staff

        Peter W.  Hildebrandt
          Henry F. Droege
         Darrell  F. Weaver
          Frank Van Haren
           David C.  Bray
        EPA Project  Officer
           Air Programs
 Washington Department of Ecology
             Rowesix
    Olympia, Washington  98504

-------
 R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES
       PROJECT STAFF
     Partner-in-Charge

      R. Alan Bushley


      Project Manager

       Naydene Maykut


     Principal Authors

       Naydene Maykut
        Mark Sadler


Technloal Review and Editing

    Dr. David T. Hoopes
       Laurin Schweet


 Graphics and Reproduction

        Linda Kenney
      Geralyne Rudolph

-------
                                ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
           R. W. Beck and Associates sincerely appreciates the cooperation and
support of  the  Federal,  State and  local  agencies  involved in this study.  In
addition,  special thanks are  extended  to the following  people for their con-
tributions to the success of the  project.

           Darrell Weaver,  Washington  Department of  Ecology  Project Manager,
whose  initiative,  competence, and  technical skill  provided  the  backbone of
this study.
               U.S.E.P.A.

               W.D.O.E
               National Park Service
               U.S.D.A.  Forest  Service
               Washington Department
                 of Natural  Resources

               Oregon Department  of
                 Environmental  Quality

               University of Washington
               National Weather Service

               USDI  Geological Survey
David C. Bray

John F. Spencer
Peter W. Hildebrant
Henry F. Droege
Darrell F. Weaver
Frank Van Haren

Shirley Clark
John Aho
Dan Allen
Stan Schlegel

Donna Lamb
Bruce Brown
Dr. David Sandberg

Warren Warfield
Ann Batson
Dr. Halsted Harrison
Pam Jenkins
Dr. Alan Waggoner

Richard Marriot

Dr. Tom Casadeval
Robert Symonds

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section                                                                  Page
Number     	Title	Number

 I         INTRODUCTION                                                 1-1

 II        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                            II-1

 III       MONITORING PROGRAM

                 Monitoring Network                                     III-1
                 Impairment Description Sheet                           III-2
                 Photography Network                                    III-2
                 Chemical Composition Analysis                          III-3

 IV        DATA ANALYSIS 1982 MONITORING RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

                 Visitor Use - Class I Areas                            IV-1
                       National Park Visitor Use                        IV-1
                       Wilderness Area Visitor Use                      IV-2
                 Source Emission Data                                   IV-2
                       Anthropogenic Sources                            IV-2
                       Natural Sources                                  IV-3
                 Visibility Monitoring Network                          IV-6
                       North Cascades National Park                     IV-6
                       Olympic National Park                            IV-8
                       Mount Rainier National Park                      IV-13
                       Photographic Monitoring                          IV-17
                       Supporting Data                                  IV-18
                       Source Apportionment                             IV-19
                       Trajectory Analysis                              IV-21
                 Discussion                                             IV-22

                       Visual Observations                              IV-22
                       Photography                                      IV-24
                       Nephelometer                                     IV-24
                       Particulate Monitoring                           IV-25
                 Correlations                                           IV-26

 V         CONTROL STRATEGIES

                 Summary of Washington SIP Revision                     V-1
                 Interagency Coordination                               V-2
                       Resource Support                                 V-2
                       Program Development                              V-2

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                  (continued)


Section                                                                  Page
Number     	Title	   Number

 VI        CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS                              VI-1

           REFERENCES


           APPENDICES

 A         1982 VISUAL OBSERVATION DATA

 B         REVISION TO THE WASHINGTON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
           WASHINGTON STATE'S VISIBILITY PROTECTION PROGRAM

 C         FEDERAL LAND MANAGER STATEMENTS

-------
                                 LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number                                    Title
III-1      Visibility Monitoring Network and Locations
III-2      Data Inventory for Chemical Composition Analysis
III-3      Analytical Methods and Chemical Characterization for Filter Analysis
             by Laboratory Used

IV-1       Annual Visitation, Mount Rainier, North Cascades and Olympic
             National Parks
IV-2       Mount Rainier National Park Visitation July,  August  1982
IV-3       Annual Visitation Wilderness Areas,  1977-1981
IV-U       Total Suspended Particulate Emission Data,  Point Sources,  Prescribed
             Fires and Wildfire, Western Washington
IV-5       1982 Visual Observation Data, North  Cascades,  Olympic,  and Mount
             Rainier National Parks
IV-6       1981 Visual Observation Data, North  Cascades,  Olympic and  Mount
             Rainier National Parks
IV-7       Time of Day Vs. Visibility Percentiles for  Blue  Glacier, Olympic
             National Park
IV-8       Time of Day Vs. Visibility Percentiles for  Lookout Rock, Olympic
             National Park
IV-9       Olympic National Park Teleradioraetry Data
IV-10      1982 Visual Observation, Visibility  Percentiles
IV-11      1981 Visual Observation, Visibility  Percentiles
IV-12      Monthly Statistical Parameters for Nephelometer  Values
IV-13      Mount Rainier Visual Observation Visibility Percentiles, 1982
IV-14      FPM Compositional Data, Dog Mountain,  1981
IV-15      The Correlation Matrix 1981  Filters
IV-16      Eigenvalues and Vectors, 1981
1V-17      Factor Loadings, 1981

-------
                                LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Number                                    Title
III-1      Monitoring Locations,  Visibility Monitoring 1981  and  1982
III-2      Mount Rainier Monitoring Sites,  Viewshed Representation

IV-1       Location of 1982 Point Sources and  Prescribed  Burns in Northwest
             Washington
IV-2       Location of 1982 Point Sources and  Prescribed  Burns in Southwest
             Washington
IV-3       Time Series Plot of Mount St.  Helens  Emissions, Slash Burn Tonnage,
             Southwest Washington, and Fine Particulate Mass Measured at Dog
             Mountain
IV-4       Copper Ridge, North Cascades National Park, Cumulative Frequency,
             Visual Observations, 1982
IV-5       Sahale Arm, North Cascades National Park,  Cumulative  Frequency,
             Visual Observations, 1982
IV-6       Blue Glacier, Olympic  National Park,  Cumulative Frequency, Visual
             Observations,  1982
IV-7       Lookout Rock, Olympic  National Park,  Cumulative Frequency, Visual
             Observations,  1982
IV-8       Particle Scattering Coefficient, Hurricane Ridge, Olympic National
             Park, 1982
IV-9       Camp Muir, Mount Rainier National Park,  Cumulative Frequency, Visual
             Observations,  1982
IV-10      Time Series Plot of Mount Rainier National Park,  1982 Data Set

-------
  SECTION I
INTRODUCTION

-------
                                   SECTION I

                                  INTRODUCTION
           The  1981-1982 Visibility  Program for  the State  of  Washington was
undertaken in response  to  the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Visibility
Regulations of  December 2,  1980 (Federal Register, Vol. 45).  Visibility regu-
lations are designed  to protect the visibility in mandatory Class I areas and
their  associated integral  vistas.   Mandatory  Class  I  areas in  the  State of
Washington include  three national  parks  (North  Cascades,  Olympic,  and Mount
Rainier)  and  five wilderness  areas  (Alpine  Lakes,  Glacier  Peak,  Goat Rocks,
Mount  Adams,  and Pasayten).   Preliminary integral  vistas  were  designated by
the  National  Park Service  (Federal Register,  Vol.  46, January  15,  1981) for
the North Cascades, Olympic, and Mount Rainier National Parks.

           The  purpose  and goal  of the  visibility  protection regulations are
to:   (1)  require that  states  develop  programs  to assure  reasonable progress
toward meeting  the national goal  of preventing future, and remedying existing,
impairment of   visibility  in  mandatory  Class I  Federal areas  resulting from
manmade  air  pollution;  and   (2)  establish necessary additional  procedures in
conducting visibility analysis for any  new source  permits for  use  by appli-
cants  for new   source   permits,  state  agencies,  and  Federal   Land  Managers
(FLM's).

           Washington  is required  by EPA  to revise its  State  Implementation
Plan  (SIP).  In revising the  SIP,  the State must include:   (a) consideration
for Best  Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for existing stationary sources;
(b) FLM/state coordination  with respect  to  BART  and New Source  Review (NSR);
(c) identification of  integral vistas;  (d) determination of a long-term strat-
egy; and  (e) implementation of  a NSR procedure.

           A study to develop  the required visibility program for the State of
Washington was  conducted during the summer and early fall  of  1981  and  1982 by
R. W. Beck  and   Associates  and the  Washington  State  Department of  Ecology
(WDOE).   The  1981 study included:   (1)  initiating the monitoring network and
visibility data analysis;   (2) determining  the  sources most likely to cause
visibility degradation  in  Class  I  areas;  (3)  exploring control  strategy op-
tions; and (4)  presenting  long-range  monitoring  and  control strategy recommen-
dations .

           During  1982, the  study  concentrated  on  continuing  the  monitoring
network,  and  refining  control  strategies to  incorporate  into  the  Washington
SIP.   The monitoring  network was  improved  and expanded  in   the  following
areas:   visual   observation   and  photographic  monitoring  techniques;   source
apportionment studies;  and additional  sites  and  instrumentation.  Work  pro-
ceeded  among  the  cooperating  agencies  toward finalizing  long-range  control
strategies  and   developing a  long-term  monitoring  program.    The  resulting

-------
                                                                           1-2
"Draft  Revision  to  the  Washington  State  Implementation  Plan,  Washington
State's  Visibility  Protection  Program"  was  issued  by  WDOE,  Division  of  Air
Programs, on February 22, 1983.

           An overall description of  the  program  is  presented in the Executive
Summary,  Section  II.   The  1982 monitoring network   is  described  in  Sec-
tion III.   Analysis  and  discussion  of  the   1982 monitoring  results  are  pre-
sented in Section IV.  One of the main  purposes and  most important products of
the  visibility  project  is  the  proposed  SIP  revision discussed  in Section V,
Control  Strategies.   Conclusions  and recommendations  are presented  in  Sec-
tion VI.

-------
      SECTION II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

-------
                                   SECTION II

                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
           The  goals  of the  1981-1982  visibility study  conducted  by the WDOE
and R. W. Beck and Associates were to:

      1.    set up a visibility monitoring network;

      2.    begin tracking visual air quality levels;

      3.    identify sources when possible;

      4.    define  a  control  strategy to  remedy existing  and  prevent  future
           visibility  degradation  in  the Washington  mandatory Class  I areas
           and their integral vistas;

      5.    set up lines of  communication  between key people in concerned agen-
           cies; and

      6.    prepare the SIP revision for visibility protection.

           The initial work  on  these projects was carried  out  during the sum-
mer and  fall  of 1981   (R. W.  Beck  and  Associates and WDOE,  1982).  This report
describes  the work  accomplished  during  1982  and   presents  the  proposed  SIP
revision in the context of the study.

           The  visibility  network was  expanded during 1982  to  include  two
additional nephelometer stations (Mount Baker  and Hurricane Ridge); additional
information from  the  observation  network  (impairment description  sheet);  an
expanded photography network; and  additional analyses of the  filters from the
Dog Mountain fine particulate mass sampler.   All of  these data can be used for
long-range tracking of air quality levels and,  in some cases,  for source iden-
tification .

           Data recovery  in  1982  improved  over  1981.   The use  of impairment
description sheets provided  additional  information  on the  type,  border  color,
extent, and possible source  of  the impairment.   The  photographic network pro-
vided a  record  of visibility conditions,  a basis  for estimating  air  quality
levels and, in  some cases,  a method of  source  identification.   The nephelom-
eter  network  was  expanded  to four  stations.   Nephelometer data  are used  to
record the number, intensity, duration, and  timing  of plume impacts.  The fine
particulate mass  filters  were  used  to determine concentrations,  to identify
the chemical  constituents of the fine particulates  collected  and,  when  possi-
ble, to identify sources through statistical analyses of the chemical data.

-------
                                                                           II-2
           Results from the  visual  observation data analysis show a high inci-
dence  of  days with  smoke reported  with respect  to number of  days free from
weather  (fog,  rain) impairment.   Impairment  sources  preliminarily identified
by the monitoring network included slash  burning and Mount St. Helens.  Slash
burning was  associated with concurrent high  carbon filter loadings, nephelom-
eter  plume  impacts,   and  predicted  plume  impact  using  trajectory analysis.
Photographs of slash  burning interfering with integral  vista  views as well as
smoke  intrusions into Class  I areas  were  taken  in  both Olympic  and Mount
Rainier National  Parks.  Filter analysis  of 1981 samples from the Dog Mountain
site  indicates  Mount  St.  Helens  SC>2 emissions  contribute  to  high  sulfate
loadings.

           The control strategies  proposed in the  SIP  revision  respond to EPA
requirements as well as  address the impairment  sources  indicated  by the moni-
toring network.   The  control strategies propose regulations  and procedures to
deal with  existing stationary  sources,  new sources  and  source  modifications,
and  slash  burning.    The  control  strategies for  prescribed burning  include
restricting  prescribed burning during visibility important  weekend  days  and
reducing  total  emissions.   The forest managers  have  established  an objective
of reducing total emissions  from prescribed burning by 35% in western Washing-
ton  by  1990.   The proposed  SIP revision also  contains  a long-term visibility
monitoring  strategy,   evaluations  of  secondary  long-term  control  strategies,
and procedures for coordination and review.

           Study  conclusions and recommendations:

     1.    Class  I areas in  the State  of Washington need visibility protection
           to remedy existing effects and to  prevent further degradation.

     2.    The  control strategy  approach  proposed by  the State  is  directed
           toward controlling identifiable  sources contributing  to existing or
           future impairment in Class I areas.

     3.    The foundation  formed by control strategies for  existing sources,
           new or modified  sources,  and slash  burning  needs to  be developed
           and expanded  to include procedures assuring  timely and cost-effec-
           tive implementation.

     4.    The monitoring  network needs to  be  continued,  refined  and expanded
           to  provide  consistent  and  reliable  data  to   estimate  visibility
           levels, identify  sources and provide  a long-term  record of changes
           to evaluate the effectiveness of the  control strategies.

-------
                SECTION III
VISIBILITY MONITORING PROGRAM

-------
                                  SECTION III

                               MONITORING PROGRAM
           The EPA,  recognizing  the  need to begin protection as soon as  possi-
ble,  established  a  two-phased  approach  to  visibility  protection.   Under
Phase I, the State must  identify the origin of visibility impairment caused by
a single source  or small  group of sources.   Identification can be accomplished
with  simple  monitoring techniques such  as  visual observations (either ground-
based or from aircraft)  or  with  other appropriate monitoring techniques  at the
State's  discretion.   The pollutants  of  concern in  Phase  I  are suspended par-
ticulates  and  NOX.   The second  phase  will address  S0£ impacts  and  the more
complex  problems of  regional haze and urban  plumes.  Guidance and regulations
on second phase  concerns will be forthcoming from EPA.

           The Washington  State  visibility  network was  designed  to  address
Federal  air  quality  concerns within  the  framework  of the two-phased approach.
The purposes of  the  network are  to measure  the extent, duration, and magnitude
of visibility degradation;  track the changes  in these values during the  course
of the study; and identify, whenever possible, the source or sources responsi-
ble for visibility degradation.

           The State's monitoring strategy  employs current instrumentation and
methods  but anticipates  improvements in  equipment and methodology through con-
tinuing  research devoted to visibility  monitoring.   During  periodic review of
the monitoring   network,  the application of  additional  monitoring techniques
and  analyses  will  be considered.    Guidance  for  the  monitoring  program  and
research developments in  instrumentation and  analysis are anticipated from the
EPA and the NPS.
MONITORING NETWORK

           The visibility monitoring network was set  up  in the State of Wash-
ington  during  the summer of  1981.   Although  eight mandatory  Class  I Federal
areas  exist  within  the State,  the  monitoring  program  was restricted  to the
three  national  parks due to  limited funding  and  the availability  of on-site
personnel and power.  The visibility monitoring  program,  as described in Wash-
ington  State Visibility Study (R.  W.  Beck  and Associates  and WDOE,  1982),
incorporates  techniques ranging  from  the  most  basic method,  human observa-
tions,  to  state-of-the-art  instrumentation,  as  recommended by EPA  guidelines
(USEPA,  1979,  and  1980).   Monitoring techniques and locations are  listed in
Table III-1 and shown in Figure  III-1.  Figure III-2 shows the viewshed repre-
sentation of  the  Camp Muir integral vista viewpoint, Paradise, and  Dog Moun-
tain monitoring sites and  two of the integral vista  targets  (Mount  Adams and
Mount St. Helens).

-------
                                  TABLE III-1

                  VISIBILITY MONITORING NETWORK AND LOCATIONS
     Site and Elevation (ft.)

MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK

Camp Mulr, 10018

Paradise, 5400
Dog Mountain(c), 2860


OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK

Blue Glacier, 6800

Hurricane Ridge, 5200


Lookout Rock, 2?00


Visitor Center(d), 400



NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK

Sahale Arm, 6000

Copper Ridge, 6100

Heather Meadows(c), 4250
                 Data Type
Visual observations(a); photography(a)

Visual observations,  photography,  parti-
cle  scattering  coefficient, meteorologi-
cal-wind   speed/direction(a),   relative
humidity(a)

Fine  particle  mass;  particle scattering
coefficient
Visual observations, photography(a)

Visual  observations(a),  photography(a),
particle scattering coefficient(a)

Visual  observations,  photography,  tele-
radiometer(b)

Particle  scattering coefficient,  ozone,
sulfur  dioxide,  total  suspended  particu-
late
Visual observations, photography(a)

Visual observations, photography(a)

Particle scattering coefficient(a)
(a) - Additions to the monitoring network for the 1982 season.
(b) - Deletion from the monitoring network.
(c) - Located outside park boundaries.
(d) - Operated by the Olympic Air Pollution Control Agency
      and the Olympic National Park.

-------
Figure 111-1
VISIBILITY MONITORING SITES
SUMMER 1981-1982
                                           CANADA
                               NORTH CASCADES
                               NATIONAL PARK
                              O       ... A
                              Bellingham _  ,
                                      Baker(
                                                                 PASAYTEN
                                                                 WILDERNESS
                                                          WORTH CASCADES
                                                          NATIONAL PARK
                                         GLACIER PEAK
                                          WILDERNESS
 OLYMPIC
NATIONAL^
   PARK
                       Lookp
                       Rock
                       D
                       cane
                                     ALPINE LAKES
                                     WILDERNESS
                                                 MOUNT RAINIER
                                                 NATIONAL PARK
                                Camp
                                ParadlU
                                                   GOAT ROCKS
                                                   WILDERNESS
                                   MOUN1 ADAMS
                                     WILDERNESS
                                       OREGON
        • Visual Observation / Photography
        x Participate Sampler
                                               Nephelometer
                                               Telephotometer

-------
CAMP MUIR:
   Visual Observations
   Photographs
PARADISE:
   Visual Observations
   Photographs
   Particle Scattering
   Meteorological Data
DOG MOUNTAIN:
   Particle Scattering
   Fine Particulate Mass
                  Mount
                 Rainier
                                                                 Mount
                                                                Adams
                                                                             Mount
                                                                            St. Helens
                         Figure  111-2
                         VIEWSHED MONITORING
                         MOUNT  RAINIER NATIONAL PARK

-------
                                                                         Ill-2
           Improvements and changes to the network  were made during the second
year of  operation.  These  changes,  listed in  Table III-1,  enhanced  the net-
work's capability  to measure and record  existing visibility.  Three sites were
added, one  in each national park.   The  monitoring  techniques  and  sites added
ares  Camp  Muir,  Mount Rainier  National Park - observations  and  photography;
Hurricane Ridge,  Olympic  National  Park - observations,  photography and parti-
cle scattering;  and Mount  Baker,  adjacent to  North Cascades  National Park -
particle scattering.

           The increased number of sites  with improved  photographic and obser-
vation network enabled  the  documentation and recording  of  periods  of visibil-
ity impairment  at  each of  the three  parks.   These additions  were consistent
with the primary  purpose of  the  network, i.e. to record the extent, duration,
and magnitude  of  impairment.  The monitoring network was  implemented  to mea-
sure  impacts  of  plumes  from  industrial,  prescribed  burning,   or  natural
sources.  Nephelometers  were  used  to record plume impacts and quantify the
duration and  extent of the  impact.   This information,  along with  photographs
of  visual Impact, establishes  a visibility  record  that  can  be used to deter-
mine impairment levels.

           The most significant  additions  and  improvements  to the monitoring
network  in  1982  for  identifying sources  and defining  impairment  levels were
the impairment description  sheet,  the  photography network, and  the  chemical
composition analysis  of  the fine particulate mass  collected at the Dog Moun-
tain site.  The purpose and use of these techniques are  presented below.

     Impairment Description Sheet

           The purpose of the  impairment  description sheets is to  collect more
definitive  data  during impairment occurrences.   Observers  were instructed to
fill out the  additional information  for  all  occurrences of obscured visibility
other than weather events.   The  questions on  the impairment description sheets
were phrased  to provide objective information on the type, border, color, pos-
sible source,  and extent of the  impairment.   A  sample impairment  description
sheet appears In Appendix A.

     Photography Network

           Standardized photographic  monitoring is  combined with  human obser-
vation programs at the  seven sites  listed in Table III-1.   The principal pur-
pose  of  photographic monitoring  is  to  document the scene  as  originally per-
ceived and  record any instances  of  impairment.   Photography can also  be used
for photogrammetry, a  process  that  measures  the color  density of individual
sections of the picture to  determine quantitative contrast values.  While this
technique is  presently being  used  only  for  the photographs  from  the Lookout
Rock site,  film  calibration procedures  have  been Implemented at all sites for
possible future  color density measurements.  All photographic monitoring fol-
lows recommended  EPA  and  NFS methodology (EPA,  1980; NPS,  1981),  which define
quality assurance  procedures, film type, exposure,  time, and  target selection.

-------
                                                                          III-3


           Briefly,  these recommended  procedures  Include:   using  a standard
film  with all  film development  for NPS  photographic sites  performed  at the
same  laboratory (Kodak  ASA  25 Kodachrome  slide film  with processing  by the
Kodak Los Angeles  lab);  filming a standard color chart and grey scale for each
role; using  a  standard  camera and  lens (Olympus  OM-2  with  50  mm or  135 mm
lenses  with  UV  filter  used  in  the  auto mode);  taking all  photographs at a
standard time; and filming a predetermined set of targets from each  site.

           The  advantages of  using  photography as a  monitoring technique are
low equipment  cost,  low operating expense  and labor requirements,  and  a per-
manent  record  of  visibility  at  critical  viewpoints.   The  photographs  can be
used  to track changes in visibility, to  identify certain  sources  of impair-
ment, and as a basis for  calculating air pollution  concentrations.

           An additional  function of  the photographic  monitoring program is to
establish  an  historical  reference  for  demonstrating  reasonable  progress.
Future  monitoring  considerations for this  program include  time-lapse photog-
raphy to  document  plume  impacts,  and automatic camera  monitoring stations to
record  the  visibility  conditions at  remote  or  un-manned  locations.    Photo-
graphic monitoring includes  photo-observation flights.  These flights are used
to document conditions of impairment,  to attempt source identification, and to
record  impacts from  point sources,  prescribed burns,  and urban haze, when pos-
sible.

     Chemical Composition Analysis

           The fine  particulate sampler (2.5 urn,  50%  transmission cut)  at the
Dog  Mountain  site was  in operation  from May  through  October  1982.   Daily
24-hour samples  were taken from  noon to noon either on  glass fiber or  cellu-
lose acetate filters.   All sampled filters were measured for fine  particulate
mass concentrations.   Filters  from days of interest  (e.g.,  low visibility due
to plumes  and/or hazes,  or  extremely clear  days)  were  selected  for chemical
analysis to determine the chemical composition of the collected particles.

           Data  from the fine  particulate  mass  sampler  are  used  to determine
the  air pollution sources  contributing to  visibility  impairment  within the
Mount Rainier-Camp Muir  viewahed.  Selected  filters have undergone analysis to
determine the  chemical  composition  of  the material collected.   This informa-
tion is used with  statistical models to establish  the  relative source classi-
fication  contribution  to the collected  particle  mass.   Source  (or  source
classification)  data needed  to determine the  source apportionment of the fil-
ter mass  are  an accurate physical  and  chemical characterization  of the emis-
sions.  Information  available  for this  study of  source emissions characteriza-
tion  is presented in  Table  III-2.   Of  particular interest to  this study are
the  source  signatures  determined by  the Oregon  Department  of  Environmental
Quality  (ODEQ)  and  used in  source  apportionment  studies in  Oregon (Cooper &
Watson, 1979;  DeCesar and Cooper, 1981).

           Analytical methods  and laboratories used for chemical characteriza-
tion are presented in  Table  III-3.   The ODEQ Laboratory  and  facilities  at the

-------
                                  TABLE III-2

                DATA INVENTORY FOR CHEMICAL COMPOSITION ANALYSIS


A.   1982 Dog Mountain Filters (150 exposed filters + blanks)

           date
           fine particulate mass (fpm)
           fpm concentration
           b(sp) particle scattering coefficient
           b(ap) particle absorption coefficient - by the IPM

B.   1981 Dog Mountain Filters (50 exposed filters)

           date
           fpm
           fpm concentration
           b(sp)
           b(ap) (by IPM on most, not all of filters)
           chemical analysis of 9 (7 good) samples:
                 Cl, N03, SOij, MH, K, Na, C

C.   Compilation of Source Signatures from Literature

           sea salt                  fly ash
           soil dust                 refuse-derived fuel
           fuel oil fly ash          auto exhaust
           Portland cement           tire dust
           coal-fired boilers        copper smelters (Arizona)
           ASARCO (only 5 metals)    St. Helens (limited info)
           urban aerosols:           remote areas:
             Denver, Houston,          northern Michigan
             Wash.  D.C., N.Y.         northern Canada

D.   Compilation of Source Signatures in Oregon (by DEQ)

           soil                      fireplaces
           road dust                 field burning
           marine air                Kraft mill
           slash burning             woodstoves
           hog fuel boilers          several mfg. processes

E.   Slash Burn Smoke Signature

           aircraft  and  ground  level  samples  from  the  Portland,  Willamette
           Valley, and Eugene areas

F.   Oregon DEQ 1982 Filters (14 each at 2 remote sites)

           date
           fpm
           metals
           anions
           cations
           carbon

-------
                                                                         III-U
University of Washington were used for  the chemical and optical analyses.  The
analysis  scheme  included  determining the  particle absorption  coefficient by
the optical  integrating  plate method (IPM)  (Lin et al.,  1973)  which has  been
shown  to infer  elemental  carbon mass  loadings  (Hansen,  et al.,  1979;  Weiss
et al.,  1979; Sadler, et al., 1981);  the  total  carbon content by flame ioniza-
tion at  both facilities;  and elemental and  chemical  species by x-ray fluores-
cence and by ion chromatography  at  ODEQ and by  the inductively coupled plasma
technique at the University  of  Washington.  Comparisons  between laboratories
and analytical methods are presently  being analyzed at the University of Wash-
ington .

           The final  goal  of the analysis is to use the laboratory results to
seek possible correlations between visibility degradation  and chemical tracers
and thus  identify,  if possible,  the  associated source  or sources responsible
for reducing visibility.

-------
                                    TABLE III-3

                  ANALYTICAL METHODS AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
                       FOR FILTER ANALYSIS BY LABORATORY USED
            Laboratory
Oregon Dept. of Env. Quality
University of Washington

Dept. of Geological Sciences
Dept. of Oceanography

Dept. of Civil Engineering
    Analytical Method

X-Ray Fluorescence(b)
                                      Volatilization-Flame
                                      lonization(a)

                                      Ion Chromatography(c)
Inductively Coupled
Plasma(c)
Flame lonization(a)

Integrated Plate(c)
Element/Species
 Ion Capability

Al,  Si,  S,  Cl,
K,  Ca,   Ti,   V,
Cr, Mn,   Fe,  Ni,
Cu,  Zn,   As,  Se,
Br, Cd, Ba, Pb

Total carbon
                                                                   N03,
                                                                   SOq
                                   Cl,
              Br,
Hg, Al, P, Sr,
Pb,  Cd,   Ba,  Fe,
Mn,  Mg,  Si,  V,
As,  B,  Nb,  Zn,
Cu,  Na,   Ca,  Ti,
Zr,  Co,   Li,  Ni,
Cr, Sc, Y, La, K

Total carbon

Absorption  (ele-
mental carbon)
(a) - Glass fiber filters only.
(b) - Cellulose acetate filters  only.
(c) - Both filters.

-------
           SECTION IV

          DATA ANALYSIS
1982 MONITORING RESULTS
        AND DISCUSSION

-------
                                   SECTION IV

                                 DATA ANALYSIS
                      1982 MONITORING RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
           Federal  and Washington State's  draft  visibility regulations define
impairment in  terms of humanly perceptible  changes  in visibility from natural
conditions taking  into account  geographic extent, intensity, duration and fre-
quency, and  how these factors correlate  with  times  of visitor  use and enjoy-
ment of Class  I areas.  Therefore, the information required to  determine visi-
bility  impairment  levels  includes  both Class  I visitation  data  and source
emission data.

           Information  presented  in  this  section   includes   data  collected
through the  visibility  monitoring network,  and  the  support  data  of  visitor
usage and emissions from natural and manmade pollution sources.


VISITOR USE - CLASS I AREAS

     National Park Visitor Use

           Total visitation  to  the three national parks  in the  State of Wash-
ington  declined steadily  fron  1978  through  1981.   However,  visitation  in-
creased sharply in  1982 to a five-year high. (See Table IV-1.)

           Total visitation in July  and  August  decreased  from  1978 to 1980 but
increased from  1980 to 1982.  Although  the  number  of July and August visitors
was greater  in 1982 than  in the  previous  two  years, the  percentage  of  total
annual visitation  ascribed  to July-August visitors  dropped to a five-year low
in  1982.  This  decline means, of  course, that non-summer  visitation  to Wash-
ington national  parks  greatly increased  during 1982.  This conclusion  is sup-
ported  by  the  June-September  percentages which  hover around  72% (1978-1981)
and drop to 66% in  1982.

           Daily  visitation  in  Mount   Rainier  National  Park  approximately
doubles on weekends (Saturday,  Sunday,  and  Holidays) as  compared to weekdays
(Monday-Friday). (See Table IV-2).

           The  important conclusions  to  be drawn from these data are (1) that
although use in July and August  decreased in 1982,  these months still account
for by  far  the heaviest visitor  use  of  the year, and (2)  that  Saturday, Sun-
day, and holiday use is heavier (per day) than weekday use.

-------
                                   TABLE IV-1

                               ANNUAL VISITATION
                       MOUNT RAINIER, NORTH CASCADES, AND
                             OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARKS
                    1978         1979         1980         1981         1982
Annual Total      5,039,740    4,373,643    4,401,217    4,368,754    5,334,930
Total July-Aug.   2,594,343    2,187,964    1,990,142    2,117,991    2,144,080
% July-Aug.              51           50           45           48           40
% June-Sept.             73           72           74           71           66
Source:  Pacific Northwest Region, NPS, February 1983.
                                   TABLE IV-2

                     MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK VISITATION
                               JULY, AUGUST 1982
                                                July 1982    August 1982
Avg» Visitation per Day (M— F) ......
% Visitation Monday — Friday .......
Avg. Visitation per Day (Sat., Sun.,
t> Visitation Saturday - Sunday 	
~<— ~ 5 wv/w
10.731
56%
20.978
44*
~ W v « W 1C-
1 1 .847
54*
24,44?
46*
         % Increase Weekends vs. Weekday Rate        96*          106*


         Source:  Pacific Northwest Region, NPS, February 1983.

-------
                                                                           IV-2
     Wilderness Area Visitor Use

           Annual  visitor use  of  wilderness areas  is  presented in Table  IV-3
 (OSDA,  198!b and 198lc).  The  visitor  use data are in "visitor days" which are
 defined  as  the equivalent of  12-hour  usage  by one person or one-hour usage  by
 12  people.   Monthly use  patterns for  1980 for  the Pasayten  Wilderness  were
 approximately  26%  in July,  36% in August and  28% in September  (Yenko,  1981).
 For Glacier Peak in  1977,  the  following patterns  were observed:  June -  10.2$,
 July - 27%,   August  -  36.7?   and  September 21.3%;   Sunday - 17.655,  Monday -
 13.8*,  Tuesday -  11.6$,  Wednesday -  12*,  Thursday - 12.6*, Friday - 14.1*, and
 Saturday - 18.3*  (USDA,  198lb).  It can  be extrapolated  from  these data  that
 visitor  usage  in the wilderness areas  is predominantly  in the  months of July,
 August,  and  September,  and  that weekend  visitation is  higher  (per day)  than
 weekday, on the average.
                                   TABLE IV-3

                               ANNUAL VISITATION
                                WILDERNESS AREAS
      Alpine Lakes
      Glacier Peak
      Goat Rocks
      Mount Adams
      Pasayten
                        1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
.
176,400
65,600
55,600
47,200
311,500
116,500
65,300
58,700
55,500
311,200
106,300
65,500
50,200
51,500
461,100
112,700
9,200
(a)
65,000
466,700
121,700
64,800
40,000
65,100
      (a) - Area closed due to Mount St. Helens eruption.
SOURCE EMISSION DATA

     Anthropogenic Sources

           Emissions  data  from  all   regulated  air  pollution  sources  within
western Washington  were used  to  compare source contributions  with periods of
visibility  impairment  in the  Class  I areas.   Due  to  the  location  of  the
national parks relative  to  the major air flow  patterns  and eastern Washington
point sources  (and  the  lack  of prescribed burns during  the  summer in eastern
Washington), only sources from the western  part of the  State were tabulated.
For  specific  impairment cases, however, any source implicated  by the concur-
rent meteorological conditions was analyzed for its contribution.

           The  emission  information  necessary  to  determine  the source  or
sources contributing  to visibility  impairment  include:   the  location  of  the
source, duration of  emissions,  and  the emission  rate  or quantity  of  emis-
sions.  This  information, along  with the  concurrent  meteorological  data,  is

-------
9 9  1,0 18 20 26 MM««
    SCALE

                               LOCATIONS OF POINT SOURCES AND PRESCRIBED BURNS
                               IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON FOR JUNE - SEPTEMBER  1982

                                      * Point Sources, TSP emissions 30 tons/year or greater
                                      • Slash Burns, 100 tons or greater
                                                                                                               Ftgur* IV-1

-------
                                        * \
                                                     \_
                  •  THUHSTON    ^
~v--rv~ -L^Ji.L.Jj.	^J

,„•*••   I    *  ** 55°f«nl,«lla
L" «  ..^         .  $?„.?.„.

       '.  "                • •  •*•  •
          •    • •    •         •
 PACIFIC     |    '           •       • . 1
           j        LEWIS          * . •'
           i .  .             .
                                               OLookout
                                               Mr RtiHicn
                                                NATIOMtL
                                                ««< Ctmp
 r-J.—

-i*    .'••     i   *
    WAHKIAKUM  i   *
                                                            i GOAT
                                                              ROCKS
                                                              WILOEAMfSS
 0 BIO 1.B  2,0 2,» MH«i
     SCALE
~1 i"~7~
•N |

m • . |
1 ! i
'
.ongview . ^
5» • COWLIT2 jl
a-- . ;.
\ • ' • "'
\ ^~--v 1
U 1
r ^
\, CLARK
•• T~"
i
• • . i — \
• J\
• f\ (
^ Ml. 81. H.l.ni
•% '••• '4-
.».•• •• • i
• o 	 J
•• '
•* *SKAMANIA 1
A *• * I
*. . 1
l_.
— /


MOUNT
touts
\»»t.offHess
— ^






                                      i
       LOCATIONS OF POINT SOURCES  AND PRESCRIBED BURNS
       IN SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON FOR JUNE - SEPTEMBER 1982

               * Point Sources. TSP emissions 30 tons/year or greater
               • Slash Burns, 100 tons or greater
                                                                                                            IV-2

-------
                                                                           IV-3
used to determine  which individual sources may  have  caused the recorded plume
impact  at  a  monitoring site.   Emissions were  tabulated for  the  time period
that  the  monitoring  network operates  (June-September).  This  period corres-
ponds to the period of highest visitor usage in  the Class I areas.

           The locations of  all  western  Washington point sources (over 30 tons
per year TSP  emissions)  and  prescribed burns during the  1982 monitoring season
are  shown  in  Figure  IV-1  for  northwestern Washington and  Figure  IV-2  for
southwestern  Washington.   Point  source  emissions  were  tabulated  using  the
State's annual  emission inventory and  the  seasonal  activity  as  estimated by
the  owner.   Point  source emissions  can  be considered as having  a constant
emission rate over the time period of concern (Nelson,  1982).

           For the  prescribed  burns  shown in Figures  IV-1  and IV-2, the emis-
sions usually lasted  for a period of  4 to 6 hours, with highly variable emis-
sion rates.   Researchers have concluded that  emissions  depend  on  a number of
parameters, e.g. fuel  moisture,  piling,  or yarding method.  For the 1982 burn
season, all  burns  regulated by  the  Smoke Management  Plan  (SMP) were reported
on a day-by-day basis.  Before this season,  information on completed burns was
required by  WDNB  to  be reported  on  at   least  a monthly  basis (although some
members of the SMP did report  daily accounts).  Daily  accounts of  burn infor-
mation, including  location,  elevation, tonnage  burned, and ignition times pro-
vided valuable information for determining sources of visibility impairment.

           Total  suspended  particulate   emission  data,  shown  in  Table IV-4,
indicate that particulate  emissions  from point  sources  totaled  12,760 tons
during  the  time period  studied.  Particulate emissions  from  prescribed  fires
are estimated to range from 4,907  to  19,335  tons over the same time period and
area considered.   Point  source  emissions are readily  quantifiable  due to well
established emission  factors  corresponding to the fuel  and raw materials con-
sumed.  For  prescribed burning,  however,  emissions are quantified  by estimat-
ing the tonnage  of slash  to  be   burned  and  using emission factors  that  range
from 17 Ibs/ton to  67  Ibs/ton  (GEOMET,  1978).   Due to the great variability in
factors affecting  emissions from prescribed  burns  and the  subsequent  large
variation  in  emissions  from  burn-to-burn,  it  is difficult  to quantitatively
estimate total slash  burn  emissions.   In this case,  however,  these figures do
suggest that  total emissions from prescribed  fires  may equal  or  exceed  those
from point sources.

     NaturalSources

           Important  natural  sources  of visibility impairment  include  atmos-
pheric  water  (fog, clouds,  rain, snow), wind-blown  dust, forest  wildfires,
volcanoes,  sea  salt,  and  vegetative  emissions.   Within  the  Pacific Northwest
all these sources  contribute  to  the  natural  visibility levels  in  the Class I
areas.  Therefore, their impacts  must be considered  when evaluating visibility
impairment.

           The natural contribution of fog,  clouds, rain, snow and  other  forms
of precipitation can severely degrade visual air quality.  The historical fre-
quency of  fogs and  precipitation in the Pacific Northwest reveals  that  the

-------
                                              TABLE IV-4

                              TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA
                            POINT SOURCES, PRESCRIBED FIRES, AND WILDFIRE
                                          WESTERN WASHINGTON
                                      June-September 1981, 1982
                                              (Tons TSP)
                              1981                                        1982
                 Point                                Point
   County      Sources(a)    Prescribed Burning(b)    Sources(a)    Prescribed Burning(c)    Wildfire(d)
                            (low) (e)     (high) (e)                 (low) (e)     (high) (e)

Clallura            415         326        1,286         216         201          790
Clark            1,700          10           40       1,760           1            6
Cowlitz          2,546         350        1,380       2,465         829        3,266
Grays Harbor     1,169         785        3,091         647         992        3,909
Island              18                                   20
Jefferson          289         398        1,567         287         218          859
King               955         129          509       1,012         113          447
Kitsap             105           9           36         122           4           17
Lewis              572       1,097        4,320         648         785        3,093
Mason              127         349        1,376         137         311        1,224
Pacific            122         267        1,052          34         208          820
Pierce           1,577          65          258       2,355          51          202
San Juan            18                     -             18         -
Skagit           1,224         392        1,544       1,154         242          952
Skaraania           140         604        2,378         112         586        2,307
Snohomish          690         216          851       1,070         146          575
Thurston            15          36          141          22          84          331
Wahkiakum           29          40          158          27          70          274
Whatcom          1,049       	41          161         838       	6J7          263

  Total         12,760       5,114       20,150      12,934       4,907       19,335        845


 (a) WEDS Encoder Report, Washington Department of Ecology, 1981, 1982.
 (b) Tabulated from Washington Department of Natural Resources and
    Annual Report Washington Smoke Management Program, WDNR 1981.
 (c) Preliminary data from Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1982.
 (d) Preliminary data from Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1983,
    for acres consumed.  Emissions derived from emission factor (EPA, 1977,
    AP-42) of 1,144 kg/hectare (0.51 ton/acre) for the Pacific Northwest Region.
 (e) Best available range of emission factors of 17 to 67 Ibs TSP /ton of fuel
     (D. V. Sandberg, 1975) .

-------
                                                                           TV-H
 coastal  and mountainous  regions  of  this  area  have the  highest frequency  of
 occurrence  (over  80 days per year) of fog and  precipitation  in the  continental
 United States  (Conway, 1963).  Such  effects  are beyond  human control and  are
 seldom viewed  as  an aesthetic degradation of visual air  quality. It should be
 noted  that  the monitoring  network  in  each  national park  is  recording  the
 occurrence  of  these natural  effects through the visual  observation program.

            Orgill  and Schmel (1976)  have analyzed  the frequency  of  occurrence
 of  dust  storms in the continental United States based  on National Weather Ser-
 vice  observations.  The forested  and coastal  region  of  the Pacific  Northwest
 have  few,  if  any, episodes.   The  only areas  in  the  region  that have a high
 incidence  of dust  are  desert and agricultural  regions of eastern Washington.
 The monthly dust  frequency for the Northwest shows a summer minimum,  partially
 due to a lull between spring and  fall peaks  of agricultural activity.   Wind-
 blown dust  emissions were not  quantified for  this  study; however, the percent
 contribution of soil dust  will be determined  from the  chemical  compositional
 analysis of filters.

            An  initial attempt  to  inventory natural  hydrocarbon  emissions  for
 vegetation  has been reported by Zimmerman (1978).   Plants release a  number  of
 volatile  organic  substances  comprised primarily of ethylene,  isoprene,   and  a
 variety  of  terpenes.   Although all  of  these  substances  are  photochemically
 reactive,  the  terpenes can  be  transformed  from the  vapor state  into particu-
 late matter.  Based on the  emissions estimates of  Zimmerman  (1978), the tem-
 perate rain and conifer  forest regions of the Pacific  Northwest  have  among  the
 highest  natural  terpene  emission  densities.    Terpenes  from  conifer needles
 have been  shown to affect  visibility  by reacting rapidly with ambient ozone  to
 form a blue haze  (Rasmussen and Went, 1975).   Because  adequate measurements  of
 terpene emissions  from  the temperate  and conifer forests  are not  available and
 are difficult  to  estimate  due to uncertainties  in  biomass quantities and tem-
 perature  and sun  conditions,  it  is  difficult  to estimate the extent of  their
 visual impact  and  contribution to impairment  conditions.   Terpene  emissions
 generally tend to  be greatest at  higher temperatures,  lower elevations, and  in
 the spring of  the year.  For this  study terpene particulates  were  not separ-
 ately analyzed for their contribution to impairment;  however, in the chemical
 characterization of particulates,  terpenes  would contribute  to  the  total car-
 bon levels  determined.

            Due to  the  proximity of  the pacific Ocean and  the predominant  west-
 erly weather patterns,  marine aerosol can also contribute to particulate con-
 centrations.   Cooper  and Watson (1979) found  a  3% annual  average  concentration
 of marine  aerosol  in respirable particulate levels in downtown Portland, Ore-
 gon.  Marine aerosol can  also  contribute to natural  sulfur  levels.  A recent
 paper by  Charlson  and Rodhe  (1982) suggests  the possibility  of enhanced nat-
 ural  sulfur emissions  in  coastal  areas  and  of variations in  emissions from
 regional natural sulfur cycles  by a factor of  five.  A determination  of source
 composition for marine aerosol  by  the Oregon  Department  of Environmental  Qual-
 ity (1982)  found  1056 of the fine composition  to  be sulfur.  For this study,
 the contribution  of marine  aerosol will  be  determined from  chemical composi-
 tional analysis,  using  literature  and ODEQ values  for indicator ratios (e.g.,
NA+/C1- ratio as suggested by Core, 1981).

-------
                                                                           IV-5


           The two  predominant  natural sources of visibility impairment in the
State  of Washington  are  forest wildfires  and the  volcanio  activity of Mount
St.  Helens.   Since all of  Washington's Class  I  areas are located  in or near
forested  areas,  wildfires  can  be a  significant  source  of  natural  visibility
impairment.   Forest  wildfires  impair  visibility by  producing  massive smoke
plumes  and  causing haze and reduced  visibility over broad regions.  Data from
all  wildfires reported  in Washington are tabulated  by WDNR  and include cause,
location, start  day and time, and total  acres consumed.  Wildfire total emis-
sions  data  for  the  1982  study  period  (June-September)   are  presented  in
Table IV-U.

           Particulate  emissions  from  all  wildfires,  845 tons,  are estimated
from the total acreage  consumed by wildfires.   A  total of 415 wildfires occur-
red  within  the  area of  interest during  the   study period   (all land  west of
Range 19, east of the Willamette Meridian)  and consumed a total of 1,655 acres
(WDNR,  1983).   Although  a  large  number  of  fires were reported, most of them
were less than one  acre.  Emissions  were  estimated  using an  emission factor of
1,020  Ibs/acre   (based  on  60 tons/acre fuel consumption) reported  by  Vatavuk
and Yamate (EPA, 1977) for  wildfires in the  Pacific Northwest.

           A plume trajectory method,  using meteorological  and  fire emission
data,  is used  to  determine  wildfire  contribution  to periods  of  impairment.
Source apportionment  techniques  (by  chemical and  statistical analysis)  specif-
ically for  wildfire  emissions are not possible  due to  the   similar  nature of
wildfire  and  prescribed  fire emissions.   However,  in filters  where forestry
burning  is  detected, the  relative  source   strength of  wildfires  versus  pre-
scribed fires can  be  determined from the  daily account of prescribed fires and
wildfires, given the location, ignition time, and tonnage consumed by each.

           Mount  St. Helens  volcanic  activity  has  received  close  attention
since March  1980.   Many  researchers  have   performed  airborne  studies  of  the
major eruptions  and their consequential effects (for example, Fruchter  et al.,
1980; Ogren, et  al.,  1980j  Hobbs  et  al.,  1981).  Of particular  concern  to the
visibility study were  the  volcanic  activities occurring during June  through
September 1982.  Since  the  major  eruption activity of 1980,  gas  and  ash emis-
sions have been  monitored by  the  U.S. Department  of Interior (USDI) Geological
Survey.  The Geological Survey provided data on the  daily sulfur dioxide emis-
sion  rates,  dates  of gas  and  ash  "bursts,"  fumarole gas chemistry, gas  and
particulate  chemistry,   and  daily   wind   speed  and   direction  measurements
directly above  the Mount  St. Helens  crater (Symonds,  1982).   Information was
provided from May through October 1982.

           A time series  representation of Mount  St. Helens  daily sulfur diox-
ide  gas  emissions  is found in  Figure  IV-3-  Included in the  figure are  the
dates of ash bursts and eruptions.   From the  Geological  Survey data, the  sul-
fur  dioxide emissions for  June through September 1982  were  determined to  be
16,700 tons  (+20%).   Daily  emissions  for  the summer ranged up  to 530 tons per
day.  The sulfur dioxide  emissions from Mount  St. Helens during  the  same  time
period in 1981 totaled  31,950 tons.   The  16,700 tons of  sulfur  dioxide emitted

-------
Page Not Available Digitally

-------
                                                                          IV-6
during these four months In  1982 make Mount St. Helens the  third  largest  sul-
fur source in the State during  this  time.   The two larger sources  are the  Cen-
tralia Coal-Fired Power  Plant with  18,607  tons, and  the ASARCO  Smelter  with
30,095 tons  sulfur  dioxide emitted  June  through September.  Mount  St.  Helens
is a likely  source  of sulfates  which  contribute to visibility  degradation  in
Class I  areas  (especially Mount  Rainier  National  Park, Goat Rocks,  and Mount
Adams Wilderness).   The  contribution  of  Mount St.  Helens will be  determined
from the chemical characterization of  the Dog  Mountain filters.   A source  sig-
nature for  Mount St.  Helens  will be  determined from Geological Survey  data
(i.e., possibly the fluorine  to  chlorine  ratio,  Symonds,  1982),  or from liter-
ature values (Hobbs et al., 1982; Phelan et al., 1982).
VISIBILITY MONITORING NETWORK

           The  results  from  the  visibility monitoring  network are  presented
below on a site-by-slte basis.  The  results  from  each monitoring technique are
reported, except  for photographic monitoring, which  is  covered at the  end of
this section.

     North Cascades National Park

     1.    Copper Ridge

           (a)   Visual Observations

           The  Copper  Ridge  Lookout Station  was manned  by NPS  back-country
rangers for  68 days during  the  summer  of 1982,  from July 6 to September 11.
The on-site  ranger  recorded  visibility  and meteorological  conditions  occurring
throughout the integral  vista.   Of the  68 possible  days, observations  were
taken  on  42 days,  a   data  recovery of   62%.   Missing data  are  due  to  the
rangers' priority of duties and are  not meteorologically related;  the data set
Is considered to be representative of the  total time period.

           Of  the  42 observations over the  three-month  period, 17  (40£)  were
obscured due to fog and  meteorological conditions (e.g. rain or  snow)  to one
mile or less.  The most distant target at  this site  (Mount  Garibaldi, 71  miles
to the northwest) was visible on 17 days,  a 40? occurrence.

           The  observed  visual range data were   used  to construct  cumulative
frequency distributions.   For all visual   observation  sites,  distributions are
presented in two ways:   one  distribution includes  all  recorded  values;  the
second distribution uses  only  the  data set screened  for  visibility obscuration
due to meteorological  conditions.   The  cumulative frequency  distributions for
the Copper Ridge site are shown in Figure  IV-4.

           The median  visibility  (50th  percentile)  values  for  the  cumulative
frequencies   are,  for all  days,  19  miles,  and for the meteorological screened
data set,  near 100 miles.   The median value for the screened  data  is  estimated
because  the   farthest   target  was  visible  65%   of  the  non-fog/precipitation

-------
                                                    NON FOG/RAIN READINGS
                                                                     1	r
                                                                    99.899.9
                                                                             99.99
                            CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY (%)
Figure IV-4.  CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, COPPER RIDGE, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK
           VISUAL OBSERVATIONS. JULY-SEPT., 1982.

-------
                                                                           IV-7
days.  To  determine  the  median value, a set  of  targets considerably more  dis-
tant  than 71  miles  would  have  to be  available.  The  90th percentile  (worst
case)  visual ranges  are:   for all  days -  4 miles;  and for  screened  days -
16 miles.  The 10th percentile  (best case)  could not  be reasonably estimated
from the data.

     2.    Sahale Arm

           (a)   Visual  Observations

           At  the  integral vista  at  Cascade Pass -  Sahale  Arm, the NFS back-
country rangers recorded observations on 58 days from July  through  mid-Septem-
ber.   Data recovery  for  this  site was  77$;  58 days out of  75 possible.  Mete-
orological  and visibility statistics  from  this  site are:   18 days  of   fog
(31$);  29  days farthest  target  (42  miles) visible  (50%  of  all  days and 72.5%
of non-fog/precipitation days);  3 days  smoke/plumes  reported  (7% of non-fog/
precipitation  days).

           The median  and 10th percentile  values from the cumulative frequency
distribution at this  site are  not representative of the possible visual  ranges
because the  location of  the furthest  target  was only 42 miles.  The 90th  per-
centile  (worst case)  visual   ranges  found at  this  site  are,  for  all  days -
4 miles,  and  for  non-fog/precipitation days -  19 miles.  The  cumulative  fre-
quency distribution  for  the observer  visibility values at  this  site are  pre-
sented in Figure IV-5.

     3.    Visual Observations Discussion

           Visual  observations from  Copper  Ridge and  Cascade  Pass/Sahale  Arm
indicate a significant percentage of days during the summer of  1982 when  the
visibility was obstructed by  fog and/or precipitation. (See Table VI-5.)   Fog/
precipitation  was  reported at Copper Ridge  on  40$  (17)  of  the  42  observation
days  and  at  Cascade  Pass/Sahale Arm on 31$ (18) of  the 59 observation days.
The percentage was higher  at Copper  Ridge  because visual observations were  not
taken  at  this  site on many clear days.  This fact  is  indicated by the  higher
percentage of  days on  which the farthest target  was visible ("far target visi-
bility") (49$) for Cascade  Pass/Sahale  Arm  (29 observations) vs. 40$ at Copper
Ridge  (17 observations).  Statistics  are shown in Tables IV-5 and IV-6 for  the
number and percentage  of days  when the farthest  target from each of the obser-
vation sites is  visible.   The farthest target  distances  varies substantially
from site-to-site.   However,  it  is  meaningful  to track  far target visibility
at each site as an indication  of  visibility  trends.   Smoke or smoke plume were
sighted on 3  days from  each  of  the North  Cascades sites  resulting In  a  12$
smoke/plume percentage for Copper Ridge and 7$ for Cascade Pass/Sahale Arm.

           Two important  differences  between the  stations  to  consider when
analyzing  the  data are  the period of record and the  view  distance.  Cascade
Pass/Sahale Arm is much  more  restricted from long-range  views  by local topog-
raphy  than Copper  Ridge.   In  spite  of  this  significant restriction,  the  two
stations are consistent  in the number of days for which fog/precipitation are

-------
                                                      NON-FOG/RAIN READINGS
.01 .06 .1  .2  .5  1
                         10    2O  30 4O 50  60  70  80

                            CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY (%)
                                                     90
                                                         95
                                                             98
                                                                     99.8 99.9
                                                                              99.99
Figure IV-5.  CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, SAHALE ARM, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK
           VISUAL OBSERVATIONS. JULY-SEPT., 1982.

-------
                                                           TABLE IV-5

                                                 1982 VISUAL OBSERVATION DATA,
                                    NORTH CASCADES, OLYMPIC AND MOUNT BAINIER NATIONAL PARKS
                                                                         Par Target Visibility
     Observation Site
North Cascades National Park
  Copper Ridge 	
  Sahale Arm 	

Olympic National Park
  Blue Glacier 	
  Lookout Rock (Summer) ....
  Lookout Rock (Fall)  	
Mount Rainier National
  Ca«p Muir 	
  Paradise 	
Park
     Observation Site
North Cascades National Park
  Copper Ridge 	

Olympic National Park
  Blue Glacier 	
  Lookout Rock	
Mount Rainier National Park
  Paradise 	
Observations
42
59
74
109
85
78
87

Fog/Precipitation
1 Days % Days
17 40
18 31
20
27
18
31
27

27
25
21
40
31
TABLE
Target Distance
(Miles)
71
42
70
120
120
105
34
IV-6
t Days t Days
17 40
29 49
39 53
73 67
49 58
24 31
50 57

1981 VISUAL OBSERVATION DATA,
NORTH CASCADES, OLYMPIC AND MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARKS
Observations
25
33
98
Fog/Precipitation
t Days » Days
3 12
4
26
12
27
Par Target
Target Distance
(Miles)
71
70
107
Visibility
t Days % Days
11 44
8 24
15 15
                                                                                  Smoke/Plumes Sitings
                                                                                  Days   t Non-Fog Days
                                                                                                         20
                                                                                                         12
                                                                                                         17
                                                                                  13
                                                                                   3
                                                                                                                       12
                                                                                                                        7
                                                                                                37
                                                                                                15
                                                                                                25
                                                                                                                       28
                                                                                                                        5
                                                                                                         Smoke/Plumes Sitings
                                                                                  13
                                                                                   0
                                                                                                45
                                    85
                                                26
                                                           31
                                                                          34
                                                                                     23
                                                                                               27

-------
                                                                          IV-8
reported  and  the number of days  on  which smoke was sighted.   A comparison of
1981 and  1982 observation data  (Tables IV-5 and  IV-6)  shows a  consistent high
percentage  (44?) of far  target  visibility for Copper  Ridge and a  much lower
percentage  (12?) of fog/precipitation days.   The  small 1981 sample, 25 obser-
vations, may have been skewed toward non-fog/precipitation days.

           The  North  Cascades National  Park observer  data  show high percent-
ages (ranging  from  40? to 49?)  of far  target  visibility for  both  years rela-
tively  low  percentages (7 to  12?) of smoke sightings  for  1982, and high per-
centages of fog/precipitation days (31 to 40?) for the  summer of  1982.

     4.    Mount Baker Ski Area  (Heather Meadows)

           (a)   Scattering Coefficient

           An  integrating nephelometer was  installed and operated at this site
from August until mid-October  1982.  The  instrument  was sited at the USDA For-
est  Service  Guard  Station  with  cooperation and  assistance from  the  Glacier
District, Mount Baker - Snoqualmie  Forest  USDA Forest Service.  Difficulties
with calibration and  quality assurance  procedures  associated  with logistics
and instrument  malfunction resulted  in  the  data falling below acceptable qual-
ity levels.   For these reasons, data from  this  station have been omitted from
the analysis.

     OlympicNational Park

     1.    Blue  Glacier Site

           (a)   Visual Observations

           At  the Mount Olympus  Blue Glacier site, visibility and meteorologi-
cal observations were  taken  every day between June  28  and  September 9;  a 100?
data recovery.  Observations were taken twice daily  at 0800  and  2000  hours.
The observations were  taken  by volunteers and research staff  from  the Univer-
sity of Washington  Atmospheric Science/Geophysics Department headed by Richard
Marriott  and  sponsored by the National  Science Foundation.   Targets  were  the
same as those  used  during the  1981 monitoring, consisting of landmarks predom-
inantly to the northwest and northeast, and ranging to  110 miles.

           For  the  74-day period, 27? of  all observations recorded  fog or pre-
cipitation which limited visibility to  4  miles  or less.   On  39  days  (53?),
visibility was  70 miles or greater.  Smoke  or plumes  were  sighted  on 20 days,
37? of non-fog/precipitation days.

           For  all  observations,  the average visibility was  40 miles;  for non-
fog/precipitation screened data  (visibility equal  to or greater than 6 miles),
the  average  visibility was  63  miles.   Visibility  averaged 51 miles on  days
where haze/smoke were  reported  and for observations not  obscured by fog,  pre-
cipitation, smoke, or haze, visibility averaged 73 miles.

-------
                                                                          IV-9


           The data set from Blue Glacier was  divided in four ways for cumula-
tive  distribution frequency diagrams.   The first  two classifications combine
both  observation  times  (a.m.  and p.m.) on one diagram for all  data,  and also
for non-fog/precipitation  observations.   The two other distributions represent
all  data  (all  meteorological  conditions)  separated  by  time  of observation;
0800  and 2000 hours.   These  classifications  were  established  to  examine the
relationship  between  time of  day and  visibility statistics.   Results  of the
cumulative  frequencies  for the  Blue  Glacier  are  shown  in  Table IV-7  and in
Figure IV-6.

           (b)   Meteorological Parameters

           Research personnel at this  site also  recorded meteorological param-
eters  each time  visibility observations  were made.   The data  recorded  were
wind  speed,  wind direction,  relative  humidity,  and sky  cover  conditions.
Instrumentation at  this site included  a  sling psychrometer  for humidity mea-
surements  and  an  anemometer and vane  for wind and  speed direction.  Meteoro-
logical  data  were most  useful for trajectory  analysis to determine sources of
impairment  where  meteorological  data  collected  during  the  impairment  event
were  used to  determine  specific sources  or source types  contributing  to the
observed  impairment.  These results  are  presented in the Wind Trajectory Anal-
ysis  section.

      2.    Lookout Rock Site

           (a)   Visual Observa t ions

           Visual  observations   for   the   1982  monitoring  program  started  on
June  14  at the Lookout Rock site  and  continued throughout  the rest of  the
year.  Observations were taken twice  daily, at 0900 and  1500 hours by NFS per-
sonnel.   Observations and  photographs were taken using targets  and  procedures
developed  for teleradlometer monitoring  at this site during  1980 and  1981.
The continuation of monitoring to year's  end provided some measure of seasonal
variation.   The  monitoring  seasons   were classified  as  summer  (June  through
September) and fall  (October  through December).   The  primary period  of  inter-
est for this study was the summer season.

           For the summer  season,  data recovery  was  100? for the 109 possible
days.  On 73  days  (67/6), visibility  of 120 miles (furthest target) or more was
observed.   On  27 days  (25%),  fog  or  precipitation reduced   visibility  to
6 miles  or less,  and  on 12 days smoke or plumes  were recorded (15?  of non-fog
days).   During  the fall,  data recovery  was 92$,  85 out  of  92  days; 49  days
(58?),  visibility  120  miles  or more;   18  days  (21?),  fog  or  precipitation
reduced visibility to 6 miles  or less; and  17  days  (25? of non-fog days)  smoke
was reported.  Cumulative  frequencies  for the  Lookout  Rock data set  were plot-
ted by observation times and  by  weather  interference.   Table IV-8 presents the
means  and percentile found from the cumulative  frequency  distributions  shown
in Figure IV-7.

-------
                                               TABLE IV-7

                                 TIME OF DAY VS. VISIBILITY PERCENTILES
                                FOR BLUE GLACIER, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                      (JUNE 28 TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1982)
                                     Visibility Perpentile (Miles)
All Readings
Time of
Observation
0800
2000
Combined
Mean
48
39
43
(Median)
50%
35
32
32
(Best Case)
10%
115
115
115
(Worst Case)
90%
2
2
2
Mean
61
56
59
Non-Fog/Precipitation
(Median)
50%
73
50
70
(Best Case)
10%
118
120
120
(Worst Case)
90%
28
27
28
                                               TABLE IV-8

                                 TIME OF DAY VS. VISIBILITY PERCENTILES
                                FOR LOOKOUT ROCK, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                     (JUNE 14 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1982)
                                     Visibility Percentile  (Miles)
All Readings
Time of
Observation
0900
1500
Combined
Mean
69
75
72
(Median)
50%
122(a)
14 5 (a)
130 (a)
(Best Case)
10%
130+ (a)
150+ (a)
130+ (a)
(Worst Case)
90%
2
2
2
Mean
86
101
94
Non-Fog/Precipitation
(Median)
50%
170 (a)
180 (a)
160 (a)
(Best Case)
10%
170+(a)
180+ (a)
160+ (a)
(Worst Case)
90%
14
32
15
(a)  - Extrapolated from cumulative  frequency plots.

-------
   iOO
                                                                   FOG/RAIN READINGS
                                                                   SCREENED (Vr •  6 mi.)
             MORNING (0800)


             EVENING (2OOO)
       .01  .05 .1  .2
                                 10
                                      20  30 40 60 60 70

                                    CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY (%)
                                                         80
                                                              90
99.8 99.9
                                                                                        99.00
Figure IV-6. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY. MORNING V.S. EVENING, BLUE GLACIER, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
           VISUAL OBSERVATIONS, JUNE-SEPT., 1982.

-------
     UJ
     -I
     5
        30
        20 -j
                                                                      NON-FOG/RAIN READINGS
10-
 9-
 8-j
 7-
 6-

 5-

 4-


 3-
         2-
                  MORNING (O9OO)

                AFTERNOON (1500)
           .01 .06 .1  .2   5  1
                             10   20  30  40  50  60  70  80   90   95
                              CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY (%)
                                                                          98  99
                                                                                  99.8 99.9   99.99
Figure IV-7. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, MORNING V.S. AFTERNOON, LOOKOUT ROCK, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
           VISUAL OBSERVATIONS, JUNE-SEPT., 1982.

-------
                                                                          IV-10


           (b)   Teleradiometer

           Teleradiometer  (previously  telephotometer) measurements  were  taken
at two  sites  within Olympic National  Park during  1980,  1981,  and  1982.   The
instrument and monitoring  program  was  funded by the  Air  Quality Office of the
National  Park Service,  and  the  operation  was  co-sponsored  by the  Olympic
National  Park and Washington  Department  of Ecology.   All operating and  data
handling  procedures, quality assurance, and  data analysis were  provided by the
Air Quality Office, NPS, Environmental Monitoring  Systems Laboratory,  EPA, and
Visibility Research Center of the John Muir Institute.

           The instrument was  operated at  the Visitor Center, Olympic  National
Park (located just south of Port Angeles), and  at  the Lookout Rock Observation
Point.   The  instrument was  first  used  during spring  of 1980  with continued
year-round use through  the fall of  1982  when  teleradiometer funding from the
Air Quality Office, NPS, was terminated.

           At  the  Visitor  Center,  measurements  were made viewing  one  target.
The target was looking  north across the Strait  of Juan de Fuca  to  a  mountain
ridge in  British Columbia.  At  the Lookout  Rock  site  the instrument  measured
contrast  values  using  five  targets.  Targets  were  located  primarily in  the
northeast quadrant overlooking Puget Sound and  the Strait of  Juan de Fuoa, and
consisted of  ridges  in the  foothills  of  the Olympics, Cascades,  and  Coastal
Range of British Columbia.

           Data  from  the  teleradiometry  monitoring  at  Olympic  National  Park
are listed in Table IV-9.

     3.    Visual Observations Discussion

           1982 Visual  observation  data  for  Olympic National Park  show moder-
ately  high  percentages of  fog/precipitation occurrences  (21-27?), high  per-
centages of far target  visibility  (53-67/0 and  moderate to high percentages of
smoke/plume sightings  (15-37?).  (See Table IV-5.)   A higher  percentage  of far
target visibility was observed from Lookout Rock  (67/6) than the Blue  Glacier
(53?).   At  the same time  the number  and percentage of  smoke/plume sightings
were much higher for the Blue Glacier than Lookout Rock.   Both  of these obser-
vation  phenomena  might be  explained  by  location   and  view  angles.  The  view
angle from Lookout Rook is mostly  to  the east and north while  the Blue  Gla-
cier,  located farther  south  in the Olympic  range,  is open  primarily to  the
north and west.   The  view  from Lookout Rock is  more likely to be  affected by
pollution originating from Port Angeles and  the  Puget Sound  Basin,  while views
from the Blue Glacier would be more affected by smoke sources to  the south and
west of the Olympics.

           Visual observation  data for  1981 show  roughly the  same  percentage
of fog/precipitation (21%) for the Lookout Rock site and much  lower  percent-
ages of far target visibility  for  both the Blue Glacier (24?) and Lookout  Rock
(15?)  sites.  (See Tables  IV-5 and  IV-6.)  A  lower  percentage  of far  target
visibility days was also noted at  the  Paradise  site.  The data for these three

-------
                                                        TABLE IV-9

                                       OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK TELEBADIOMETRY DATA (a)
  Season
Spring '80
Summer '80
Fall   '80
Winter '81
Spring '81
Summer '81
Fall   '81
               Data Recovery(b)
             Observer %
26
42
70
56
53
13
10
19
 9
 5
                     Number of
                     Days With
                    Observations
65
75
40
21
 9
                        Avq.  SVB(c)
                                   140 km (88 mi)
138 km
137 km
168 km
145 km
(86 mi)
(86 mi)
(105 mi)
(90 mi)
                                                Visibility  Percentil.es  (Miles) (d)
                                                         50%
                                                                10%
126 km
149 km
193 km
162 km
                                                                                        (Worst Case)
                                 (Insufficient Data)
                                                                                              90%
                                                                                          (Best Case)
(79 mi)
(93 mi)
(121 mi)
(101 mi)
 73 km
 88 km
128 km
 79 km
                        (Data not available from John Muir In at. as of 2/83)
                        (Data not available from John Muir Inst. as of 2/83)
(47 mi)
(55 mi)
(80 mi)
(49 mi)
216 km (135 mi)
255 km (159 mi)
292 km (182, mi)
331 km (207 mi)
 (a) - Source]  Air Quality Office, NFS, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
               EPA, and Visibility Research Center of the John Muir Institute.
 (b) - The 'observer* data recovery value is a measure of the diligence of the field
      personnel, discounting measurements not made for reasons relating to atmospheric
      conditions.  The "system" data recovery value gives the percent of all possible
      measurements which result in usable data.
 (c) - SVR - Standard Visual Range.
 (d) - Visibility Percentiles from Cumulative Frequency Distribution.

-------
                                                                          IV-11
stations show a  significant  number of "haze" occurrences  during the summer of
1981.   The  lower percentages of  far  target visibility may be  due  to a higher
number  of general haze  occurrences.   The relatively low percentage of fog/pre-
cipitation days  and the relatively high  percentage of smoke/plume sightings at
the Blue  Glacier site suggests  that  the few observations that were  taken in
the summer of 1981 were skewed toward non-fog days with smoke/plume present.

           1982  visibility percentile data (Table IV-10)  show  that visibility
mean and median  values  were  higher in the  morning at Blue Glacier (view angle
primarily north  and west) and higher in the afternoon  at Lookout  Rock (view
angle primarily  east  and  north).  Also, there is  a dramatic increase in mean,
median  and worst case values for  all  readings for non-fog/precipitation data.
The  increase in visibility for   best  case conditions  is far  less  dramatic.
Mean, median and best case conditions are  considerably higher for Lookout Hock
than the Blue Glacier.  However,  worst case conditions  are higher for the Blue
Glacier for the a.m. readings.

           Visibility percentile  data for  1981  (Table IV-11)  is fairly consis-
tent with that for  1982 for  Blue Glacier.   However,  the  data for Lookout Rock
show  dramatic  differences  in median values  between the  two   years.   Again,
these differences may be  attributible to the  higher number of haze occurrences
in 1981.

     4.    Hurricane Ridge

           (a)    Visual Observations

           An observation/photography program was started at  Hurricane Ridge
September 19, 1982.   This site  was selected to record  visibilities  using tar-
gets located inside the  park.   The  targets selected afc  Hurricane  Ridge range
to 20 miles.

           (b)    Scattering Coefficient

           The  monitoring period  for  the  nephelometer  at the  Hurricane Ridge
site began  June  22 and ended October 17.  The instrument was  located  at  the
Emergency Generator Building, 200 yards north of  the Hurricane Ridge Lodge.

           Local pollution sources which could contribute  to  scattering levels
at Hurricane Ridge  include  emissions  from  vehicles in the parking  lot  to  the
south and southeast of  the  nephelometer site, fireplaces  and diesel  generator
fumes at the lodge,  campfires  and barbecues, and  the emergency diesel genera-
tor.  The contribution of any of  these sources is  considered to be short-term
in nature  (up  to  an  hour)  and  negligible over  any longer  averaging period.
The instrument probe  was  subject to some influence from trees located  to  the
south and west.  Otherwise,  the instrument  was well sited to measure represen-
tative pollution levels.

           Data  recovery  for  the   monitoring  period   was  99.4/f.    Out   of
2,797 hours of  operation (117 days),  only 16 hours  were lost  due to zero drift

-------
                                                                 TABLE IV-10

                                                           1982 VISUAL OBSERVATION
                                                        VISIBILITY PERCENTILES (MILES)
       Observation Site
Olympic National Park
  Blue Glacier 	
  Blue Glacier 	
  Lookout Rock 	
  Lookout Bock 	
  Time of
Observation
   0800
   2000
   0900
   1500
Mount Rainier National Park
  Camp Muir 	
48
39
69
75
                49
                                                        (Median)
                                                           50%
 35
 32
122(a)
14 5 (a).
                         50
                                                               All Readings
                  (Best Case)
                      10%
115
115
130+(a)
150+(a)
                                    135
                        (Worst Case)
                            90% 	
                                                                           Non-Fog Precipitation
 61
 56
 86
101
                                                                 74
                                    (Median)
                                       50%
 73
 50
170 (a)
180 (a)
                                                                          74
                   (Best Case)
                       10%
118
120
170+ (a)
180+ (a)
                                                                                     145
                        (Worst Case)
                            90%
28
27
14
32
                                                                                                      47
 (a) - Extrapolated from cumulative frequency plots.
                                                                 TABLE IV-11

                                                           1981 VISUAL OBSERVATION,
                                                        VISIBILITY PERCENTILES  (MILES)
       Observation Site
Olympic National  Park
  Blue Glacier  	
  Lookout Rock	
                                   Time of
                                 Observation
   1500
   1500
44
43
                                                               All Readings
                        (Median)
                          50%
   27
   14
                  (Best Case)
                      10%
  100
  120+
                        (Worst Case)
                            90%
                                                                                                            Non-Fog Precipitation
                                    (Median)
                                       50%
                   (Best Case)
                       10%
                        (Worst Case)
                            90%

-------
                                                                          IV-12
and  instrument  calibration.   Data recovery  is  based  on a  recording  day of
22 hours and  does  not include the twice  daily one-hour clean air purge (which
accounted for a total of 236  hours).  This  instrument  proved to be quite reli-
able, with  nearly all of  the downtime related  to  calibration procedures.  No
instrument malfunctions occurred during the monitoring period.

           The nephelometer data  are shown in Figure  IV-8,  time series repre-
sentations  of the daily  average  value  and daily  maximum value.  The values
measured  ranged  to  25 x  10~->m~^,   the  instrument's  full-scale  span.   The
instrument  detected  off-scale maximum values for eight  hours during  the moni-
toring period.

           Monthly statistical parameters  from  the Hurricane Ridge  site are
presented in  Table  IV-12.   Also presented  in this  table is  the  value for the
Rayleigh scattering  coefficient  (blue sky,  or clean air alone) at this eleva-
tion,  1.05  x 10-5nr1.    (NOTE:   the  scattering coefficient  is  comprised of
the  particle  scattering coefficient, bsp,  which  is  measured by a  nephelora-
eter  and the  Raleigh scattering  coefficient,  bpg,   which  varies with alti-
tude;  bscat  =  bsp  + brg.)  Most  of  the  values  measured   at  this   site are
near  or  below the value ror  Rayleigh scattering (median,  0.7 x 10~5), signi-
fying that  typically the  scattering  coefficient is dominated by Raleigh scat-
tering and not significantly influenced by pollution.

           The nephelometer data  also show pollution  impacts  to  the  Hurricane
Ridge area.  There  were  15  impacts  recorded greater  than  5  x  10~5m_i  -Hfcll
four  over  10 x  10~5.  Two impacts  caused  the  instruments  to read  off-scale.
These two periods were also the two  longest impacts.   The first impact period
occurred on August 19-20 and  was  38  hours in duration  with an average value of
11.5  x   10~5m~^.   The  second  lasted  23  hours   between  September  21  and 22
with  an  average  of   11.5  x   10~5m~^.   The  time of day  the  high levels  were
recorded was  also of  interest.  Of  15 impacts,  9 were  initiated  in  the after-
noon.

     5.     Visitor Center

           An air quality monitoring  station  is  operated at  the Visitor Center
of the Olympic  National Park.  The  operation and  funding of  this station is
cooperatively supported  by the  Olympic  National  Park, Olympic  Air  Pollution
Control Authority, and WDOE.   Parameters  measured are  total  suspended particu-
lates, particle scattering, ozone, and sulfur dioxide concentrations.

           This air  quality  monitoring station is within  the Class  I area;
however, the  station is located just outside the  city  limits  of Port Angeles
(less than  1  mile) and at  an  elevation  near 100 feet.   The  measured  values at
this site are more  representative of local  pollution  conditions  than those in
the Class I area.  These data were  reviewed to determine  if  Port Angeles  pol-
lution could  influence measurements  at  the  visibility monitoring sites, and
not as representing conditions in the Park.

-------
2.50
 .00
                                                                                                    9/19
                                                                                                         9/24
                                                                                                               9/29
                                                       TIME
                 Figure IV-8.  PARTICLE SCATTERING COEFFICIENT, HURRICANE RIDGE, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                            JUNE-OCTOBER, 1982

-------
                                          TABLE IV-12

                                 MONTHLY STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
                                    FOR NEPHELOMETER VALUES
        Month and Parameter
Particle Scattering Coefficient (bsp x IQ"^"1)
Hurricane Ridge(a)   Paradise(b)   Dog Mountain(c)
June
Total Monitoring Period
Standard Rayleigh Scattering(d)
  Clean Air Value, Elevation
                                              1.0
                                              0.8
                                              0.1
                                              7.5
                                              1.3
                                              0.7
                                              0.0
                                              6.5
                                              1.8
                                              1.1
                                              0.3
                                             25+
                                              1.5
                                              0.8
                                              0.2
                                             25+
                                              0.6
                                              0.3
                                              0.1
                                             13.5
                                              1.3
                                              0.7
                                              0.2
                                             25+
                                              1.05
                          1.8
                          1.5
                          2.0
                         10+
                          1.4
                          1.1
                          1.0
                          9.1
                          2.1
                          1.5
                          1.0
                         10+
                          0.8
                          0.7
                          0.4
                          3.3
                          0.8
                          0.4
                          0.1
                          6.0
                          1.4
                          1.0
                          1.0
                         10+
                                                                1.07
 2.5
 2.2
 2.0
20
 3.3
 1.6
 1.0
25+
 3.9
 2.5
 1.0
25+
 2.1
 1.3
 1.0
14
 1.9
 1.2
 1.0
13
 2.9
 1.9
 1.0
25+
                                                                                1.18
(a)  - Monitoring Period from June 22 to October 17, instrument span 0 - 25 x 10~5.
(b)  - Monitoring Period from June  9 to October 17, instrument span 0 - 10 x 10~5.
(c)  - Monitoring Period from June  1 to October 17, instrument span 0 - 25 x 10~5.
(d)  - Bodhaine, B. A. (1979).

-------
                                                                          IV-13


     Mount Rainier National Park

     1.    Camp MuirSite

           (a)   Visual Observations

           Observations  and  photographs were  taken at  Camp Muir  by  NFS park
rangers from June  26  until September 26,  1982.   Observations  were recorded on
78  of  92  possible days,  an  85%  recovery rate.   Missing data  resulted from
scheduling and  duty priorities and  are not related  to meteorological events;
therefore, the  78 observations are  assumed to be  representative of the total
sample available.  During  the 1982 observation period,  visibility was limited
to  10  miles  or less  (mostly  less than  1/2 mile) on 31 days  (40$)  due to fog
and precipitation.  For the 47 days when visibility was not affected by fog or
precipitation, average visibility  was  74 miles.   During 13 of the 17 days (28%
of  non-fog/precipitation  days),  plume/smoke was  sighted  and  visibility aver-
aged only 49 miles.  For the  remaining 34  clear days without weather or plume/
smoke intrusions, visibility averaged 82 miles.

           The Camp Muir  data set is  presented in Figure IV-9 as a cumulative
frequency distribution.  The  results of the  frequency  distribution  are shown
in Table IV-13.

     2.    Paradise Site

           (a)   Visual Observations

           Visual  observations  were  taken by  NFS  personnel  at  the  Paradise
Visitor Center  from July  to  the  end  of  September.   Observations  were taken
daily at 1300 hours.  The furthest target available from Paradise is 34 miles.

           The restricted  target   distances reduce the  value  of  the  Paradise
data.  A cumulative frequency distribution was not  prepared  for this site be-
cause of the limited  target  distances.  Visual data  collected  at this station
are best used  to  document  weather, and visibility interference resulting from
pollution.

           The visibility  averages from this  site are  listed  in Table IV-13.
Other  results  are:   data  recovery  -  96%  (87  observations  from  91  possible
days);  27 days  (31$), weather interference to  visibility;  50 days (57$), visi-
bility greater than 34 miles;  and  3 days (5% of non-fog days),  smoke or plumes
reported.

           (b)   Scattering Coefficient

           The nephelometer  at Paradise  operated  from June 9  to October 17.
Data from this  site  are presented in  Figure  IV-10, a  time series representa-
tion,  and  in Table IV-12  which shows  statistics for  each month of  the data
set.  The  data recovery at  this   site  was 87.1$.  A  total of  372 hours were
lost during the   131  days due  to  instrument zero drift  and  instrument  or
recorder malfunction.

-------
  200-


  150-
  10O-

   90-
   80-

   70-

   60-

   50-


   40-



   30-


«
UJ
-J  20-
m
n

"*  lo-
   g-
   s'
   7-

   6-

   5-

   4-
   3-
   2 -
                                                                     FOG/RAIN READINGS
                                                                     SCREENED (Vr • 10 mi.)
                                     —i—
                                      20
—I	1	1	1—
 30  40  SO  60
                                                                               	1	1	
                                                                                99.8 99.9
      .01  .06 .1
                                10
—I—
 70
                                                         80
                                                              90
                                                                  95
                                                                       98 99
                                                                                         99.99
                                    CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
         Figure IV-9.  CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, CAMP MUIR, MT. RAINIER NATIONAL PARK
                     VISUAL OBSERVATIONS. JUNE - SEPT.. 1982.

-------
                                               TABLE IV-13

                                     MOUNT RAINIER VISUAL OBSERVATION
                                       VISIBILITY PERCENTILES, 1982
                                      Visibility Percentile (Miles)
All Readings
Site
Camp Muir (a)
Paradise(b)
Mean
49
22
(Median)
50%
50
_
(Best Case)
10%
135
-
(Worst Case)
90% Mean
6 74
31
Non-Fog/Precipitation
(Median)
50%
74
-
(Best Case)
10%
145
_
(Worst Case)
90%
47
_
(a)  - June 26  to September 26.
(b)  - July  1  to September 29.

-------
                                                                           IV-14


           The  instrument In operation  at Paradise was  the most sensitive of
 the  nephelometers  with  a  full-scale  reading of  10  x  10-5nr1.   This  range
 proved  to  be  adequate;  a  full  scale  of  25  x  10~5m-1 would  be  consistent
 with  other nephelometers used  for visibility  monitoring and  would result in
 fewer   off-scale   readings.    (The  Paradise  instrument  measured  off   scale
 12 hours.)  The highest monthly average  value  occurred  during August  and the
 lowest  in October.   The values  measured at  Paradise  (median  1.0 x  10~5m~^)
 indicate  a usual  pristine  air space.   The  clean-air  Rayleigh coefficient of
 1.1  x  10~5m~1  and  particle scattering  coefficient  measured  combined  for  a
 median  value for the scattering coefficient  at Paradise of 2.1  x  10~5m~1.

           The  nephelometer  data  show evidence  of impacts  to the  air  space
 within  Mount  Rainier National  Park.   Periods of high particle scattering  coef-
 ficient were  recorded during  1982 monitoring.   The selected  criterion estab-
 lished  for indicating  the  presence  of a possible plume  impact  was an hourly
 average  bsp  value  of  5 x   10~5m"^  occurring  for  two  continuous hours  or
 longer  (the  mean  bgp  value  for  the  monitoring  period was  2  x 10~5m~^).
 The cause  of  these impacts  will be determined  by reviewing concurrent source,
 chemical composition of filters, and meteorological data.

           During  the  1982  monitoring  period,  14 periods   of  high   particle
 scattering  coefficient  measurements  were  recorded.    These  impact  periods
 lasted  an average  of 5  hours  (minimum  2 hours,  maximum 16 hours).  Within four
 of these periods,  peak values  exceeded the scale of the  instrument.  No marked
 increase in humidity  values  were noticed  during  periods  of  higher scattering;
 for the monitoring period,  no correlation between  scattering  and humidity was
 found.

           The  time of  day during  which the  high particle scattering coeffici-
 ent  impacts   occurred  was also  of  interest.   For  the  14  occurrences,  four
 events  began  between the hours  of midnight and  noon  and 10  between noon and
 midnight.  Afternoon, the period of the day  when  the majority of events began,
 is also the time  of day when relative  humidities are  usually the lowest.  The
 50/6  cumulative  frequency  for  the   hourly  average   value  is  1.8 x  10~5m~^,
 and for daily  maximum 3.7  x  10~5m~^.  The average  value for  the monitoring
 period was 1.4  x 10~5m~^.

           (c)   Meteorological Parameters

           Measurements  of  wind speed,  wind direction,  and  relative humidity
 were taken at the  Paradise Ranger  Station.  The instruments  were operated dur-
 ing this  time period  for the visibility  study;  normal operation occurs Novem-
 ber through April  for  avalanche control  purposes.   The Park  Service is  respon-
 sible for the siting, maintenance, and calibration of the instruments.

           Wind and humidity data  provide support information  for the visibil-
 ity monitoring  at the  Paradise  and Camp  Muir  sites.   The data  are primarily
 used  with the  Paradise nephelometer  data  (instruments  are located  approxi-
mately  1/4 mile apart).  Wind and humidity  data assist  in  determining source
 contributions for  impacts recorded on the nephelometer.   Of  specific interest
was the relationship of humidity levels to particle scattering at this site.

-------
                                                                           IV-15
           The  wind  data show  the  results that would  be expected  due to  the
topographical  influences  at Paradise.   Paradise  is at  the  eastern end of  the
Nisqually  drainage valley  and  has the  Tatoosh Range  to the south  and Mount
Rainier to the  north.   Winds  at Paradise are predominantly from  the west  (U2/&)
due  to the synoptic  weather patterns  and drainage  effects.  Winds  from  the
north  occurred almost  30%  of this time period,  most  likely due to  downslope
winds  from Mount Rainier.  Winds  from the south  were  rare  (2?),  and minimal
from the east,  11%.  Wind speeds reflected the weaker  summer fronts and local-
ized mountain-valley  winds.  Speeds  of  0 to 5 mph occurred  53% of the  time,
and 5  to 10 mph  30% of  the  time.

           The  relative  humidity  levels  at  this  site  were  high.  Humidities
over  90%  occurred $}%  of  the  time  and  over  60%  of  the  recorded humidities
exceeded  70%.    The lowest humidity  value recorded  was 2~\%  for three hours;
values below 40/t occurred  10$ of the  time.

     3.    Visual Observations Discussion

           Visual  observations  from  Mount Rainier National  Park show a high
percentage of  fog/precipitation days   (31/&-UO/J), a  high percentage of  far tar-
get visibility  days  (31-57?), a high  percentage  of smoke/plume  sightings from
Camp Muir  (28%) and  a low percentage  of smoke plume  sightings  from  Paradise
(5*).

           The  number  of  fog/precipitation  days  is   consistent  between Camp
Muir  and   Paradise (fog/precipitation  percentages  are  also  consistent  with
those  from  the  North  Cascades  National  Park).  The number  and  percentage of
far target visibility  days  are  much higher for Paradise than Camp Muir.  This
difference is  primarily  related  to  the  view distance;  the  maximum view dis-
tance  from Paradise is  34 miles while the view  distance from Camp Muir exceeds
100 miles.   View  distance  and  view  angle also contribute to the much larger
number and percentage  of plume sightings  from  Camp Muir than Paradise.  Camp
Muir is located at 10,000  feet with  an  unobstructed view to the east, south
and  west.   Paradise   is   located  at  elevation   5400   and   where  views   are
restricted by  local topography to short  ranges,  except  for 3^  miles to  the
west.

           The  1981 visual  observation data for Paradise show numbers  and per-
centages of fog/precipitation consistent  with the  1982  Paradise data.  In 1981
far target visibility  was  recorded for  half  as many days as in  1982.  Again,
this difference  could reflect the higher  number of  hazy days  during the summer
of 1981.  Four more smoke/plume sightings were  reported in 1982  than  1981 from
the Paradise site, a slightly higher  percentage of smoke  during non-fog days.

     4.    Dog Mountain

           (a)    Scattering Coefficient

           The  nephelometer at  this  site was  installed  on June   1 and operated
through the remainder of  1982.   The monitoring period  used for this report is

-------
                                                                           TV-16


 June  to October  17.   Data from this  site are  shown  in Figure  IV-10,  a  time
 series  representation of  the  scattering coefficient shown  with  a time series
 of  fine particulate mass  (described  below),  and the monthly particle scatter-
 ing statistics  are  shown in Table IV-12.

           A  data recovery of  80.%% was accomplished at this site.  A total of
 591  hours  of data  were  lost  during  the  137 days monitored.   Instrument  zero
 drift  resulted  in data loss,  and  a lamp burnout accounted  for  a lost week of
 data.

           The  nephelometer recorded numerous  plume  impacts  (Figure IV-10).
 The frequent occurrence  of  impacts  and the  high   particle  scattering  values
 measured at  this site occur because  Dog  Mountain is located along the Cowlitz
 Valley  in  eastern Lewis  County,  a western Washington county in  which the  high
 tonnage of slash  is burned.

           All  values  were higher  at  this site than at the Paradise or Olympic
 sites;  clearly  this  site is  impacted  more  by pollution  than  sites  within
 Class I  areas.    Impacts  at this  site  are  positively  correlated  with  those
 recorded  by the  Paradise  nephelometer  and with Impairment observed at Camp
 Muir.   Those impacts  corresponding  with impairment at  Mount  Rainier National
 Park were analyzed for source contribution.

           (b)    Fine Particulate Mass  (fpa)

           For  the  1982 monitoring,   156  24-hour samples  were  taken  between
 May 19  and October 25.  Glass fiber  and cellulose acetate filters  were  both
 used  in 1982,  while  during  1981  only  glass fiber filters were  used.   Data
 recovery was  97.5? for  this  instrument;  the sampler was inoperable  for only
 four days.

           The  fpm  data are  plotted with  the  scattering coefficient in Fig-
 ure IV-10  and   with   emission   source  information   (slash   burns  and   Mount
 St. Helens)  in  Figure IV-3.   For the  156 filters  the  fpm has  the following
 statistical     characteristics:     mean    9.6 ug/m3,    standard    deviation
jf12.0 Ug/m3,  maximum  value   112.8  ug/m3  on  July   20,  and  minimum value of
 less  than  1 ug/m3  on  12 occasions.   Monthly  averages  were  distributed as
 follows:   May   19  to  June 30  -  8.5  ug/m3;   July -   14.3  ug/m3;  August -
 13.2 ug/m3; September - 6.1 ug/ra3; and October - 5.1 ug/m3.

           The  Dog  Mountain  filters were  measured  for fine  particulate  mass,
 fine  particulate  concentration,   and  the  particle  absorption  coefficient
 (bap)  by the  integrating plate  method  (Lin et al.,  1973).   The scattering
 coefficient (bSp) was available from the nephelometer measurements.

           Thirty filters  selected from  the  1982 sample  underwent additional
 chemical analysis to  determine the  chemical  composition of the  fine  particu-
 late  mass  collected.   The  techniques  used  are  presented in  Section  III,
 Table III-2.  In  addition, nine  filters from the 1981  sample were analyzed by
 the  Oregon's   DEQ   Laboratory  for   eight  elements   and   chemical   species
 (Br~, C1-, SOq, N03» NA+, K+,  NH$, and carbon).

-------
Page Not Available Digitally

-------
                                                                 IV-17

     Photographic  Monitoring

     1.    North Cascades National Park

          (a)     Copper Ridge

          The photographic program at this site did not start until September
5, 1982, due to a shortage of cameras, and only continued for a few days.

          (b)    Cascade Pass/Sahale  Arm
          No photographic data were obtained at this site during 1982 because
equipment was not available.

     2.     Olympic National Park

          (a)    Blue Glacier

          The photographic/observation program started on June 28.  Photographs
were taken  on 33  of the 74 days between June  28 and September 9-   Visibility
photographs were  taken primarily on the 20 days  when smoke  was reported from
this site.  Two examples appear on the following  page.  Photo No. 1 was taken
looking southwest  toward Mount  Tom on July 24,  1982.  The impairment descrip-
tion sheet for that day describes the layered  haze as smoke originating from
either a slash  burn or  a forest fire.  Photo  No.  2  was taken looking in the same
direction  on August 6, 1°82.  The following information was taken from the
August 6  impairment  description sheet:  "At  1730 smoke reached  Mount  Olym-
pus area.  Sum mit pinnacle hazy and strong smell of smoke.  Day previously  was
crystal clear with  excellent visibility.   Communication with Hoh Ranger Sta-
tion indicated major slash  burns in Sams River and Clearwater River  Valley."
NOTE:  The impairment recorded in these photographs occurred within_the park
boundaries.

          (b)    Hurricane Ridge

          An observation/photography  program  began on September 17f 1982  at
Hurricane Ridge.  Data from this site  are used  to track visibility changes within
Olympic National  Park.

          (c).    Lookout Rock

          Photographic monitoring at Lookout Rock is part of a national visi-
bility photographic monitoring network  operated by the NPS.   Photographs have
been taken at this site from  1980 through  1982.   From 1980 through 1981 simul-
taneous teleradiometer data  were also recorded.  This station  has the  most
photographic data  available for long-range tracking purposes.   This information
is  presently being  archived and analyzed by the NPS.  Estimates of visual
range using these photographs are expected from  the Air Quality Office, NPS,
by  April 1983.

-------
Photo  No.  1 - Southwest From Blue Glacier.
2000, July  24, 1982.
Photo No. 2 - Southwest from Blue Glacier.
2000, August 6,  1982.

-------
                                                                       IV-18
     3.     Mount Rainier National Park

           (a)  Camp Mulr

           An observation/photography program was carried out at Camp Muir from
June 26 to September 2,  1P82.  Photographs were not taken on days when the visi-
bility was obscured by clouds or fog.  Camp Muir is an  optimum  location for an
observation/photography monitoring station because it is an integral vista  viewpoint,
it is  manned by park personnel  during the sum mer, and  has long-range views to
the east through south to west  unrestricted  by topography.  Photographs taken during
1982 are being archived  for use in long-term tracking.  Examples of photographs
from  Camp Muir include:  Photo No. 3 - view  towards Mount  St. Helens obscured
by large slash burn on August 18 and  Photo  No. k - same view earlier that day
before impact occurred.

           (b)  Paradise

           A  photography program  supplementing  daily observations was started
at the Paradise  site on July 4,  1Q82.  The photographs are also being archived for
use in long-range tracking.  Photographs from  the Paradise station may  be more
useful for localized effects and impacts to the park itself since the view distance
from  Paradise is severely restricted by local topography.  An  example of localized
impacts is  shown in Photo No. 5, taken  on August 18.  In-park impacts were also
recorded from  Camp Muir and the Paradise  nephelometer on this date.

     A.     Flights

          In addition to the stationary sites, aerial photographs were taken on
June  11, July 26, and August  1Q.  Photo  No. 6  was taken  during the June 11 flight
which was  made to assess pollutant dispersion  from a large burn  of blowdown resulting
from  the Mount St.  Helens eruption.  The flight on July 26 was made to document
the impact on Mount Rainier  National Park of a burn near Handle. This flight
was  made in  response to visitor complaints from  Paradise.  The August  18 flight
was taken to observe projected  imparts on Olympic  National Park from  slash burns
and stationary sources to the  south.

          Supporting Data

           Regional and site-specific meteorological data  were used during impact
analysis to help  determine impairment sources.  Data used included:  sounding data
from  WDOE station at Portage  Bay, National Weather Service stations at Salem,
and Quillayute;  National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration satellite photos
and weekly weather updates; Geological Survey daily accounts of Mount St. Helens
emissions and winds near the 9000-ft level above  the crater; and  observation data
from  western Washington airports and from the Southwest and  Yakima  Air Pollution
Control Agencies.

-------
Photo No. 5 - Local impact as viewed from Paradise
Visitor Center.  1500 August  18, 1982.
Photo No. 6 - Aerial photography  flight.  June 11,  1982.

-------
Photo  No. 3 - South from  Camp M uir.  1500  August 18, 1982.
Photo No. A - South from  Camp  Muir earlier the same day.
0900 August  18, 1982.

-------
                                                                          IV-19
     Source Apportionment

     1.    1981 Studies

           Filter  samples  were  collected and  optical  scattering  measured at
the Dog  Mountain site in  the summers and  early falls of  1981 and  1982.   To
investigate  the  causes  and  extent  of  visibility  degradation in  and  near
national forest and  park lands,  one approach to data analysis  is to  seek pos-
sible correlations  between visibility degradation and chemical tracers associ-
ated with  distinguishable  sources (Harrison et al.,  1982).   Seven  glass fiber
filter samples  collected  in 1981 on  days of reduced visibility were analyzed.
These  samples   were  examined   for   the  ionic  species:    Cl",   BR~,  NOJ,
SO^,   Na+,   K+,   NH$,   and  for    elemental   carbon.    All  Br~   analyses
showed levels below a  threshold of  2 micrograms  per  filter.  The  remaining
analyses are  tabulated in Table IV-14,  with  entries normalized by  collected
air volumes,  together with  the  optical  scattering  coefficient, bsp,  and  the
total fine particulate mass.  These  data were then  processed  by  computing a
crossed-correlation matrix.  The resulting matrix is shown in Table IV-15.

           The data  set is very  small, and  the standard  error associated with
each of  these  correlations  is  large,  about  0.5.   It appears, however,  that
significant intercorrelations  are  present  in the lower  right-hand  corner of
the correlation matrix.

           The  correlation matrix  is  next  processed by  a  conventional  eigen-
vector-eigenvalue rotation.   This process discovers  a sequence of  normalized,
orthogonal, linear  combinations  of  the  observables  which  successively accounts
for as much as possible of the total variance of the combined data set.

           The first vector  (column)  of  Table  IV-16  accounts for 6.236/9.000 =
69% of  the variance; the  second for 1.778/9.000 =  20%,  etc.  Only  these  two
account for more variance  than could  be  attributed  to correlations  with random
variables.   Inspection  of  the  first  column shows  that  it  is about  equally
loaded with  all  the observables,  except  the  first  two,  namely  Cl and  NOg.
The second column picks these two for heavy loadings.   This separation reveals
that Cl, a tracer  of  oceanic origin,  and  NOg,  a  tracer  primarily  of  cities
(but also  possibly  of the  Centralia  power plant)  fluctuates more or  less
coherently, but  incoherently with  everything  else.   This  separation  implies
that those materials associated  with optical  scattering at the Dog Mountain
site, on the days sampled, are likely NOT of urban or maritime origin.

           Despite the large  standard errors  of Table IV-15,  the  correlation
matrix has been further processed  by a  factor analysis.   This process  seeks
linear combinations of the correlants which:

           a.     are orthogonal;

           b.     account  for  most of the variance  of the  correlation  matrix;
                 and

-------
                             TABLE  IV -14

              FPM COMPOSITIONAL DATA, DOG MOUNTAIN,  1981


      (Units of cols 1-7 are nanogramsm, col  9 is micrograms/m3
          units of bsp are reciprocal meters, times  10,000.)
Cl     NO-^     SOit      Na     _K _     NHu         C        bap    fpm
35.0
36.7
28.1
25.5
24.3
33.4
31.7
366.8
172.4
194.2
38.6
220.8
443.8
325-8
3,082.2
1,747.3
5,360.3
972.2
4,719.3
2,893.7
2,491.7
299.8
261.3
503.5
292.4
445.4
401.1
350.0
30.4
26.5
74.7
13.1
75.1
72.9
53.3
860.0
330.7
1,608.1
98.8
1,517.5
845.6
760.0
5,570.8
2,051.5
7,275.9
1,118.8
11,699.5
12,490.3
8,166.7
•• 	 •"—"•*• 	
7.5
4.0
8.2
0.1
11.9
7.9
7.5
13-5
3.5
19.6
5.5
34.7
32.8
21.8
                             TABLE IV-15

                 THE CORRELATION MATRIX,  1981 FILTERS


   Cl	    NO 3     SOu       Na       K       NHu       C        bc,p      fpm
Cl
No 3
SOu
Na
K
NHi|
C
bsp
fpm
1.000
0.528
-0.326
-0.516
-0.258
-0.344
-0.160
-0.108
-0.309
0.528
1.000
0.231
0.159
0.465
0.287
0.688
0.577
0.581
-0.326
0.231
1.000
0.894
0.825
0.993
0.628
0.831
0.631
-0.516
0.159
0.894
1.000
0.907
0.900
0.699
0.688
0.727
-0.258
0.465
0.825
0.907
1.000
0.860
0.900
0.842
0.891
-0.344
0.287
0.993
0.900
0.860
1.000
0.698
0.877
0.704
-0.160
0.688
0.628
0.699
0.900
0.698
1.000
0.856
0.987
-0.108
0.577
0.831
0.688
0.842
0.877
0.856
1.000
0.836
-0.309
0.581
0.631
0.727
0.891
0.704
0.987
0.836
1.000

-------
                                                                          IV-20
           c.    are loaded with as few individual tracers as possible.

           A  variety  of  factor  rotations  have  been  explored  which produce
results typical of those summarized in Table IV-17.

           For  clarity in  Table IV-17, the smaller  and  less significant load-
ings have been  suppressed.  The first  column  reveals that most of the variance
is  associated  with sulfate salts  of  NHij, Na, and K, and that these  correlate
with the  nephelometric optical scattering.   The second  column  again  picks up
the  Cl and NOg.   The  third,  which may  only be marginally significant, puts
the carbon in the same  pocket  as the  total  mass  loading of fine particles and,
possibly,  also associates  these  with  potassium and  the  optical  scattering
coefficient.

           The  tentative conclusions are:

           a.    Most  of  the  optical  scattering sampled  at the  Dog  Mountain
site on the selected days was  associated with sulfate aerosols.

           b.    These were not of oceanic or city origin.

           c.    Carbonaceous  aerosols  correlated with  total  fine particulate
mass and  contributed  significantly to  optical  scattering.  That the carbon did
NOT  correlate   with  S0i| indicates that  the  origins  (or sink  mechanisms)  of
these two tracers differ.

           (NOTE:   The  reader  is  cautioned that the data set  is  slim and the
risk of overinterpretation is large.)

     2.    1982 Studies

           The  method  of  factor analysis appears  promising  and present appli-
cations of  this method are  being  conducted on  filters   collected  during 1982
monitoring.  The  data base has been  extended by analyzing  a  larger  number of
filters,  and for  a wider set  of tracers,  In  particular metals  such as manga-
nese (which is  a  useful tracer of  coal combustion),  copper, arsenic, and anti-
mony (which are tracers of  smelter operations),  and  lead  (which  is a  city and
highway  tracer).   These  additional tracers  may  facilitate estimates of  the
relative  contribution  fnom  different  sources  to the degradation  of  visibility
observed  within the  Camp  Muir  viewshed.  The data base  assembled for  the fil-
ters sampled in 1982 is presented in Tables III-2 and III-3.

           Results of  the  1982 filter  analysis for source apportionment deter-
mination  are  not  available.   The  laboratory chemical  analyses have  not been
completed at the  time of  this  writing.   Publication of  the completed  analysis
will be  included  in  future  visibility data  reports by  the WDOE.  The  first
publication of  1982 results using  a factor  analysis  approach for source appor-
tionment of impairment sources, however, will be included in the thesis of Pam
Jenkins, Atmospheric Sciences - University of Washington, expected June 1983.

-------
                                   TABLE IV-16

                          EIGENVALUES AND VECTORS, 1981
Eigenvalues —
6.236
Vectors
-0.121
0.198
0.355
0.358
0.387
0.371
0.365
0.370
0.365
1.778

0.640
0.632
-0.175
-0.264
0.007
-0.147
0.202
0.133
0.103
0.658

0.480
-0.065
0.480
0.085
-0.045
0.377
-0.374
0.151
-0.469
0.229

-0.268
-0.038
0.079
-0.555
-0.444
0.160
-0.009
0.618
0.088
0.091

0.371
-0.667
-0.171
-0.189
0.444
-0.170
0.114
0.324
0.097
0.007

0.240
-0.259
0.535
-0.177
-0.343
-0.055
0.338
-0.421
0.381
0.000

-0.212
0.152
0.196
-0.646
0.561
0.197
-0.096
-0.326
-0.079
0.000

-0.095
-0.042
0.003
-0.036
-0.038
0.003
0.731
0.001
-0.672
0.000

0.154
-0.138
-0.502
-0.038
-0.140
0.776
0.118
-0.229
0.126
Eigenvalues
                                  TABLE IV-17

                             FACTOR LOADINGS, 1981

Cl
N03
SOi,
Na
K
NHi|
C
Bsp
Fpm
6.17
-
-
.99
.89
.85
.99
_
.84
-
1.45
.76
.70
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
.55
                                                   .83

                                                   .99
                                                   .76
                                                   .99

-------
                                                                          IV-21
     Trajectory Analysis^

           During the  1982 study  period,  daily upper air wind speed and direc-
tion  were estimated  for  western Washington.   Data  utilized in  the  analysis
included  upper air  data from  Quillayute,  Salem, and Portage Bay.  Weather maps
and satellite photos  were  also analyzed.   The  resulting  wind fields  were then
used  to  project  plume  travel resulting  from  pollution sources such  as slash
burns, or locate the sources  responsible for  the numerous  impacts  recorded
during the study period by instrument monitoring and visual observations.

           This  trajectory  method   proved  to  be   accurate   in  locating  the
responsible source  when  the wind field  was steady with  a  moderate wind.  For
those  impacts  determined  to   be  from slash   burns,  it was  also  possible  by
"working  backward"  from impact time to estimate  the  ignition time of the burn
very closely to the actual  reported time.  Under ideal steady wind field con-
ditions,  the  relationships  between  recorded impact  and responsible source was
evident even for sources greater than 50 miles upwind.

           One example of  a  wind  trajectory  analysis is  the  impact  to  Dog
Mountain  and  Paradise,  August 27-28,  1982.   The  bsp  values for  both sites
remained low until a sudden increase occurred  at  1500  PST for the Dog Mountain
site  and  3 hours  later at  the  Paradise site.  The  Dog Mountain  values  In-
creased over  600%,  reached a  peak  value  at   1830  PST,  and  then  decreased  to
pre-impact level by noon  the next day.   Paradise values  went off  scale on the
more sensitive instrument used  at that  site and  dropped  back to  normal levels
by  afternoon   of  the  next  day.    Meteorological  analysis  indicated  a  weak
onshore gradient with upper air flow from  the  southwest at  around  10 mph.  The
smoke management forecast was  for southwest winds at 12 mph for 3>000 feet and
west  at   12 mph for 5,000 feet.  Therefore,   wind  field  analysis  indicates  a
probable  source  of some  magnitude  southwest  of the  site.   Two  slash burns,
located 12  miles  to  the  south-southwest  of  Dog Mountain  and 75  miles  west-
southwest of Paradise, were ignited  at 1035 PST and 1220 PST.

           The first  burn  at  T9N  R2W  was  1,200  tons.   The second,  ignited
2 hours later, was  930 tons.   Assuming an average  wind speed of  12 miles  per
hour and working backwards from impact times for the two sites using distances
of  42  and 75  miles,  an estimated ignition time  was arrived  at  1130  from  the
Dog Mountain impact and  1230 for the Paradise site.  The  above  analysis does
not consider lag  time between  ignition  time and plume development and eleva-
tion gain of from 1500 feet for Dog and  5000 feet for Paradise.

           Trajectory analysis  became less  reliable during  periods of low wind
speeds and  stable  air conditions.  Under  such conditions,  usually associated
with high pressure  systems  lasting  several days, the  nephelometer trace would
show a slow increase to moderate levels corresponding  to  a  general haze build-
up.   As  the high  pressure  system  moves  on and  westerly flow  begins,  values
would peak as  the accumulated  haze  impacted the monitoring  stations (Dog Moun-
tain or Paradise).  Values  would  then drop to  near zero  levels  as the weather
system brought in a  clean  air  mass.  During  periods experiencing  wind shifts
due to major  weather  systems,  trajectory  analysis  became  difficult  but still
possible if sufficient meteorological data were available.

-------
                                                                           IV-22


           In  1981  and 1982 numerous  visual Impairment  impacts  were recorded
at  the  monitoring sites by nephelometers.   Visual observations confirmed most
all  impacts  with  reports  of  smoke layers  or  distinct  plumes.   Impacts are
defined  as a  sudden  increase in  bsp values  to at  least double, the  levels
recorded  immediately prior  to the  impact,  and  exceeding a  threshold  level.
The  following  number of impacts  were  recorded at the  various  sites using two
different threshold values:

                                            Number of
                                       Nephelometer Impacts
                       Site            1981           1982
                  Dog Mountain  ..   17(a), 7(b)   50(a), !8(b)
                  Paradise 	   20(a), 6(b)   15(a),  5(b)
                  Hurricane Ridge     No Data     15(a),

                  (a) - Greater than 5 x lO-Sor1.
                  (b) - Greater than 10 x IQ-^m-1.
DISCUSSION

     Visual Observations

           Visual observation,  a successful monitoring technique,  can be used
for long-term tracking and, in  some  cases,  source identification.  This method
can be used to determine:

     1.    the variance  of meteorological  conditions, including  the  number of
           occurrences of  natural  obstructions to  visibility such as  fog and
           precipitation and the pattern of those occurrences;

     2.    the number of smoke/plume sightings;

     3.    the number of  haze  occurrences  and  the  pattern  of   those  occur-
           rences; and

     4.    the number of days that long-range targets are visible.

           Conditions recorded  visually during the summers  of  1981   and  1982
show the following:

                                            1981           1982
                                         2 Stations     6 Stations

          Meteorological Obstructions        29%            33%

          Far Target Visibility	       21*            19.5?

          Range of Smoke/Plume
            Sightings for Non-Fog Days      0-8%*           5-37%

          *The value for the Blue Glacier was H5% but the data
           were skewed to clear days with plume sightings.

-------
                                                                           IV-23
           The  percentage of  meteorological obstruction  was similar  for  the
two  years  (29 and  33?).  However,  the  values  for far  target visibility were
quite different  (21 and  49.5$).   Part  of the difference between these two per-
centages may  be explained by  the greater number  of  hazy  days reported during
the  1981  summer.  Haze  levels  depend not  only on pollution source strengths
but  also   upon   meteorological   patterns,  including  lengths  of   stagnation
periods, wind speeds and inversion heights.

           Meteorological  variables  affect the  distribution  of  pollutants  and
their effects on  visibility.   Long-term  monitoring is needed on a yearly  basis
to provide  a  data base  and to assure  the accurate accounting of changes.   Ob-
servations  taken by NFS  (or  volunteer)  personnel  at  7 sites, with no direct
cost to  the visibility  study, provided  a useful  source of information with  a
data recovery of 62% to  100$.

           Observation  data  were used in  two ways:  First,  the  type and fre-
quency of meteorological  conditions  limiting or otherwise  affecting  visibility
was  noted.  Tabulations for  each site included  days  of meteorological  impair-
ment (e.g.  fog,  rain,  snow), days with  the farthest target  visible, and days
where pollutant-caused  impairment in the distinct form of  plumes or  smoke were
observed.  Hazes,  either a low  valley or general  type,  was  noted;  they were
not  tabulated  due to the  difficulty of distinguishing the  type  and extent of
impairment.  Second, the  data  provide a distribution of the  visual range val-
ues  in the  form of a cumulative  frequency.   The median value of each data  set
corresponds to a cumulative  frequency of  5055 and it is also an approximation
of the geometric or arithmetic  mean.   For the  cumulative  frequency distribu-
tion, the 10th percentile is assumed to  be "best" conditions  and the 90th per-
centile as representative of the "worst" conditions.

           These  transformations  of  visual  observation data  reduce the vari-
ance of  the data resulting from individual subjectivity.   These  two analyses
have also  been  used in a number  of  other visibility  studies (Trijonis,  1979;
Trijonis,  1982;  Gins  et  al.,  1981;  and  Malm et al.,  1981).  Trijonis (1979)
concluded that airport  observation data,  when plotted as cumulative frequency,
yielded  results  that  were consistent  from site-to-site and  showed remarkable
agreement  to  measurements taken by  photographic  photometers and  integrating
nephelometers.

           Because  standard observation  practices  used at  the visual observa-
tion sites were  similar to those used at  airports  and  other weather stations,
consistent techniques  could  be applied to  determine  the  statistical distribu-
tion of  the data  and  to calculate  visibility  percentiles.   These techniques
have been  described by Trijonis  (1979 and  1982).  These  techniques have been
applied to all  visual  observation data  sets.   Trijonis (1979) has  shown that
these techniques produce consistent  results  from site-to-site even  if the var-
ious stations have visibility markers at different distances.

           Basically,  these  techniques  require  that  visibilities  reported  by
the observer be routine values,  taken  using  a standard  procedure  at a standard
time; non-routine  or  special  observations  can  produce anomalies in the data.

-------
                                                                           IV-24


The data set must also systematically account for occasions when a target can-
not  be  seen, thus  allowing the  distribution to be weighted  in proportion to
the frequency with which visually impaired days  occur.

           At two  locations, the farthest  target was  UO  miles or less  (Para-
dise -  34  miles,  and Sahale Arm  -  40 miles)  and was  reported  on  over 50% of
the time.   Because  the  data set  lacked  resolution at  these locations, the use
of  visual  range  values  was  eliminated; however,  meteorological observations
were  useful.  Observation  sites with  target  distances  of  near  70 miles  or
greater are  needed to provide  a sufficient data  base  for  visual range statis-
tics.

     Photography

           Photographic  monitoring  provides  a  means  of documenting visual
range observations  and  recording impairment  conditions  and  sources.  Photo-
graphic  and visual  observation  data in  combination  can  provide  information
that cannot  be  detected  with any other  monitoring technique.   Due  to the ex-
pansive  view at integral  vistas a  point  measurement  (particulate  sampler  or
nephelometer) or path measurement  (teleradiometer)  cannot  always be indicative
of  conditions  within a  view.   Views  from  integral vistas are primarily com-
prised  of  mountainous  or forested  areas.   Figures  IV-1 and  IV-2  present the
point sources and  prescribed fires  within Washington  which were considered as
contributing to visibility  impairment during June-September  1982.   Except for
the Deer Park -  Hurricane Ridge  Integral Vista, no point  source plume is dis-
tinctly visible at an integral  vista.  The  source emission locations which can
be  detected  from integral  vistas are limited  to those occurring  in forested
areas.  Both photographic and  visual  observation data  are  necessary for inter-
pretation  because of the  varying locations  and occurrences of prescribed fires
near the Class I areas.

           Studies performed by the  NPS at the  Grand  Canyon  National Park and
reported by  Malm  (1983)  conclude that  because  of  the  circumstances  of  smoke
intrusion  and the difficulty of locating a  representative  sampling site, moni-
toring  smoke intrusions must  rely  on  visual  observations and  color photog-
raphy.   The  results of  the  Camp  Muir monitoring  support   the  conclusions
reached by Malm (1983).

     Nephelometer

           Four nephelometers  were  operated  during the 1982  season,  but  data
from only  three  were used  in  the analyses.   The modified nephelometers  (MRI
Model  1560,  by  A.  P. Waggoner, University of  Washington  - for Project  VIEW)
were  effective  for  measuring  aerosol  particle  scattering  extinction at  the
usually pristine levels  of  Class I areas  (at  or below Rayleigh scatter).   The
instruments  recorded impact  duration,  magnitude,  and  frequency.   Scattering
measurements along with  the fine particulate mass and  chemical analysis  from
the Dog Mountain site related particle scattering to a likely cause.

-------
                                                                          IV-25
           The  instrument measures  optical properties  at a  point  which may
limit  its  applications  to  cases where  there  is spatial  uniformity of atmos-
pheric  optical  properties.   Errors  and  deficiencies  in  nephelometer measure-
ments  have  been reported by  Waggoner (1980,  1981).   The  errors of  particular
concern are  those  relating  to humidity  effects.   Errors may  be introduced by
differences  in  humidity inside the  instrument  relative  to ambient  conditions,
and  during fog  conditions  when  particles larger  than  3 urn  dominate optical
properties.   In fog  the angular  integration  suffers from truncation  at low
scattering angles  and will  underestimate  the actual  scattering coefficient up
to  a  factor  of two.   Effects  of  increased  aerosol scattering  noticed  with
increased relative  humidities,  as reported  by  Covert et al.  (1972), also are
of  concern  due  to  high  frequency of occurrence of humidities  over 10% at the
monitoring sites.  At the Paradise  site,  fog conditions  occurred on  31% of the
days and humidity exceeded 70% for  60% of  the time.

           High  humidities   at   the  Paradise   site   have  not  significantly
affected  the particle  scattering coefficient.   This lack of  interference is
probably due  to  the low  concentrations of pollutants   (sulfates) present.  Many
studies have  shown  sulfate  to be positively correlated to scattering coeffici-
ent  (Hidy  et al.,   1975;  Waggoner et  al.,  1976;  Patterson and  Wagman, 1977),
and  negatively   correlated  to  visual range  (Trijonis and  Yuan,  1977).   Low
scattering coefficients  measured during fog conditions are not  of  consequence
because fog is a natural impairment.

     Particulate Monitoring

           The  fpm  measurements  provided a  basis  for  source  apportionment
studies through  chemical analysis  and  defined  levels of fine  particulates at
the Dog Mountain site.   The filter media used  allowed for analyses  of elements
and species  of  concern  by x-ray fluorescence, flame  ionization  or ion chroma-
tography.  A  superior method  would have  been to  sample  glass  fiber and cellu-
lose acetate  filters simultaneously to yield both  carbon  and  elemental/chemi-
cal species  data for any particular day.  Although  only one type of  filter was
used per day, the  results provide adequate  information for source  classifica-
tion attempts.  Resources were not available to sample both filter types daily.

           At  the   Dog   Mountain  site,  the  maximum  fpm   measurement   was
112.8 ug/m and  measurements  over  20 ug/m3 occurred on  18  days.  This maximum
value  indicates that the  secondary  21-hour  TSP  standard of  150 ug/m3 was
probably exceeded  on that day.  The  high  levels  of fpm  measured  at this  site
suggest that the secondary particulate standard could  be exceeded.

           Previous  Pacific Northwest studies  by Waggoner and Weiss (1979) in
both urban  and  rural sites indicate that fine and coarse  particle  concentra-
tions  are  not   well correlated.   Measured fpm  levels  of over  40 ug/m^  at
7 urban and rural  sites  recorded during the present  study  also indicate rela-
tively small  differences  in fine  particulate mass loadings  exist between rural
and  urban  sites.   These findings  suggest  fine  particulate  aerosols, are  a
regional  effect, coarse  particulate  levels  vary  site-by-site,  and fine and
coarse particulates have different responsible sources.

-------
                                                                           IV-26
           Measurement  of  coarse  particles  or TSP  is  suggested  at  the Dog
Mountain  site.   Results  indicate  that the secondary  TSP standard,  150 ug/m3,
could  be  violated  at  this site,  and that the coarse particulate  levels and
sources are  of  concern.   The highest  24-hour measurement  equals  75$ of this
standard,  i.e.  113 ug/m^ was  consumed  by  fpm  alone.    A  recent  study  by
Pitchford (1982)  concludes  that  coarse particulates contribute from 30? to 80%
of  particle-related optical   extinction.   Although  Pitchford  worked  in the
southwest where the atmosphere is  generally uniform with regard to light  scat-
tering  particles  over  distances as  great  as   100 km,  the  study of coarse par-
ticulates should  be considered for Washington even though regional homogeneity
is not as prevalent.
CORRELATIONS

           Results  from  the  nephelometer  and  particulate monitoring  showed
that  fine  particulates  dominate light  scattering at  the Dog  Mountain site.
1982  results  found  a  correlation  of  0.82 between  light scattering and  fpm
levels measured  at Dog  Mountain.   The  correlation  found  between  these vari-
ables during  1981  was 0.92.  A  decrease in correlation was also found between
nephelometers at Dog Mountain and at  Paradise.   The  1981 correlation was 0.80;
the value  found  for  1982  is  0.52.   The reduction in correlation values indi-
cates a  decrease  in homogenity of the  pollution in  the air space  between  the
two  years.   Regional  pollution Impacts  apparently  occurred  less  frequently
within this area in 1982 than 1981.   This difference  in regional haze was also
noted in the visual observation data.

           Conclusions  drawn  from   the visual   observation   data  indicate  a
higher occurrence of haze in 1981 than  in 1982.   Weather patterns in 1981 were
characterized by  a series of high  pressure ridges interspersed by periods of
stagnation.  In 1982 the frequency of such events was lower.

           The emissions from point  sources and  prescribed burns  did not sig-
nificantly  vary  between  1981   to  1982.   Point  source particulate  emissions
increased  1.4$,   and   particulate  emissions  from prescribed  fires  decreased
4.0$.   Sulfur dioxide emissions from  point  sources   varied  insignificantly
between  1981  and  1982; however, in  1982 sulfur  dioxide from  Mount  St.  Helens
decreased by nearly 50$ from the 1981 level  (31,950 tons to 16,700 tons, emis-
sions , June -September).

           The reduction  in sulfur  dioxide emissions  and increase  in  stable
atmospheric conditions in  1982  may  be  responsible  for much  of the  observed
difference in results  between  the  1981  and 1982 monitoring.  The  differences
observed also show  the  value of  continuing  yearly monitoring  since meteorolog-
ical  conditions affecting visibility  levels  have been shown to vary from ysar-
to-year.

           Fpm levels  measured  at  Dog  Mountain  were  also  correlated  to emis-
sion sources.  Near this site the most  prevalent emissions are those from pre-
scribed  burning and Mount  St.  Helens.  No  correlation  was found between daily

-------
                                                                          IV-27
Mount St.  Helens  SC>2 and  ash  emissions and  the  corresponding 2^-hour average
fpm  or  scattering  levels  measured  at  Dog  Mountain  during  1982.  Mount  St.
Helens'   contributions  to  scattering levels, fpm,  and reduced  visibility  are
more  likely  caused  by  sulfates  originating  from its SOg emissions.   For  the
seven 1981  filters of reduced visibility  days  that  were  chemically analyzed,
all  had  significant  sulfate  loadings.   The contribution to visibility degrada-
tion from Mount St. Helens is not  directly related  to the  daily sulfur dioxide
emissions, but to  the sulfates originating from these emissions.  Sulfate con-
version  is  dependent on  a number  of  factors,  including  meteorological  vari-
ables, residence time, and solar radiation.  The  interactions of these factors
with  SC>2 emissions  result  in  varying sulfate levels which are  best deter-
mined by chemical  analyses.  A moderate correlation  of 0.62  was found between
fpm  and  the  tonnage of   prescribed  burns in  southwest   Washington  (Cowlitz,
Lewis, Skamania and  Pacific  Counties).   This value does not  take into consid-
eration  wind  direction, proximity  to the  site and  source-receptor  lag  time,
all of which could increase the correlation value.

           Figure  IV-3  compares  a time series of fpm  levels  with  the  daily
tonnage of slash consumed  in southwest Washington and Mount  St. Helens sulfur
dioxide  emissions.   The fpm levels are correlated with  the  tonnage  of  slash
burned.  Of  31  occasions  when fpm exceeded  15 ug/m3,  only  6 are not  associ-
ated with a concurrent  peak  of slash burning.  If wind direction and distance
were considered on a case-by-case  basis for each  burn,  the correlation between
fpm and tonnage would most likely increase.

-------
       SECTION V
CONTROL STRATEGIES

-------
                                   SECTION V

                               CONTROL STRATEGIES
SUMMARY OF WASHINGTON SIP REVISION

           Federal  visibility  regulations require states to revise their SIP's
to  establish  long-range  goals, to establish a  planning process, and to imple-
ment  procedures assuring visibility protection  for  mandatory Class I Federal
areas.  WDOE's SIP revisions  implement  new programs  and  procedures  that will
assure  visibility  protection  to  the  state's  national  parks  and wilderness
areas.  The  control strategies include amendments  to regulations for existing
and future  stationary sources and  the development of  programs and procedures
for prescribed  burning.

           Existing stationary facilities need to be reviewed for further pol-
lution  control if  impairment  of  visibility in  Class I  areas  or associated
integral vistas determined  by  the  FLM or the State,  is identified by the State
as  being attributed to that stationary  facility.  The required  level  of con-
trol is BART for existing stationary sources.

           Any new  source in the State requiring a construction permit will be
required to  do a  screening analysis to  determine  whether  or  not  it  will de-
grade the visibility in any Class I  area.  If  degradation is Indicated, a per-
mit will  be  denied unless  mitigating procedures are adopted.   This screening
procedure will  be incorporated into  WAC 173-403, General Regulations  for Air
Pollution Sources.

           The  control strategies  for prescribed burning include scheduling of
burns  and  a  reduction  in  total  emissions.   Prescribed  burning that  could
impact  Class  I  areas  will   be  restricted  during  visibility-important  days
(weekend days from  July  1  through Labor  Day).   Western Washington forest man-
agers  have  established  an  objective  of  reducing total  emissions from  pre-
scribed burning by  35% by  1990.   WDOE believes this  figure  to  be a reasonable
objective that, combined with  burn  scheduling, should provide adequate protec-
tion.  Progress evaluations  will  be  conducted every  third year to assure that
reasonable progress is being achieved by  these control strategies.

           WDOE has concluded  that a long-term monitoring network is essential
for tracking  changes  in  visual air quality,  identifying impairment  sources,
and evaluating  the  success  of  the control  strategies.   Therefore, a long-terra
visibility monitoring strategy, as well  as  a process for documenting and eval-
uating progress, is outlined in the  proposed SIP revision.   The proposed revi-
sion to  the  Washington  SIP for visibility protection is presented  in Appen-
dix B.  This  proposed  revision was  submitted  to the  FLM's  for comment  on
March 3, 1983.

-------
                                                                           V-2
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

           Local,  state,  and Federal  agencies  provided  valuable  input  into
program development,  resource support, and contributed  toward  the formulation
of long-range control strategies.

     Resource Support

           Monitoring equipment was loaned  to  the State by the Oregon DEQ, the
EPA, and  PSAPCA.  A  fine particulate  sampler was loaned  by the  Oregon  DEQ,
four nephelometers  by EPA,  and strip  chart recorders  by the Puget  Sound Air
Pollution Control Authority.

           Clean  air  purges  for  the  nephelometers were  leased from  Dr.  Alan
Waggoner of the  University of Washington.   Dr. Waggoner initially serviced and
calibrated the  nephelometers and repaired  them,  when  necessary.   The Washing-
ton State  Patrol and  the  Department  of Transportation provided access  to the
Dog Mountain site.  Meteorological  data taken  at  Paradise  were  made available
to WDOE  by the  NPS.   Observation  and photographic monitoring  at Camp Muir,
Paradise,  Sahale Arm, Copper Ridge,  Lookout  Rock, and  Hurricane Ridge  were
accomplished by NPS  personnel.   Visual observations  and  photography  on  the
Blue Glacier  were  provided  by Rich  Marriot  and his  staff  sponsored  by  the
National Science Foundation.   Permission  to use  the Mount Baker  site  was  ob-
tained from the USDA Forest Service, Glacier District.

           Two  local  agencies,  Yakima County Clean  Air  Authority,  and  the
Southwest Air Pollution Control Agency recorded visibility observations.

     Program Development

           Several  meetings  were  held to develop  a  consistent  monitoring
effort between Washington  and Oregon.   Attended by representatives from Oregon
DEQ, the  NPS,   the  USDA  Forest  Service, WDOE  and R. W. Beck and Associates,
these meetings  involved  discussions of the monitoring  plans, the  use  of  con-
sistent techniques,  statistical analyses,  and data reduction techniques.   It
is proposed that a  meeting be held after  the  1982 data have been  analyzed  to
assess the current monitoring techniques used.

           Meetings were  held  with  Shirley  Clark  of  the   Pacific  Northwest
Regional Office  of  the NPS  to coordinate  the  monitoring program  in  the three
national  parks.   The  success  of  the  observation/photography  network  was
largely due-  to  the enthusiastic  support by Ms.  Clark and the NPS observers.
Communication between USDA Forest Service and  WDOE representatives on initiat-
ing visibility monitoring  in  the  State's five  wilderness  areas  has begun.   The
USDA Forest Service has  expressed interest  in   establishing a network  of w«ll-
instrumented, first-order stations.

           Two  field  trips  were  taken by interagency  personnel to  observe
monitoring  sites,  instrumentation,  and   data   acquisition   techniques.    On
September 22,  1982,  representatives  from  EPA, WDOE,  NPS,  and R.  W. Beck  and

-------
                                                                           V-3
Associates  observed the  monitoring program  in Olympic  National Park,  which
included  the Visitor  Center,  Lookout  Rock,  and  Hurricane  Ridge sites.   On
October  11, 1982,  representatives  from  R.  W.  Beck and  Associates  joined  a
group from  Oregon  DEQ to observe the instruments  and  monitoring techniques at
the Mount Hood visibility sites.

           On October  7,  1982,  a field trip was taken  to observe slash utili-
zation efforts by the USDA Forest Service in  the Mount  Baker - Snoqualmie For-
est.  Utilization  efforts  at  this site concentrated on making yarded material
available to woodcutters  and  chipping for hog  fuel.  Utilization has provided
increased  employment  opportunities  both within  and without  the Forest  Ser-
vice.  Utilization  advantages include decreased smoke  emissions, free  or  low
cost firewood and decreased planting  costs due  to  increased natural  reforesta-
tion.  For  utilization efforts  to become more  of an  established pattern, util-
ization opportunities must be analyzed at the time of timber sales.

           In addition to  the informal  meetings described  above,  three formal
visibility  meetings were held  during 1982.   The  first was a meeting  held on
August 5, 1982 to discuss  smoke management strategy.   The meeting was attended
by representatives  from  WDOE, NFS,  USDA Forest Service,  EPA,  WDNR,  the forest
industry, and R. W. Beck and Associates.  Each of the agencies  presented  its
views on smoke management  strategies  for  visibility  protection.  The  presenta-
tions were followed by a discussion centering on the draft position  paper pre-
sented by WDNR representing IFA, WFPA, USDA Forest  Service, and WDNR.

           A public meeting sponsored  by the Washington Air Quality  coalition
was held on October 15,  1982.  Mr.  Darrell Weaver  of WDOE was asked  to present
the WDOE proposed visibility  strategies.  This  was followed by an open  discus-
sion  and  suggestions  for  future  public  participation.   The  meeting  was
attended by representatives from WDOE,  the Mountaineers,   the  Sierra  Club,  the
Washington  Environmental  Council,  the American Alpine Club, the  National  Park
Service,  Olympic  Park  Associates,  Issaquah Alps Association,  Puget  Power,
American Lung  Association, R.  W.  Beck and  Associates,  and the  University of
Washington.

           On November 10,  1982 a public information meeting  was  held  for  the
purpose of  presenting  the  visibility  regulations,  the FLM's positions,  WDOE's
proposed strategy,  and for taking public comment.  Statements  presented by  the
FLM's are presented in Appendix  C.  Presentations  and  comments from this meet-
ing were considered in drafting the  SIP  revision.

-------
                   SECTION VI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

-------
                                   SECTION VI

                        CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
           Visibility  protection is needed  for the mandatory  Class I Federal
areas  in the State  of Washington.  This  protection  is  not only  required to
protect  the  parks and  wilderness areas from future  degradation,  but also to
remedy effects  already noted.  Results from  visibility monitoring in 1981 and
1982  show  that  vistas  lying  completely within Class  I areas  as well as inte-
gral  vistas  viewed from within  Class  I areas  have already been  subjected to
impairment.

           Based on  preliminary  analysis,  two sources contributing to visibil-
ity  impairment  have  been identified.   The first is  prescribed slash burning.
Because  all  Class  I  areas in the  State are encompassed by forests,  prescribed
burning  has  a major impact  on  visual  quality within such  areas.   Prescribed
burning  has  been  identified  by  both  photographic  and visual  observations as
degrading  visual  quality of  vistas  seen within  and from the  national   parks.
The  impact to  visual  range can  be  estimated  from nephelometer measurements.
These  Impacts  can be  traced to  forestry  burning  through  trajectory analysis
and  analysis of filter data.  Strategies  to decrease the  impact of forestry
burning  need to be  implemented  and enforced  to ensure  meeting  the national
visibility goal.   The  second identified source is  beyond  control.  The  analy-
sis  from Dog Mountain  filters shows that  a likely  contributor  to the sulfate
levels at that site is Mount St. Helens.

           The  State's  overall  control  strategy  is  a three-way directional
approach for visibility protection:    (1)  NSR for  proposed  sources and   source
modifications;  (2) BART  for existing  sourcesj and  (3)  smoke  management  for
slash burning.  The  next level of effort needs to  be  directed toward develop-
ing  practical and  environmentally sound procedures  to implement these regula-
tions and  programs.  In addition,  results from two summers  of monitoring have
underlined the  usefulness of various  monitoring techniques.   In  future years
the  need Is  to  incorporate  these successful  techniques into a practical, con-
sistent, long-term monitoring network  that  can  be used to define Impairment
levels,  identify  sources,  and  track  visibility  changes.  Monitoring results
have  shown yearly fluctuations  in  visibility and  air  quality levels  due to
variations in regional and local  meteorology  and source emissions.

           It is   recommended  that  the monitoring  program  be  continued,  re-
fined, and expanded.   The monitoring network  should be run  yearly to avoid the
possibility of  judging  progress  by monitoring atypical years.   Several promis-
ing  monitoring  techniques  have  been developed and used during  the  1981-1982
monitoring program;  some further refinement  of these  techniques and expansion
of the network  would enhance data reliability.   Expanding the filter analysis
would increase  the frequency and accuracy of  source  identification.   It would
be particularly useful  to expand  this  program to other Class I  areas.  A con-
sistent  regional  visibility  monitoring network  should  be  developed  with  the

-------
                                                                          VI-2
defined objectives  of evaluating  visibility levels,  identifying sources, and
tracking  changes  in the  visual  air quality.   This  network should be expanded
to include representative sites in all Class I  areas.

           The  control  strategies  need  to  be  implemented  and  monitored to
ensure  reasonable progress  toward  the  national  visibility  goal.   After the
BART regulation  is  established, for  any existing impairment  the Federal Land
Manager or  State identifies the State  needs  to assess  the  contribution of
existing  stationary sources  to  visibility degradation,  identify contributing
sources,  if any,  and  perform a BART analysis on those identified.  NSR proce-
dures need to  clearly set forth the level of analysis required and the respon-
sibilities of the WDOE, local agencies and the  operator of any new source.

           The smoke  management  program  needs  to  be  refined  to include effec-
tive measures to meet  SIP requirements for  defining emissions and to encourage
slash  utilization.   Increasing  utilization requires  a knowledge  of workable
methods and a  willingness to change traditional patterns.   Recent research has
shown that successful  burning can  be  accomplished over a wider variety of tem-
perature  and  moisture  conditions  than  previously  recommended  (Sandberg and
Ward,  1982).   If more burn  days  and acceptable burning  conditions are avail-
able, scheduling  will  be less of a hardship  on the forest industry  and  emis-
sions can be  lowered in  Class I  areas  during the visitor season  (July-Septem-
ber).  Scheduling can decrease adverse impacts  on  visitor-important days.

           In  conclusion, the continuation,  refinement,  and  expansion  of the
long-term monitoring network and  the implementation  of  defined  and workable
procedures for BART,  NSR,  and smoke management  strategies  are needed to ensure
reasonable further progress toward attaining the national visibility goal.

-------
REFERENCES

-------
                                   REFERENCES
Bodhaine, B.  A.,  1979,  "Measurement of Rayleigh Scattering Properties  of  Some
Gases with a Nephelometer," Appl. Optics, 18:121.

Charlson, R.  J. and H.  Rodhe,  1982, "Factors Controlling the Acidity  of Natu-
ral Rainwater," Nature, 295:683-685.

Clark,  Shirley,  1983,  Air  and  Water Quality  Coordinator,  National Park  Ser-
vice, personal communication.

Conway, H.M.  (Editor) 1963, "The Weather Handbook," Conway Publications.

Cooper, John  A.  and John  G.  Watson, 1979,  "Portland  Aerosol  Characterization
Study," Oregon Graduate Center,  Beaverton, Oregon.

Core,  John  E.,  1981,  "Receptor Model  Technical  Series  Volume II:   Chemical
Mass  Balance"  EPA-450/4-81-166,  U.S.   EPA,  Research  Triangle  Park, North
Carolina.

Covert, D.S.,  R.  J. Charlson,  and  N.C. Ahlquist  1972,  "A  Study of the Rela-
tionship of Chemical Composition and Relative Humidity to Light Scattering by
Aerosols," J. Applied Meteorology, 11:968-976.

DeCesar, Richard  T.  and John A.  Cooper,  1981, "Medford  Aerosol Characteriza-
tion Study," Oregon Graduate Center, Beaverton, Oregon.

Federal Register, Vol.  45, p. 80084, December 2, 1980.

Federal Register, Vol.  46, p. 3646,  January 15, 1981.

Fruchter, J.S., et al., 1980, "Mount St. Helens Ash From  the 18 May 1980 Erup-
tion:   Chemical,  Physical,  Mineralogical,  and  Biological  Properties,"  Science,
209:1116-1125.

GEOMET,  Inc.,  1978,   "Impact   of  Forestry  Burning  Upon  Air  Quality,"   EPA
910/9-78-052, U.S. EPA, Seattle, Washington.

Gins,  J.D.,  D.H. Nochumson and J.  Trijonis,  1981, "Statistical  Relationship
Between Median Visibility  and Conditions  of  Worst  Case Impact on  Visibility,"
Atmospheric Environment, 15:2451-2462.

Hansen, A.D.A., H.  Rosen,  R.L.  Dod  and T. Novakov,  1979,  "Optical  Characteri-
zation of Ambient and Source Particulates,"  in  Proceedings, Conference  on  Car-
bonaceous Particles in  the Atmosphere,  pp.  116-121, Lawrence Berkeley  Labora-
tory, Berkeley, California.

-------
                                                                        Page 2


Harrison, H.,  P.  Jenkins,  N. Maykut  and M. Sadler,  1982,  "A Pattern-Recogni-
tion Approach  for Chemical Tracers Associated with  Visibility Reduction,"  un-
published .

Hidy, G.M.  et  al.,  1975,  "Summary of California Aerosol  Characterization  Ex-
periment," Journal of Air Pollution Cont. Assoc., 25:1106-1111.

Hobbs, P.V., L.F. Radke,  M.W. Eltgroth and D.A.  Hegg,  1981,  "Airborne Studies
of  Emissions  from  the  Volcanic  Eruptions  of  Mount  St.  Helens,"  Science
1211:816-818.

Hobbs, P.V., J.P. Tuell,  D.A. Hegg, L.F. Radke  and  M.W.  Eltgroth,  1982,  "Par-
ticles and  Gases in  the  Emissions from  the 1980-1981  Volcanic Eruptions  of
Mount St. Helens," in publication.

Lin, C.I.,  M.B.  Baker  and  R.J.  Charlson,  1973,  "Absorption Coefficient  for
Atmospheric Aerosol:  A Method for Measurement," Appl. Opt., 12,  1356-1363.

Malm, W.C.,  E.G. Walther,  K. O'Dell  and M.  Kleine, 1981, "Visibility in  the
Southwestern United States from Summer  1978 to  Spring 1979,"  Atmospheric  Envi-
ronment, 15:2031-2042.

Malm, W.C.,  1983, "Visibility and  Smoke Management in Class I Areas," accepted
for publication, American Meteorological Society.

National Park  Service, 1981,  Photographic Monitoring -  Standard  Operating Pro-
cedures, Air Quality Office, Denver, Colorado.

Nelson, Phil,  1982, Washington Department of Ecology, personal communication.

Ogren, J.A., R.J. Charlson,  L.F.  Radke  and S.K. Dmonkos,  "Absorption  of  Visi-
ble Radiation  by  Aerosols  in the Volcanic  Plume of  Mount  St.  Helens," Science
211, 834-836.

Oregon Department of  Environmental Quality,  1982, Source  Chemical  Composition
of Course and Fine Particulate Emissions, Portland, Oregon.

Orgill,  M.   and  G.  Schmel,  1976,  "Frequency and  Diurnal Variation of Dust
Storms in the Contiguous USA," Atmospheric Environment 10,  813-825.

Patterson, R.K. and J. Wagman,  1977,  "Mass  and  Composition of an Urban Aerosol
as  a Function of Site  for  Several  Visibility  Levels,"   Journal  of  Aerosol
Science, 8:269-279.

Phelan, Janet M.  et al.,  1982,  "Airborne Aerosol Measurements  in the  Quiescent
Plume  of Mount  St.   Helens:   September  1980,"  Geophysical  Research  Letters
9:1093-1096.

Pitchford, M., 1982,  "The  Relationship  of Regional  Visibility  to  Coarse  and
Fine Particulate Concentration in the  Southwest," JAPCA, 32:814-821.

-------
                                                                        Page 3


R. W. Beck and Associates  and Washington  Department  of  Ecology,  1982,  Washing-
ton State Visibility Study, Seattle, Washington.

Rassmussen, R.A. and F.W. Went,  1975,  "Volatile Organic Material  of  Plant  Ori-
gin in the Atmosphere" in Proceeding Nat. Acad. Sci., USA.

Ruby, M.G., and A.P. Waggoner,  1981,  "Intercomparison of  Integrating Nephelom-
eters," Environmental Science and Technology, 15:107-113.

Sadler, M., R.J. Charlson,  H.  Rosen and T. Novakov,  1981,  "An Intercomparison
of  the  Integrating  Plate and Laser  Transmission  Methods for  Determination of
Aerosol Absorption Coefficients," Atmospheric Environment 15:1265-1268.

Sandberg,  David  and Robert  Martin,  1975, Particle  Size  in Slash Fire  Smoke,
USDA  Forest  Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and  Range  Experiment  Station,
Research Paper PNW-199.

Sandberg, D.V. and  D.E.  Ward,  1982, "Increased Wood Utilization  Reduces Emis-
sions  From Prescribed Burning,"  Paper presented  to the  West Coast  Regional
Meeting,  National  Council of  the  Paper  Industry  for  Air  and Stream  Improve-
ment , Inc.

Symonds,  Robert, 1982, U.S.  Department  of Interior Geological  Survey,  personal
communications.

Trijonis, J. and K. Yuan, 1977, Visibility in the  Southwest, EPA,  600/3-78-039.

Trijonis, J., 1979,  "Visibility in  the Southwest  - An  Exploration of  the  His-
toric Base," Atmospheric Environment, 13t833-8HQ.

Trijonis J., 1982,  "Visibility in California," JAPCA  32:165-169.

U.S.  Department of Agriculture, Forest  Service, 1981a,  Draft Pacific Northwest
Regional Plan, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland,  Oregon.

U.S.  Department of Agriculture, Forest  Service, 198lb,  Glacier Peak  Wilderness
Area  Visitor Usage  Data,  Mount  Baker-Snoqualmie National  Forest,  Seattle,
Washington.

U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture, Forest Service,   1981c, Wilderness  Area Usage
Data, Pacific Northwest Region,  Portland,  Oregon.

U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency,   1977,  "Compilation of  Air  Pollution
Emission Factors,"  AP-42, Research Triangle Park, North  Carolina.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  1980,  Interim Guidance for  Visibility
Monitoring, EPA-450/2-80-82, Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency, 1979,  Protecting Visibility;   An   EPA
Report to Congress,  EPA-450/5-79-008,  Research Triangle  Park, North Carolina.

-------
                                                                        Page i|


Waggoner,  A.P.,   A.J.  Vanderpol,  R.J. Charlson,  S.  Larsen,  G.  Lennart  and
C. Tragdardh,  1976, "Sulfate-Light Scattering Ratio  as  an  Index  of  the  Role of
Sulfur in Tropospheric Optics," Mature, 261: 120-122.

Waggoner, A.P. and  R.  E. Weiss,  1979, "Pacific Northwest  Air  Quality Measure-
ments," University of Washington.

Waggoner, A.P. and  R.  E. Weiss,  1980, "Comparisons  of  Fine  Particle  Mass  Con-
centration and Light  Scattering  Extinction  in  Ambient Aerosols,"  Atmospheric
Environ., 14:623-630.

Washington State Department of Ecology, Draft Revision  to  the  Washington  State
Implementation Plan,  Washington  State's  Visibility  Protection  Program,   Feb-
ruary 22, 1983.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources,  1982, Annual Report Washing-
ton Smoke Management Program,  1981.

Washington State  Department of  Natural  Resources,  1983,   Preliminary Wildfire
Data, 1982, Olympia, Washington.

Watson, John G.,  1981, "Receptor Models Relating Ambient Suspended  Particulate
Matter to Sources," EPA-600/2-81-039,  U.S.  EPA,  Research  Triangle  Park, North
Carolina.

Weiss, R.E.,  A.P.  Waggoner, R.J.  Charlson,  D.L.  Thorsell, J.S.  Hall and  L.A.
Riley,  1979, "Studies of  the Optical,  Physical,  and  Chemical  Properties  of
Light Absorbing Aerosols."  In  Proceedings,  Conference on Carbonaceous Parti-
cles  in  the  Atmosphere.   Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report  LBL-9037»  pp.
257-262.

Yenko, Dave,  1981, USDA Forest  Service, Okanogan  National Forest, personal
communications.

Zimmerman, P.R.,  1978,  "Testing  of Hydrocarbon  Emissions  from Vegetation  and
Development  of a  Methodology for Estimating Emission rates from  Foliage,"
Washington State University, Pullman,  Washington.

-------
             APPENDIX A
1982 VISUAL OBSERVATION DATA

-------
                               Impairment Peacrtption Sheet


1.   Date:

2.   Tlw:

3.   Photograph taken and recorded?       Yea         No     Frame Mo. 	

4.   Impairment Description:

     a.   Type (cheek hex that applies)  b.   Border of Kaze/PlisK:
                                              I* there a border between discolored
           [""I Distinct Plum*                 «ir and clear  air at or near horiron?
           ^~*                                (In other words, can you distinguish
           I  | layered Raze                   a layer of diacolored  air?)

           ,—,                                Please Circle number that applies:
           QCmnerallU*.                      Q         1234567

     c.   Color (check box that applies)       View       Ho                       Sharp
               D. ,   ,                         Hocked  Border                     Border
               Colorless

           Q Light White or Crey

           Q ten** Ubic» or Cray

           (| Light Brown or Tellow

           ^ j Dense Browo or Tellow

           LJ Other (pleaM describe)	
5.   Possible Source:  If any of the following are present in the view,
                       please indicate by checking as nany as apply:

           (""I Visible Emissions fron Recreational Sources
                (caapfires, road dust,vehicle Emissions,  etc.)general direction	

           [  ] Visible Emissions for forestry burning,  s»oke or smoke plumes.
           ^~^   general direction
           r~j Industrial or stack emissions general  direction	

           [  | General haze from direction of Urban areas, general direction	

           PJ Eaxe or Smoke from forested areas, general direction  	

               SLow valley hare or fog, general direction  	

              Other,  (please describe)


6.   Extent of  lapairmen t

           r~] Below vista targets,  in valleys.

           QObscurring vista  targets,        All targets or  targets Bos.	

           r~"j Above vista targets or outside target  view  range

           r~J la  the  impairment more intense in  a distinct direction?   Tea    Mo

           [   [if  yes,  In what general cospaas direction	

7.   Bemarks and  Follow up Comments.

-------
                Name of Vista:   Camp Muir - South Washington

Photograph Date: 9-9-80       Time: 3:00 pm       Camera Data: 35 mm/50 mm lens
View Direction: SE, S, SW     View Angle:  From 100  to 230
Observation Point: Camp Muir
Can Also Be Viewed From Observation Points:
   Rioksecker Point
   Paradise
   Box Canyon
   Backbone Ridge
   Sunrise Point
               KEY
                A
                B
                C
                D
                E
                F
                G
                H
                I
PHOTOGRAPH
Feature
Cascade Crest
Goat Rocks
Cowlitz Drainage
Mt . Adams
Tatoosh Range
Mt. St. Helens
Nis quail y River
Turn Turn
Mt. Wow
Mt. Hood
Mt. Jefferson
INTERPRETATION
Distance
15 mi.
27 mi.
10 mi.
>45 mi.
6 mi.
51 mi.
7 mi.
9 mi.
10 mi.
105 mi.
155 mi.

Focal Point
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No



-------
                                         VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS  FROM CAMP MUIR  SITE
 Date,
                  Prevailing
                  Visibility
           Time     (miles)
June 26
June 27
June 29
June 30
July 1
July 2
July 3
July 4
July 5
July 6
July 7
July 8
July 9
July 10
July 10
July 11
July 12
July 13
July 14
July 15
July 16
July 17
July 18
July 19
July 19
July 19
July 20
July 21
July 22
July 22
July 22
July 22
July 23
July 24
July 25
July 25
July 26
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1323
1320
1308
1300
1500
900
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1530
1500
1500
1500
1415
1500
1630
1500
1500
1243
1410
1500
1656
1500
1500
0900
1500
1508
0
2/3
2/3
2/3
51
0
2/3
45
45
2/3
1/2
155
0
51
45
27
51
0
2/3
2/3
105
27
105

51

10
105
155

51
45
155
105
45
105
105
July 27
            1504
                        51
	Meteorological Conditions

 overcast, fog,  rain
 under-cast to 9000'
 overcast, fog,  It.  rain
 clouds, fog

 low clouds, sunny above 8000'
 clouds, fog, It. snow
 clouds, fog, high winds
 cloud cover, sunny above 9000'
 cloud cover, sunny above 9000'
 clouds, fog, windy
 clouds, fog
 clear
 clouds, fog
 haze
 haze, clouds
 clouds
 clouds to S-SW
 fog, clouds
 fog, clouds
 fog, clouds
 clear
 clouds to S
 clouds below 9000'

 clouds below 7000'
                                 partly cloudy below 8000'
 low clouds patches, generally clear

 clear
 clear
 generally clear, some haze

 clear, some haze
 clear, calm, high clouds

 clear, calm, high clouds
                                                   Remarks
                              Possible Source
                             Visual Impairment*
                                                                            fog
                                                                            clouds
                                                                            clouds
                                                                            clouds
                                                                            fog
                                                                            clouds & fog
                                                                            fog & clouds
                                                                            fog
                                                                            Mt. Jefferson visible
                                                                            fog
                                                                            hazy, but visible
                                                                            smoke
                                                                            clouds
                                                                            clouds
                                                                            fog
                                                                            fog
                                                                            fog
                                                                            smoke seen from 1400 on
clear above clouds
smoke column rising from 208°
greater amount of smoke
no longer see Mt. Hood
no longer see Mt. St.  Helens
hazy to the W, blocking
  Mt. St. Helens

smoke S-SW,
Mt. St. Helens blocked
hazy, small burn to SW
                                                                                                                  B
                                                                                                                  B

                                                                                                                 B,D

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM CAMP MUIR SITE
                                                                                                                        Page 2
Date
July 29
July 30
July 31
August 1
August 2
August 3
August 4
August 5
August 5
August 5
August 6
August 7
August 8
August 9
August 10
August 11
August 12
August 13
August 14
August IS
August 16
August 17
August 18
August 18
August 19
August 20
August 21
August 22
August 23
August 24
August 25
August 26
August 27
August 28
August 29
August 30
August 31
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)
1510
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
0900
1500
1600
1418
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
0900
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1600
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
105
51
51
105
0
0
45
105
45
25
105
45
45
15
0
0
105
0
80
27
0
0
105
45
51
51
51
105
105
105
51
105
105
105
0
0
2/3
Meteorological Conditions
clear, calm, high clouds
partly cloudy
cloud level 7000'
cloud level 8000'
cloud level 10000'
cloud level 10000'
partly cloudy
clear
generally clear
haze blocking Goat Rock, Adams

generally clear
partly cloudy
partly cloudy
clouds, fog
clouds, fog
partly cloudy
clouds, fog, mixed rain and snow
low clouds
fog
partly cloudy
fog
low haze
generally clear
generally clear
generally clear
clear, low haze
clear, low haze
clear
clear
haze
low haze, generally clear
clear, low clouds
clear, scattered clouds
fog
fog
low clouds, fog
                                                                                    Remarks
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*
                                                                            hazy above 7000'
                                                                            fog
                                                                            fog
                                                                            yellow SW haze blocking Hood
                                                                              and St. Helens

                                                                            burn at 196° blocking SW view
                                                                            heat haze
                                                                            cloud layer 9000'
                                                                            smoke column rising at 200°
                                                                            thick smoke haze, slash burn,
                                                                              SW view blocked
                                                                            low valley haze
                                                                            slight haze

                                                                            low valley haze
                                                                            Adams, St. Helens barely
                                                                              visible through haze
                                                                            haze below 8000' to S-SW
        D
        B
       D,F

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM CAMP  MUIR SITE
                                                                                                                        Page 3
  Date
Meteorological Conditions
                                                                                    Remarks
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.

Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
1
1
2
3
4
5

6
7
17
18
19
25
26
1500
1600
1500
1500
1500
1500

1500
1500
1600
1500
1500
1500
1500
105
—
51
1/4
1/4
105

1/4
105
51
51
1/4
0
0
clear


clouds, rain
fog
clouds to W

cloud level 9500'
clear/ scattered cloudy
clear, some haze
overcast
fog
cloud level 9400'
snow, winds from SE
valley haze
D,F
low, thick haze


steam from St. Helens lava
dome


smoke and haze from slash burn B


can see Hood from 9000'

            Data Summary

            Data recovery, 85%, 78 observations out of  92 possible  days
            31 days, 39%,  fog/clouds with low visibility  (less  than 10 miles)
            47 non-fog days,  60%,  average visibility 74 miles
            13 days smoke reported, 28% (of non-fog day's) ,  average  visibility  49 miles
            34 days no fog or smoke, average visibility 82 miles
         *A  Visible emissions from recreational sources  (campfires,  road dust,  vehicle emissions, etc.)

          B  Visible emissions for forestry burning,  smoke  or  smoke plumes

          C  Industrial or atack emissions

          D  General haze from direction of urban areas

          E  Haze or smoke from forested areas

          F  Low valley haze or fog

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM PARADISE SITE,  MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK
Date
July 1
July 2
July 3
July 4
July 5
July 6
July 7
July a
July 9
July 10
July 11
July 12
July 13
July 14
July 15
July 16
July 17
July 18
July 19
July 20
July 21
July 22
July 23
July 24
July 25
July 26
July 27
July 28
July 29
July 30
July 31
August 1
August 2
August 3
August 4
August 5
August 5
August 6
Prevailing
Visibility
Time ^(nilesl
1310
1315
1500
1505
1515
1500
1500
1500
1515
1530
1515
1500
1500
1530
1500
1500
1500
1520
1510
1520
1515
1500
1515
1500
1530
1620
1610
1500
1550
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
0945
1700
1500
34+
34+
0
34+
34+
34+
0
34+
34+
34+
34
34
0
29
0
34
17
17
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
17
34
4.3
0
0
0
34
34

34
34
Meteorological Conditions
high clouds
variable clouds, low
fog
high clouds
high clouds
cloud bank moving in
cloudy
clear
clear
clear
clear, some haze
hazy
foggy
storm moving in
f°99y > nixed tain and
clear
clear, some haze
high clouds
high clouds
scattered clouds
high clouds
clear

fog












snow







generally clear, some haze
clear
clear
clear
haze to south
haze to south
clear, fog in valleys
fog to 5200'
no visibility
foggy/ light rain
f°ggy> light rain
high clouds
clear

clear, haze to south
clear, heavy haze to














south
                                                         Remarks
                                                 cloud level  7000'
                                                 cloud level  10000'

                                                 cloud level  7000'
                                                 cloud level  8000'
                                                 cloud level  10000'
                                                 fog
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*
                                                 low clouds -  S

                                                 cloud  level 7000'

                                                 few cumulus clouds


                                                 slash  burn, pink/yellow haze


                                                 south  haze

                                                 high clouds
                                                 hot

                                                 cloud  level 6600'



                                                 cloud  level 10000'
                                                 slash burn and uncontrol-
                                                 led park fire
        0

       B,P

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FhOM PAKADISE SITE, MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK
                                                                                                                        Page 2
Date
August 7
August 8
August 9
August 10
August 11
August 12
August 13
August 14
August 15
August 16
August 16
August 17
August 18
August 19
August 20
August 21
August 22
August 23
August 24
August 25
August 26
August 27
August 28
August 29
August 30
August 31
Sept. 1
Sept. 2
Sept. 3
Sept. 4
Sept. 5
Sept. 10
Sept. 11
Sept. 12
Sept. 13
Sept. 14
Sept. IS
Sept. 16
Sept. 17
Sept. 17
Sept. 18
Sept. 19
Sept. 20
Prevailing
Visibility
Tine (miles)
1600
1515
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1505
0900
1430
1510
1500
1515
1500
1500
1515
1510
1430
1515
1515
1530
1630
1500
1500
1505
1430
1430
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1530
1700
1515
1500
1900
1700
1500
1500
34
34
0
0
0
0
0
34
34

34
34
11.5
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
16
34
34
0
0
17
34
34
0
0
34
0
0
0
34
34
34
34
34

17
11.5
3.8
Meteorological Conditions
mostly clear
high clouds, haze
blowing fog
misty/thick fog
misty/thick fog
misty/thick fog
misty/thick fog
clear
clear

clear
clear
clear and sunny
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
foggy i light rain
foggy
high clouds
clear
clear
foggy
foggy
clear
f°ggy i windy
£O9gy » rainy
foggy, rainy
clear
clear, windy
light, high clouds
clear
clear

clear
variable clouds
foggy
                                                                                    Remarks
                                                                            gray haze moving W
                                                                                                           possible Source
                                                                                                          Visual Impairment*
                                                                            low clouds in S
                                                                            clouds moving in
                                                                            haze in valley
                                                                            smokey
                                                                            hazy
                                                                            hazy to SW
                                                                            blue/grey haze to S

                                                                            slight haze
                                                                            hazy to S
                                                                            hazy to S
                                                                            cloud level 7000'

                                                                            hot




                                                                            3" snow





                                                                            occasional small cumulus


                                                                            grey/blue haze in S
                                                                                                                 D,F
B,E

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM PARADISE SITE,  MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL  PARK
                                                                                  Page  3
  Date
                   Prevailing
                   Visibility
            Time    (miles)
Meteorological Conditions
                                              Remarks
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1500
1530
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
17
34
34
0
3.8
0
0
0
0
variable clouds
clear
clear
rain
rain
rain,
rain.
rain,
rain.




fog
fog
fog
fog
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*
                                                                            blue haze in S
                                                                            slight haze
            Data Summary

            Note:  At the Paradise,  Mount Rainier site the farthest  visible  target is 34 miles.
            Visual range determinations,  therefore,  will not be concluded at this site.

            Data recovery, 96%,  87 observations from 91 possible days
            50 days, 57%, visibility greater than 34 miles
            27 days fog/clouds,  31%, with low visibility
            3 days smoke reported, 5% of  non-fog days

-------
OBSERVATIONS FROM COPPEK RIDGE LOOKOUT,  NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL  PARK
Date
July 6
July 7
July 8
July 9
July 10
July 11
July 17
July 18
July 19
July 20
July 21
July 22
July 23
July 24
July 25
July 25
July 26
July 27
July 30
August 1
August 2
August 5
August 6
August 7
August 8
August 8
August 9
August 10
August 21
August 22
August 23
August 24
August 25
August 26
August 27
August 28
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)

1030
1200
1300
1100
0900
1000
0930
1015
1700

1130
1030
1300
0830
1700
1900
1750
2000
1300
1300
0900
1300
1300
0900
1700
1700
1000
1400
1400
1200
1700
1700
1700
1700
1100

19
9
58
71+
71+
71
0
0
0
0
0
71+
71+
71
71+
71
58
0
0
0
25
71+
71+
71+
71+
0
0
71+
71+
71+
71+
9
19
0
7
Meteorological Conditions

pactly cloudy
clear; scattered clouds
clear
clear
clear
clear
grey, cloudy
grey, cloudy
heavy fog, rain
heavy fog, mixed rain & snow
heavy fog
clear
clear

clear
clear
clear
heavy fog
heavy fog
heavy fog
high cloud ceiling
clear
clear
high cloud ceiling
high cloud ceiling
heavy fog
heavy fog
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
fog
overcast
                                                  Remarks
                                          10000'  ceiling;  cumulus
                                          cumulus
                                          slight  haze to H

                                          light valley fog
                                          scattered  cumulus
                                                                         Possible Source
                                                                       Visual  Impairment*
                                          high cirrus
                                          hazy to NW
                                          hazy to NW
                                          slash burn to NW
                                          poor visibility due to slash
                                            burns in S t W
                                          hazy due to slash burn

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM COPPER RIDGE LOOKOUT,  NORTH CASCADES  NATIONAL  PARK                                          Page 2



                                                                                                           Possible Source
                                                                           	Remarks	    Visual Impairment*
Date
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)
1330
1300
1330
1300
1200
1300
1330
1300
0
9
71
4
4
0
0
0
Meteorological Conditions
fog, light rain
heavy cumulus clouds
heavy cumulus, stratus clouds
fog, overcast
fog, overcast
snow
snow
snow
            Data Summary

            Data recovery, 62%, 42 observations out of 68 possible days
            17 days, 40*, visibility greater than 70 miles
            17 days, 40%, fog with low visibility

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM SAHALE ARM,  NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK
Date
July 2
July 3
July 4
July 5
July 6
July 7
July 8
July 9
July 10
July 11
July 12
July 13
July 14
July 15
July 16
July 17
July 19
July 20
July 21
July 22
July 23
July 24
July 25
July 30
July 31
August 1
August 2
August 3
August 4
August 5
August 6
August 7
August 8
August 13
August 14
August 15
August 16
August 17
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)



1700
1700

1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700



1700
1700
1900
1830


1400
1500
1500
1800
1900
1900
1800
1800
1500
1500
1500
1700
1900
0
0
0
0
13
0
34
13
40+
40+
7
0
0
0
23
40+
0
0
0
13
40+
40+
40+
0
0
13
13
34
40+
40+
40+
40+
40+
0
0
13
34
40+
Meteorological Conditions
fog, rain
fog, rain
fog, rain
low clouds
broken cloud cover
fog, rain
broken sky cover
broken sky cover
clear
clear
hazy
foggy
foggy
foggy
high clouds
slight haze
fog, clouds, rain
fog, clouds, rain
fog, clouds, rain
broken cloudiness
clear
.clear
clear
no visibility due to weather
no visibility due to weather
rain
rain


clear
clear
clear
clear
fog, low clouds
fog, low clouds
broken low-level cloudiness
broken cloud layer
clear
                                                        Remarks
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*
                                                slight haze
                                                slight haze to W
                                                slight haze to W
                                                slight haze
                                                hazy to W

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM SAHALE ARM,  NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK
                                                                                                                         Page 2
Date
August 18
August 19
August 20
August 21
August 22
August 23
August 24
August 25
August 28
August 29
August 30
Sept. 1
Sept. 2
Sept. 3
Sept . 4
Sept. 5
Sept. 6
Sept. 10
Sept. 11
Sept. 12
Sept. 13
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)
1800
1800
1800
1900
1800
1900
1800
1700
1800
1800
1800
1700
1700
1800
1900
1600
1800
1400
1600
1300
1800
40+
40+
40+
40+
40+
40+
40+
40+
40+
40+
40+
40+
40+
40+
0
0
40+

0
40+
40
Meteorological Conditions
clear
clear
clear
clear with
clear with
clear with
clear with



haze
haze
haze
haze
partly cloudy
clear
cloudy
cloudy
clear with
clear
clear


clear


clear
clear



haze









                                                                                     Remarks
                                                                             hazy  to W
                                                                             slight  haze  to  E
                                                                             slight  haze

                                                                             haze  to W
                                                                             blue  smoke  layer  to  W; brown
                                                                               haze  to east
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*

        D
        D
        D
        D
        D
       D,F
       D,E
       D,E
            Data Summary

            Note:  At the Sahale Arm observation site, the farthest visible target is  40  miles.
            Visual range determinations, therefore,  will not be made to this site.

            Data recovery, 77%, 58 observations out of 75 possible days
            29 days  (50%) visibility greater than 40 miles
            18 days  (31%) fog and low visibility
            3 days smoke reported, 7< of non-fog days

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM LOOKOUT  ROCK, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
Date
June 14
June 14
June 15
June 15
June 16
June 16
June 17
June 17
June 18
June 18
June 19
June 19
June 20
June 20
June 21
June 21
June 22
June 22
June 23
June 23
June 24
June 24
June 25
June 25
June 26
June 26
June 27
June 27
June 28
June 28
June 29
June 29
June 30
June 30
July 1
July 1
July 2
July 2
July 3
July 3
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)
0859
1506
0849
1445
0845
1440
0845
1457
0855
1450
0845
1450
0830
1450
0927
1505
0855
1507
0855
1500
0850
1455
0839
1505
0900
1500
0855
1457
0840
1507
0840
1455
0911
1454
0910
1430
0900
1446
0905
1500
13
18
120
120
120
120
120
120
18
120
120
18
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
13
2.3
0
0
120
0
120
120
120
2.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Meteorological Conditions
cloudy
cloudy
scattered, high clouds
scattered clouds
high, scattered clouds
sunny, scattered clouds
clear, sunny
clear, sunny
clear, sunny
clear, sunny
clear, sunny
clear, sunny
clear, sunny
clear, sunny
broken clouds
cloudy .
sunny; scattered clouds
sunny; scattered clouds
clear, sunny
sunny; high scattered clouds
high, scattered clouds
clear
overcast, rain
overcast
rain, heavy cloud cover
rain, heavy cloud cover
complete cloud cover
light rain, cloudy
dense fog
overcast
overcast
scattered clouds
overcast
overcast
fog
fog
fog
fog, rain
fog
fog, rain
                                                    Remarks
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*
                                             hazy

                                             distant haze
                                             slight  haze
                                             haze  over  straits
                                             haze  over  straits
                                             distant haze
                                             valley,  strait haze

                                             haze  over  straits
                                             valley,  strait haze
                                             fog on  straits

                                             low £og, distant haze
                                             fog over straits
                                             light haze, low fog
                                             light haze
                                             low fog, haze
                                             low fog, haze
                                             heavy haze to NE
                                             light to heavy distant haze
                                             heavy valley haze
                                             fog on  straits
                                             dense fog
                                             dense fog
                                             dense fog
                                             valley  and strait  fog

                                             heavy fog
                                             heavy haze
                                             haze  over  straits  and valleys
                                             dense fog
                                             dense fog
       C,D
        0
        C

        C
        C
        D
        D

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM LOOKOUT ROCK,  OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                                                                       Page 2
  Date
       Prevailing
       Visibility
Time    (miles)
July 4
July 4
July 5
July 5
July 6
July 6
July 7
July 7
July 8
July 8
July 9
July 9
July 10
July 10
July 11
July 11
July 12
July 12
July 13
July 13
July 14
July 14
July 15
July 15
July 16
July 16
July 17
July 17
July 18
July 18
July 19
July 19
July 20
July 20
July 21
July 21
July 22
July 22
July 23
July 23
July 24
July 24
July 25
July 25
0905
1500
0900
1500
0850
1458
0900
1457
0900
1505
0900
1500
0906
1504
0900
1503
0900
1500
0900
1500
0900
1501
0900
1503
0900
1505
0905
1501
0905
1505
0900
1500
0900
1510
0900
1504
0900
1506
0900
1512
0904
1505
0929
1543
120
120
0
0
120
18
120
0
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
52
0
120
120
8
13
18
120
18
120
13
120
0
0
0
0
120
8
18
120
18
120
120
120
120
120
	Meteorological Conditions

 sunny; scattered clouds
 heavy cloud cover
 dense £09 cover
 overcast, fog,  light rain
 overcast, light fog
 overcast, rain, light fog
 overcast
 overcast, fog
 overcast
 scattered, low clouds
 sunny
 scattered clouds
 cloud cover, fog
 warm, scattered clouds
 warm, scattered clouds
 warm, cloudy
 clear, warn
 sunny, hot
 overcast
 rein, overcast, fog
 scattered clouds, cold, windy
 broken clouds,  windy, cool
 overcast, rain, fog
 overcast, heavy, fog
 heavily overcast
 overcast, low clouds
 broken clouds
 scattered clouds, sunny, warm
 overcast, fog patches
 overcast
 fog
 fog
 fog,  rain
 fog, mist
 scattered clouds, cool
 fog, mist
 clear, distant fog
 scattered clouds
 scattered clouds, sunny, warn
 clear, sunny, warm
 clear, sunny, warm
 clear, sunny, warm
 clear, sunny, warm
 clear, sunny, warm
                                                                                    Remarks
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*
                                                                             heavy  haze
                                                                             haze on vistas
                                                                             valley haze
                                                                             smoke, haze  from burn
                                                                             haze on valleys and  straits
                                                                             valley haze
                                                                             distant and  valley haze
                                                                             strait and horizon haze
                                                                             slight fog,  haze
                                                                             slight distant haze
                                                                             distant and  valley haze
                                                                             light haze
                                                                             general  haze
                                                                             lower  valley  haze
                                                                             valley and  distant  haze
                                                                             valley haze
                                                                             strait and distant haze
                                                                             vista and valley haze
                                                                             low fog
                                                                             valley, strait,  distant  haze
                                                                             valley, strait haze
                                                                             vista haze
                                                                             valley, strait haze
                                                                             valley haze,  some fo9
        C
        C
        C
        D
        0
        C
        G, smoke
        C
        D

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM LOOKOUT ROCK/ OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                                                                                                        Page 3
Date
July 26
July 26
July 27
July 27
July 28
July 28
July 29
July 29
July 30
July 30
July 31
July 31
August 1
August 1
August 2
August 2
August 3
August 3
August 4
August 4
August 5
August 5
August 6
August 6
August 7
August 7
August 8
August 8
August 9
August 9
August 10
August 10
August 11
August 11
August 12
August 12
August 13
August 13
August 14
August 14
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)
0900
1506
0900
1502
0900
1502
0900
1500
0900
1500
0900
1500
0900
1500
0900
1500
0900
1455
0900
1504
0900
1500
0900
1500
0905
1506
0811
1500
0910
1502
0900
1500
0900
1500
0900
1500
0900
1500
0914
1505
120
120
18
120
13
120
2.3
107
13
52
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
120
120
120
120
18
18
18
120
120
120
120
13
7.8
13
0
120
0
0
0
0
0
120
120
Meteorological Conditions
clear, sunny, warm
clear, sunny, warm


clear, hot, scattered clouds
clear, hot, sunny

scattered clouds, hot, sunny
cloudy; warm and foggy
scattered clouds, sunny
clear, sunny, hot
scattered clouds, sunny
overcast
complete fog cover
complete fog cover
complete fog cover
complete fog cover
sunny
fog, light rain
fog, heavy mist
overcast
sunny, scattered clouds
cloudy
high clouds
sunny, high clouds
clear
clear
clear, foggy
clear, hot
overcast, foggy
overcast, foggy
high scattered clouds,
cloudy, fog, rain
cloudy, low fog
dense fog
scattered clouds, warm
cloudy, foggy
overcast, foggy
overcast, fog, mist
heavy fog
heavy fog
sunny, scattered clouds
overcast, haze, fog

, hot





















fog











                                                                                    Remarks
                                                                            low fog
                                                                            heavy haze
                                                                            ground fog
                                                                            fog on straits and distant
                                                                              vistas
                                                                            heavy ground fog

                                                                            valley and distant fog
                                                                            heavy fog to HE

                                                                            heavy haze to NE
                                                                            low clouds, ground fog
                                                                            valley haze
                                                                            light haze
                                                                            strait, valley haze
                                                                            very dense, smoke-like haze
                                                                            heavy horizon haze
                                                                            heavy distant haze
                                                                            very dense haze
                                                                            low valley haze
                                                                            some haze
                                                                            low valley haze
                                                                            valley haze
                                                                            hazy
                                                                             fog  in  patches
                                                                             valley  and  vista  haze
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*
        D
        D
        D
                                                                                                                  D
                                                                                                                  G, smoke
                                                                                                                     plume

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM LOOKOUT ROCK,  OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                                                                                                        Page  4
Date
August 15
August 15
August 16
August 16
August 17
August 17
August 18
August 18
August 19
August 19
August 20
August 20
August 21
August 21
August 22
August 22
August 23
August 23
August 24
August 24
August 25
August 25
August 26
August 26
August 27
August 27
August 28
August 28
August 29
August 29
August 30
August 30
August 31
August 31
Prevailing
Visibility
Tine (miles)
0908
1508
0900
1500
0900
1500
0900
1510
0904
1506
0906
1505
0908
1504
0907
1506
0900
1508
0900
1506
0900
1508
0900
1500
0900
1500
0910
1508
0912
1506
0900
1500
0900
1507
120
120
120
120
18
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
1.4
0
0
15
18
18
120
120
107
0
120
120
Meteorological Conditions
sunny; high, scattered clouds
cloudy
scattered clouds, sunny
scattered clouds, sunny
clear
warm; scattered clouds
clear
clear, sunny
clear, sunny
partly cloudy, sunny
sunny, partly cloudy
sunny, scattered clouds
sunny, partly cloudy
sunny, hot, clear
sunny, clear, hot
mostly clear, sunny, hot
clear, sunny
clear, sunny, hazy
clear, sunny, hazy
clear, sunny, hazy
clear, sunny, hazy
clear, sunny, hazy
sunny, foggy
fog
fog
high fog, overcast
low hanging clouds
overcast, fog
overcast
overcast
c loudy
rain, fog
clear
mostly cloudy
                                                                                    Remarks
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
1
1
2
2
3
3
0900
1506
0900
1500
0900
1500
120
120
120
120
120
0
                                  clear
                                  scattered clouds
                                  cloudy, warm
                                  clear, hot
                                  cloudy, warm
                                  fog
                                                                            vista and valley haze
                                                                            vista and valley haze
                                                                            light haze
                                                                            light strait haze
                                                                            distant haze and fog
                                                                            distant haze
                                                                            distant, strait heavy haze

                                                                            strait, valley haze
                                                                            valley haze
                                                                            haze over target areas
                                                                            general haze over targets
                                                                            valley, target haze
                                                                            target haze
                                                                            target haze
                                                                            heavy haze
                                                                            distant haze
                                                                            valley haze
                                                                            distant haze
                                                                            heavy haze over distant
                                                                              targets

                                                                            target, valley haze
                               Possible Source
                             Visual  Impairment*
                                                                            strait, valley haze
                                                                            light valley haze
                                                                            valley, vista haze

                                                                            complete cloud cover
                                                                            fog in patches
                                                                            valley haze
heavy fog in places
valley haze
dark haze over strait
heavy brown haze on strait
ground fog over strait
                                                                                                                  G,  smoke
                                                                                                                     plume
                                     C
                                     G,  smoke
                                         plume

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS  FROM LOOKOUT ROCK, OLYMPIC NMIOHftL PARK
                                                                                                                       Page 5


Date
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.



4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25


Time
0910
1459
0906
1505
0900
1508
0900
1457
0900
1516
0900
1509
0846
1500
0905
1456
0904
1506
0915
1505
0908
1507
0840
1454
0840
1445
0905
1450
0905
1456
0906
1458
0838
1458
0830
1505
0840
1510
0840
1515
0905
1455
0904
1503
Prevailing
Visibility
(miles)
18
0
120
120
120
120
0
0
0
120
12C
120
120
120
18
0
1.4
120
107
120
120
120
120
120
91
120
120
120
18
91
18
18
8
0
8
0
0
8
13
91
13
0
13
120
                                	Meteorological Conditions

                                 partly cloudy
                                 overcast
                                 scattered clouds
                                 clear, sunny, few clouds
                                 partly cloudy
                                 partly cloudy
                                 dense fog
                                 dense fog
                                 dense fog
                                 cloudy, hazy
                                 cloudy
                                 partly cloudy
                                 partly cloudy, cold
                                 partly cloudy, cool
                                 cloudy, cool, windy
                                 cloudy, dense cloud cover
                                 cloudy, fog, rain
                                 partly cloudy
                                 sunny, cold, clear
                                 scattered clouds, sunny
                                 clear, sunny, warm
                                 clear, sunny, hazy
                                 cloudy, cool
                                 partly cloudy
                                 clear, sunny
                                 clear, sunny
                                 sunny, clear
                                 sunny, clear
                                 sunny, scattered clouds
                                 sunny
                                 cloudy
                                 cloudy
                                 cloudy,  rainy,  fog
                                 cloudy,  foggy
                                 scattered  clouds, fog
                                 cloudy,  foggy
                                 dense  fog
                                 partly cloudy
                                 sunny, clear
                                  sunny, clear
                                  rain,  fog
                                  dense fog
                                 overcast,  fog
                                  partly cloudy,  fog,  haze
                                                                                    Remarks
patches of ground fog
dense fog
fog, haze on straits
light valley haze

valley, vista haze
fog in patches

light vista, strait haze
light strait haze
fog in patches
valley, horizon haze
strait fog
valley, target haze
light vista haze

light vista haze
light valley, vista haze
heavy, distant haze
heavy brown haze on vista
distant, heavy haze
distant, heavy haze
heavy distant haze
heavy distant haze
light to dense haze
haze, fog on strait
strait fog, valley haze
 light  to  heavy fog
 haze in places
 dark brown haze  on vistas
                                                                                                          Possible Source
                                                                                                         Visual impairment*
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM LOOKOUT ROCK,  OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                                                                                                        Page 6
Date
Sept. 26
Sept. 26
Sept. 27
Sept. 27
Sept. 28
Sept. 28
Sept. 29
Sept. 29
Sept. 30
Sept. 30
Oct. 1
Oct. 1
Oct. 2
Oct. 2
Oct. 3
Oct. 3
Oct. 4
Oct. 4
Oct. 5
Oct. 5
Oct. 6
Oct. 6
Oct. 7
Oct. 7
Oct. 8
Oct. 8
ct. 9
Oct. 9
Oct. 10
Oct. 10
Oct. 11
Oct. 11
Oct. 12
Oct. 12
Oct. 13
Oct. 13
Oct. 14
Oct. 14
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)
0857
1459
0850
1459
0840
1509
0840
1457
0840
1445
0840
1450
0908
1458
0905
1501
0855
1455
0840
1505
0840
1500
0850
1440
0842
1440
0907
1500
0909
1457
0845
1450
0845
1505
0845
1508
0840
1440
0
0
18
0
120
120
120
120
120
120
18
120
120
0
120
120
18
15
91
120
120
0
120
120
18
18
15
0
120
120
120
120
107
120
120
120
91
107
Meteorological Conditions
overcast, fog
partly cloudy
sunny, clear, some fog
overcast, foggy
sunny, clear
broken clouds
sunny, clear, low fog
sunny, clear
sunny, clear
sunny, clear
sunny, clear
cloudy
partly cloudy
overcast, rain, fog
scattered clouds, sunny
cloudy
partly cloudy, sunny
partly cloudy
sunny, scattered clouds
mostly cloudy
cloudy, rain, overcast
cloudy, rain, fog
f°ggy/ cloudy, clear to HE
partly cloudy
partly cloudy, misty
cloudy, misty
partly cloudy
cloudy, foggy
sunny, scattered clouds
sunny, clear
sunny, clear
sunny, warm, clear
sunny, clear
sunny
sunny, clear
sunny
sunny, clear
sunny, clear
                                                                                    Remarks
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*
                                                                            fog in patches
                                                                            distant fog, light haze
                                                                            light haze, some fog
                                                                            some light haze
                                                                            .horizon fog, valley haze
                                                                            light fog, haze
                                                                            light distant haze

                                                                            fog on distant vistas
                                                                            distant fog
                                                                            valley, vista haze

                                                                            light valley, vista haze
                                                                            fog, haze in patches

                                                                            haze and serait fog
                                                                            fog and low valley haze
                                                                            distant and strait fog
                                                                            haze, fog in valleys, near
                                                                              vistas
                                                                            light haze over strait
                                                                            all vistas fogged in

                                                                            fog on some vistas
                                                                            distant and strait fog
                                                                            distant and strait fog
                                                                            valley, strait fog
                                                                            all vistas fogged in
                                                                            haze and ground fog, some
                                                                              vistas
                                                                            dark haze, fog in some areas
                                                                            dark distant haze
                                                                            dark distant haze
                                                                            dark distant haze
                                                                            dark distant haze
                                                                            dark haze, fog on strait
                                                                            dark haze over distant
                                                                              targets, straits
                                                                            heavy dark haze on horizon
                                                                            dark haze on straits and
                                                                              horizon
       D,G,  smoke
            plumes
        G, smoke
           plumes

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM LOOKOUT ROCK, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                                                                                     Page 7
  Date
            Time
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
1
1
2
2
0851
1520
0903
1502
0902
1505
0940
1506
1504
1507
0848
1510
0845
1500
0910
1510
0902
1507
0849
1504
0840
1501
0834
1507
0845
1500
0833
1440
0902
1500
0909
1459
0845
1456
0845
1502
Prevailing
Visibility
 (miles)

     13
      0
     18
      0
    120
    120

     91
    120
    120
    120

     18
     52
      8
    120
    120

    120

    120
    120

    120
    120

     18
     13
     18
    120

    120
      8
      0
      0
     18
    120
    120
    120

     52
      2.6
      7.8
      0
                                 	Meteorological Conditions

                                  sunny, clear
                                  dense fog, cloudy
                                  cloudy,  fog
                                  cloudy,  foggy
                                  partly cloudy, sunny
                                  cloudy

                                  sunny, clear
                                  sunny, partly cloudy
                                  sunny, scattered clouds
                                  cloudy,  foggy

                                  rain, cloudy
                                  rain, cloudy
                                  rain, cloudy, windy
                                  scattered clouds
                                  mostly clear, scattered clouds

                                  cloudy,  light rain

                                  cloudy,  rain
                                  cloudy,  light rain

                                  cloudy,  rain
                                  cloudy,  light rain

                                  cloudy,  rain, fog
                                  rain, cloudy
                                  cold, cloudy
                                  cloudy,  fog

                                  light rain, cloudy
                                  cloudy,  rain
                                  clbudy,  mist
                                  cloudy,  mist
                                  partly cloudy,  foggy
                                  cloudy,  light fog
                                  cloudy,  rain, fog
                                  partly cloudy,  sunny

                                  sunny, partly cloudy
                                  cloudy,  foggy
                                  cloudy,  foggy
                                  cloudy,  foggy
                                                                                    Remarks
                               Possible  Source
                              Visual  Impairment*
distant, strait fog

ground fog, haze

light haze and ground fog
light haze on all vistas

heavy low fog
valley, vista haze
light vista, valley haze
smoke to east

light to heavy fog
distant fog

light fog on strait
light haze, fog patches

fog patches

light fog patches
light haze straits, distant
  horizons
light distant, strait haze, fog
fog, haze, smoke in valley
light to heavy fog all vistas
fog on distant vistas
heavy haze on distant vistas

distant fog
heavy fog
dense fog
dense fog
light haze on vistas
haze on vistas
light valley and distant haze
haze in valleys, vistas
D,G, smoke
     plumes
 G, smoke
    plumes
 E
 G, smoke
    plumes
 G, smoke
    plumes

D,G, smoke
     plumes

 G, smoke
    plumes
 G, smoke
    plumes
 C
 D
 D

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM LOOKOUT ROCK,  OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                                                                                                        Page 8
Date
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
NOV.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
21
22
23
24
24
27
27
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)
0845
1515
0845
1509
0910
1500
0902
1459
0901
1454
0830
1456
0840
1505
0845
1506
0835
1455
0826
1505
0909
1450
0905
1450
0911
1450
0840
1459
0840
1501
0840
1453
0925
1450
1500
0845
1508
0908
1447
120
120
18
120
18
18
18
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
18
2.6
18
0
18
0
15
91
18
2.3
18
18
15
0
1.4
2.6
18
120
120
107
107
120
18
Meteoroloqical Conditions
cloudy
cloudy , foggy
cloudy, rain, low fog
partly cloudy, foggy
cloudy, rain, fog
rain, fog, cloudy
snow, cold
overcast, rain fog
overcast, rain
partly cloudy, sunny
sunny, clear
sunny
sunny, clear
sunny, light haze
sunny, clear
sunny
fog, cloudy
cloudy, foggy
cloudy, foggy
dense fog
sunny, foggy
cloudy, foggy
sunny, scattered clouds
sunny, fog, haze
partly cloudy
cloudy, foggy
rain, fog, cloudy
partly cloudy, sunny
rain, fog, cloudy
dense fog cover
foggy, cloudy
snow, fog, cloudy
cloudy, foggy, cold
sunny, cold
clear, sunny
clear, low fog
clear, foggy
rain, fog, cloudy
rain, fog, cloudy
                                                                                    Remarks
                                                                            light haze on distant vistas
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*
                                                                                                                  G, smoke
                                                                                                                     plumes
                                                                            low cloud cover

                                                                            valley ground fog and haze
                                                                            haze on targets
                                                                            light haze on straits
                                                                            haze on straits, vistas

                                                                            light haze

                                                                            distant fog
                                                                            dark grey haze in distance

                                                                            dark haze all vistas

                                                                            light haze some vistas

                                                                            light haze

                                                                            fog, haze obscured distant vistas

                                                                            distant fog
                                                                            light haze on straits, valley
                                                                              and vistas
                                                                            haze in valley
                                                                            dark haze distant horizon
                                                                            haze on vistas, straits

                                                                            smoke, haze over strait and
                                                                              valley
        G, smoke
           plumes
        G, smoke
           plumes

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM LOOKOUT  RQCK, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                           Page 9
Prevailing
Visibility
Date
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
28
29
29
30
30
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
5
5
7
8
10
11
12
13
13
14
14
18
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
27
28
28
29
30
30
31
31
Time
1445
0840
1452
0835
1445
0835
1455
0830
1505
0830
0902
1450
0905
1450
1502
1500
1515
1458
1446
0845
1440
0850
1459
1445
1445
1440
1431
1440
0907
1430
1435
1445
0815
1402
1415
0916
1350
0907
1350
(miles)
120
7.8
0
120
120
107
120
18
18
0
120
120
107
0
91
120
120
91
13
120
18
120
18
120
0
120
120
120
18
120
18
120
120
120
107
107
120
107
107
                                 	Meteorological Conditions

                                 cloudy,  foggy
                                 partly cloudy, foggy
                                 cloudy,  foggy
                                 clear, distant low clouds
                                 cloudy,  light fog
                                  clear,  light fog, distant clouds
                                  cloudy,  foggy

                                  cloudy,  light haze
                                  cloudy,  light fog
                                  dense fog cover
                                  sunny,  partly cloudy
                                  partly  cloudy

                                  low clouds, fog
                                  dense fog cover
                                  cloudy,  foggy
                                  cloudy,  foggy
                                  cold,  clear
                                  cloudy,  foggy
                                  cloudy,  foggy
                                  cold,  clear
                                  cloudy,  foggy

                                  cold,  cloudy,  light fog

                                  rain,  fog, cloudy

                                  rain/snow, cloudy
                                  cloudy,  foggy
                                  cloudy,  foggy

                                  partly cloudy
                                  clear, distant low clouds
                                  partly cloudy
                                  clear, distant cloud  cover
                                  foggy» some  sun
                                  sunny, clear
                                  sunny, clear,  low  distant clouds
                                  sunny, low distant clouds
                                  mostly clear
                                  sunny, clear,  low  fog
                                  sunny, clear,  distant fog
                                  sunny, clear,  distant fog
                                  cold,  high clouds, low fog
                                                                                    Remarks
haze, fog on straits and
  vistas
light fog, haze over straits,
  vistas
light fog, haze in valleys,
  straits
dark grey, haze/fog over
  coastal areas, distant
  horizon
brown haze on horizon
haze in valley

light haze
light naze
                               Possible Source
                             Visual  Impairment*
D,G, smoke
     plumes
 G, smoke
    plume
 G, smoke
    plumes
 G, private
    burn
 G, smoke
    plumes
haze, fog in valleys,
  straits, horizon

light haze on strait

distant light haze

light distant haze
distant heavy haze
light haze on vistas
valley and strait haze
valley and strait haze

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM LOOKOUT ROCK.  OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                                                                                                        Page 10


Date
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.



1
1
2
3
3


Time
0917
1347
1447
0916
1412
Prevailing
Visibility
(miles)
107
120
18
18
120


Meteorological Conditions
cloudy, foggy
cloudy, foggy
partly cloudy, foggy
cloudy, distant fog
cloudy, windy, foggy


Remarks
light fog, haze to
inland fog, haze
light haze, fog in





east

valley


Jan.  4
            0959
dense fog cover
                                                                                                           Possible Source
                                                                                                          Visual Impairment*
            Data Summary (June 14,  1982 to September 30,  1982)

            Data recovery,  100%, 109 observation days out of 109 possible days
            73 days, 67%, visibility 120 miles at one or  both of the daily  observations
            27 days, 25%, fog with low visibility
            12 days smoke reported, 15% of non-fog days
            Data Summary (October 1, 1982 to December 31, 1982)

            Data recovery, 92%, 85 observation days out of 92 possible days
            49 days, 52%, visibility 120 miles at one or both of the daily  observations
            18 days, 20%, fog with low visibility
            17 days smoke reported, 19% of non-fog days
         *A  Visible emissions from recreational sources (campfires,  road dust,  vehicle  emissions, etc.)

          B  Visible emissions for forestry burning,  smoke or smoke plumes

          C  Industrial or stack emissions

          D  General haze from direction of urban areas

          E  Haze or smoke from forested areas

          F  low valley haze or fog

          G  Other

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM THE SNOWDOME,  BLUE GLACIER,  OLYMPIC  NATIONAL PARK
Date
June 28
June 28
June 29
June 29
June 29
June 30
June 30
July 1
July 1
July 2
July 2
July 3
July 3
July 4
July 4
July 5
July 5
July 6
July 6
July 7
July 7
July 8
July 8
July 9
July 9
July 10
July 10
July 10
July 10
July 11
July 11
July 11
July 12
July 12
July 12
July 13
July 13
July 14
July 14
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)
0830
2100
0800
1500
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
1500
2000
2100
0800
1715
2000
0800
1500
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
27
70
70
0
6
45
110
70
6
2
2
2
0
70
0
0
70
70
70
2
0
110
27
110
2
110
110
120

70

70
27
27
27
6
0
0
0
Meteorological Conditions
broken clouds
scattered clouds
overcast
broken clouds, fog
broken clouds
overcast
clear
overcast
overcast
overcast
overcast, rain, fog
overcast, fog
overcast, drizzle, fog
scattered clouds
overcast, fog
overcast, fog
overcast, rain
broken clouds, rain showers
overcast
overcast
broken clouds
clear
scattered clouds
scattered clouds
scattered clouds
overcast
overcast
overcast

overcast

overcast
mostly clear
broken clouds
broken clouds
overcast, fog, mist
overcast, fog, rain
thick fog, snow
thick fog, snow
                                                            Remarks
                                                                                   Possible Source
                                                                                 Visual Impairment*
                                                    clouds,  fog  obscured visibility

                                                    marine stratus obscured
                                                      visibility

                                                    clouds,  fog  obscured visibility
                                                    fog,  stratus obscured  visibility
                                                    fog,  stratus obscured  visibility

                                                    fog,  stratus obscured  visibility
                                                    fog,  clouds  obscured visibility
                                                    fog,  clouds  obscured visibility
                                                    fog,  clouds  obscured visibility
                                                    clouds obscured  visibility
                                                    clouds obscured visibility
                                                    clouds, rain obscured  visibility
                                                    clouds obscured visibility
                                                    clouds obscured visibility
                                                    clouds, fog obscured visibility

                                                    clouds obscured visibility
                                                    some haze
                                                    clouds obscured visibility
                                                    clouds obscured visibility
                                                    some haze to W
                                                    smoke, haze all quadrants
                                                    strong smoke smell
                                                    light haze in valleys
                                                    haze ana smoke to the  N and W
                                                    smoky haze
                                                    smoky haze obscured visibility
                                                    smoky haze obscured visibility
                                                    smoky haze
                                                    clouds, fog obscured visibility
B
B, burn
B, burn

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FROM THE SNOMDOME,  BLUE GLACIER,  OLYMPIC NATIONAL  PARK
                                                                                                                        Page 2
Date
July 15
July 15
July 16
July 16
July 17
July 17
July 18
July 18
July 19
July 19
July 20
July 20
July 21
July 21
July 22
July 22
July 23
July 23
July 24
July 24
July 25
July 25
July 26
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
1500
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
0
27
27
35
27
6
27
110
110
27
2
2
2
70
110
110
110
110
70
70
70
70
27
Meteorological Conditions
thick fog, snow
overcast
clear i sunny
scattered clouds
broken clouds
overcast
clear
clear
scattered clouds
clear
overcast, fog, light rain
broken clouds, fog
overcast, fog
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear, coastal fog
July 26
                                                                                    Remarks
            2000
                        70
July 27
July 27
July 28
July 28
July 29
July 29
July 30
July 30
July 31
July 31
August 1
August 1
August 2
August 2
August 3
August 3
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
27
27
27
27
27
27
6
27
27
6
27
0
2
2
6
0
                                                                             fog  in  valleys

                                                                             haze obscured visibility
                                                                             clouas  obscured visibility
                                                                             fog  in  valleys
                                                                             fog  in  valleys
                                                                             haze, fog  in valleys
                                                                             clouds  in  valleys
                                                                          Possible Source
                                                                        Visual  Impairment*
clear, coastal fog

scattered clouds
scattered clouds
scattered clouds
broken clouds
scattered clouds
scattered clouds
broken clouds
scattered clouds
clear
clear

clear
fog
overcast, drizzle, fog
overcast, rain, fog
clear, stratus to 6,000'
overcast, fog
smoke north of Mt. Tom
moderate smoke to W
light haze all quadrants
moderate smoke and haze, all
  quadrants
moderate smoke and haze, all
  quadrants
smoke, haze
smoke, haze

smoke, haze
                                                                             haze

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS  FROM THE  SNOWDOME, BLUE GLACIER, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
       Page  3
Date
August 4
August 4
August 5
August 5
August 5
August 6
August 6
August 6
August 7
August 7
August 8
August 8
August 9
August 9
August 10
August 10
August 11
August 11
August 12
August 12
August 13
August 13
August 14
August 14
August 15
August 15
August 16
August 16
August 17
August 17
August 17
August 18
August 18
August 18
August 19
August 19
August 19
August 19
August 20
August 20
August 20
August 20
Prevailing
Visibility
Time (miles)
0800
2000
0800
1515
2000
0800
1630
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
1700
2000
0800
1500
2000
0800
1500
2000
2015
0800
0815
1500
2000
70
6
110

38
110

6
24
35
27
27
27
3
6
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
110
2
70
0
35
38
110

110
110

110
70

70

27

27
35
Meteorological Conditions
clear
clear, stratus in
overcast

broken clouds
scattered clouds


valleys





partial obscuration


overcast



light rain
light rain, fog
broken clouds
fog
fog
fog
scattered clouds,












fog
fog, partial obscuration

clear above 6,500

overcast
broken clouds
scattered clouds
broken clouds

scattered clouds
clear

clear
clear

scattered clouds

scattered clouds


scattered clouds

1


















                                                                                    Remarks
                                                                            low valley haze and fog
                                                                            visible burn in Hoh Valley,
                                                                              to SSW
                                                                            strong smoke smell, thick smoke
                                                                            valley haze all quadrants
                                                                            valley haze all quadrants
                                                                            stratus in valleys
                                                                            stratus in valleys
                                                                            valley clouds
                                                                                                           Possible Source
                                                                                                          Visual  Impairment*
                                                                            valley stratus

                                                                            clouds in valleys


                                                                            stratus in valleys

                                                                            visible burn in a.m., general
                                                                              haze in p.m.
                                                                            haze to the W
                                                                            visible smoke from slash burn
                                                                            thick smoke to NW
                                                                            hazy to the W
                                                                            smoke to 8,000' to E
                                                                            layered haze S to NE
                                                                            most targets obscured by smoke
                                                                            visible smoke to W, hazy
                                                                               in others
                                                                            visible smoke to W, general
                                                                               haze
                                                                            thick smoke obscured targets
B,E



 Z


 E

 E

 B

B,E

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FBOH THE SNOWDOME,  BLUE GLACIER, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                                                                                                        Page 4
Date
August 21
August 21
August 21
August 22
August 22
August 22
August 23
August 23
August 24
August 24
August 24
August 25
August 25
August 25
August 26
August 26
August 27
August 27
August 28
August 28
August 29
August 29
August 30
August 30
August 30
August 31
August 31
August 31
Sept. 1
Sept. 1
Sept. 1
Sept. 2
Sept. 2
Sept. 2
Sept. 2
Sept. 3
Sept. 3
Sept. 4
Sept. 4
Sept. 5
Sept. 5
Sept. 6
Sept. 6
Prevailing
Visibility
Tine (miles)
0800
1500
2000
0800
1550
2000
0800
2000
0800
1700
2000
0800
1500
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
1500
2000
0800
1500
2000
0800
1300
2030
0800
0900
1500
2010
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
0800
2000
27
27
70
70

70
70
70
110

110
70
27
27
27
27
27
0
0
27
110
0
0
0
0
70
27
70
110
120
120
120

120
70
27
0
0
0
110
27
120
0
Meteorological Conditions
clear

clear






clear, coastal fog

clear
clear
clear
clear

clear
scattered

scattered
scattered







clouds, light

clouds, light
clouds, light







fog

fog
fog
clear, fog in valleys
clear
overcast,
overcast.

fog
fog



clear, clouds in valleys
overcast
overcast,
overcast
overcast.
overcast.
scattered
scattered
overcast
scattered
scattered
clear
scattered

clear
clear
overcast
overcast,
overcast,
overcast,
clear
clear
clear


fog, drizzle




fog, light rain
fog, light rain
clouds
clouds

clouds
clouds

clouds















fog, light rain
light rain
fog










                                                                                    Remarks
 Possible Source
Visual Impairment*
                                                                            thick smoke in all valleys
                                                                            haze in all directions
                                                                            smoke in valleys
                                                                            smoke in valleys
                                                                            haze to the W, blocking W view
                                                                            smoke, haze in valleys
                                                                            light haze in valleys
                                                                            light haze in valleys
                                                                            light haze in valleys
                                                                            haze to W, blocking views to
                                                                              W and N
                                                                            light haze to H
                                                                            light haze
                                                                            haze from W, blocking 6 targets
                                                                            haze in valleys
                                                                            haze in valleys

                                                                            stratus in valleys
                                                                            targets obscured by fog
                                                                            targets obscured by fog
                                                                            targets obscured by fog
                                                                            targets obscured by fog
                                                                            haze, smoke layers to W

                                                                            pronounced haze, smoke to W
                                                                            pronounced haze, smoke to W
                                                                            haze, smoke in valleys
                                                                            targets obscured by clouds
       unknown
       unknown
       slash burn

-------
VISIBILITY OBSERVATIONS FHOM THE SNOWDOME, BLUE GLACIER, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
                                                                                                                        Page 5
  Date
            Time
Sept.  7    0800
Sept.  7    2000
Sept.  8    0800
Sept.  9    0800
Prevailing
Visibility
(miles)
27
35
27
0


Meteorological Conditions
overcast

clear
broken clouds


Remarks
targets obscured by clouds


targets obscured by clouds
                                                                                                           Possible Source
                                                                                                          Visual Impairment*
            Data Summary

            June 28 to September 9,  1982
            Data recovery, 100%, 74  observation days out of 74  possible days
            39 days, 53%, visibility 70 miles or greater at one or more observations
            16 days, 22%, fog with low visibility at all observations
            20 days smoke reported,  34% of non-fog days
         *A  Visible Emissions from Recreational Sources (campfires,  road dust,  vehicle emissions,  etc.)

          B  Visible Emissions for forestry burning, smoke or smoke plumes

          C  Industrial or stack emissions

          D  General haze from direction of Urban Areas

          E  Haze or smoke from forested areas

          F  Low valley haze or fog

-------
               APPENDIX B

              REVISION TO THE
            WASHINGTON STATE
         IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:

          WASHINGTON STATE'S
VISIBILITY PROTECTION PROGRAM

-------
                 APPENDIX C
FEDERAL LAND MANAGER STATEMENTS

-------
                          Appendix  C
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF  THE  INTERIOR,  NATIONAL  PARK SERVICE

-------
              United States Department of the Interior

                           OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                            WASHINGTON, B.C. 20240
Mr. Darrell Weaver
Office of Air Programs
Department of Ecology
Mail Stop FV-11
Olympia, WA  98504

Dear Mr. Weaver:

We have reviewed the Revision to the Washington State  Implementation Plan for
Visibility Protection and find that it is satisfactory with  respect to the
goals and policies of the National Park Service.  We believe the proposed plan
also meets the procedural requirements included in  the Federal requirements
for State visibility plans (40 C.F.R. §§ 51.300 - 51.307).

We are aware of the conflicting interests which this plan covers and feel that
a reasonable initial compromise has been reached.  The proposed weekend burning
restriction and the reduction of emissions represent definite steps toward im-
proving visibility in class I areas.  However,  continual evaluation and assess-
ment during the implementation of the plan will be  critical  to its success.  We
encourage the State of Washington to continue the monitoring program and to
evaluate visibility annually to ensure that progress is being made.

With respect to "integral vistas," the State has proposed to adopt the vistas
preliminarily identified by the National Park Service  in a proposed rulemaking
published in 1981.  The National Park Service has not  made final determinations
on these vistas, and the integral vista aspect  of visibility impairment is
currently under reconsideration by the Environmental Protection Agency and
under judicial review in the courts.  By adopting the  proposed plan, the State
would be electing to consider integral vistas on its own initiative.  As proposed
under the plan, the State would be required to  consider the  effect of emissions
from new and existing sources on integral vistas and balance protection of
these vistas with other relevant considerations such as economic and energy
effects.

The National Park Service supports your proposed plan,  and appreciates your
proposal for the protection of the visibility aspects  of the class I park areas
in Washington.   We look forward to continued involvement in  the monitoring pro-
gram and annual evaluations as the plan is implement€

                                            Sincere
                                              Ray Arnett
                                           Assistant Secretary for
                                             Fish and Wildlife and Parks

-------
                      Appendix C
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,  FOREST SERVICE

-------
                 Testimony Relative To:

                              THE FEBRUARY 22, 1983
                  REVISION TO THE WASHINGTON STATE IMPLEMENTATION
                                       PLAN
                 WASHINGTON STATE'S VISIBILITY PROTECTION PROGRAM*


 I  appreciate this invitation for a second opportunity to comment on the
 Washington  State Visibility Protection  Program.   As before,  because strategies
 advanced  by the  State Implementation Plan (SIP)  Revision include important
 restrictions on  prescribed burning,  I want to deal  in some  depth with that
 activity.   I would also  like to discuss additional  visibility protection  con-
 cerns  raised by  the proposed Plan.  Thus, because of the limited time for oral
 testimony,  I intend to cover only those elements we believe  call  most for clear
 public  understanding regarding  Forest Service relationships  to,  support for, and
 reservations about,  the  SIP Revision.   Suggestions  of an editorial  or technical
 nature  will  be supplied  separately.   While specifically  directed  to the narra-
 tive portion of  the plan,  my  comments bear upon  the consequent proposed amend-
ments to  the Washington  Administrative  Code.

 I  have  referred  to both  support for  and reservations about the proposed Plan.  I
want to assure you that  we view positively the new  SIP.   There can  be little
 question  that Washington State  is providing  for  application  of the  best
 available technology  to  meet  the  National  Visibility Protection Goal  and  related
mandates  of  Congress.  Particularly  important and reassuring  to  us  is the
 paragraph at the  bottom  of page 13 of the text.   There,  reference is  made  to
 investigations of more'sophisticated methods.  Provision is  then  made for
 replacing or supplementing control strategies advanced with  the SIP Revision
when equal  or better  performance  is  demonstrated.   Further on I will  cover some
 specifics regarding  attainable  sophistication, but  now want  to proceed  with com-
ments in  the same sequence as in  the furnished text.

 I  would like to begin with Section III  -  Definitions.  I believe  that the  key
term, "Visibility  ImportantDay"  should bedefined  in this Section.   The remain-
der of  my comments  depend  mainly  upon interpretation  of  "visibility importance,"
found in the  next  to  last  paragraph  on  page 13,  and  upon note (1) to  figure 2.

My comments  on SectionV- Control Strategies are identified with individual
subsections.

    In  Subsection A - Best Available Retrofit Technology there seems  to be a
    conflict which, while  apparently editorial,  is worth noting.  ' Subsection A
    is  technically correct  regarding the  lack of any identified sources,but the
    preceeding Section IV  (page 8, paragraph 3),  identifies certain stationary
    source types'.  Even  though  the Section IV identifications may be  sketchy,
    there is an indication that a  part  of  the assessed visibility impairment is
    left unaddressed.  Contributions from several small stationary sources may
    in  total be equal to,  or more  important than, impairment by an individual,
    larger source.  In suggesting  a  revision to account  for impairment by   the
    combined impact from all permanent  sources,  I recognize the monitoring and
    modeling difficulties.  I also venture to speculate that public perception,
    and even some  studies, are  flawed by  lack of accounting for the combined
    impact of less readily identified sources.
          Testimony of James C. Space, Deputy Regional  Forester, Pacific
          Northwest Region, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
          Service, at the Washington State Department of Ecology Public Hearing
          in Seattle, Washington on April 12, 1983.

-------
Washington SIP Rev., page 2


    In Subsection 8 - New Source Review no  reference  is  made  to  visibility  pro-
    tection for Integral Vistas, at  this  time  a  requirement of the Federal  regu-
    lations relative to new  sources  C40CFR  §51.307(b)(l)].


    Subsection C - Prescribed Burning __an_d_Wildfires_ deals  first  with  differences
    between categories of fires.It"is important to  this  hearing record to ela-
    borate on the discussion in the  proposed Plan.

    First, let's look at the basic similarities  of  prescribed fires of  the  two
    types:  planned ignitions and  unplanned ignitions.   In both  types the result
    is change in the vegetative mantle.  Both  are viewed as Mankind's way of
    carrying out to our own'purposes that which  would have occurred in  nature.
    This view applies equally to fires prescribed in wilderness  to maintain
    natural fuel  loadings or to restore ecosystems, and to those which  are pre-
    scribed in residues following  timber harvesting.  If we had  no need for the
    fibre-.in the trees we harvest, natural processes, including  fire, would have
    continued to replace timber stands with successive vegetational mantles.

    Next, let's look at an environmentally  important difference  between planned
    and unplanned ignitions.  Because we have  less  opportunity to schedule
    unplanned ignitions, rapid changes in weather affecting atmospheric disper-
    sion are more likely and there is greater  risk  of unsatisfactory air quality
    and visual impact.  I will later make a suggestion addressing the challenge
    which this poses.

    The reference to wildfire suppression in the proposed Plan (last paragraph,
    page 12) also calls for a bit  of elaboration to be understood in terms of
    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service  policy.  We are aggressive in
    taking initial action on all fires except  where prior planning has  provided
    that fires from unplanned ignitions, as discussed above, may be prescribed.
    It would be poor management, however, to expend huge sums to immediately
    attempt to suppress some fires escaping initial attack.  Further, when our
    suppression forces are taxed, we must sometimes prioritize the timing and
    extent of initial attack.  I believe that  the proposed Plan  does not intend
    that this policy be changed, although it would be possible to reach such an
    interpretation from the referenced statement.
    Further, for the hearing record, I would like to mention that recent history
    confirms a decline of air pollution from major wildfires in the Northwest.
    But recent history can be misleading.  To benefit air quality, we are today
    foregoing treatment (thus leaving untreated fuel) or prescribing conditions
    which will lower emissions, as well as burning under conditions which favor
    smoke dispersion (like an unstable atmosphere).  Less easily controlled fire
    is often a consequence.  A higher risk of fires escaping could then combine
    with a drier climatic cycle to result in an increase in major conflagrations.
    These are technical matters for which each fire organization must lay plans,
    but it would be irresponsible if we did not mention here that increased
    risk-taking is involved in these strategies.

-------
Washington SIP Rev., page 3


    I would like to turn now to consideration of Subsection 1. Controlling
   ^missions.  I have said earlier that we support the SIP revision, and
   Reaffirm that statement here.  Our positive position is based on two pre-
   cepts:   A) that the public wishes to provide for increased visibility pro-
   tection even though costs and risks of doing so will be greater; and B) that
   in providing for application of the best available technology, the SIP
   revision recognizes that improvements are possible.

   In regard to costs, the proposed Plan contains a statement (page 13, para-
   graph 3} concerning enhancement of the economic benefits to tourism.  This
   hearing record  should show that economic benefit to tourism is not without
   tradeoff.   Based upon work by Sandberg and Schmidt (1982), our best estimate
   of current costs of operating changes to manage smoke from prescribed fires
   is $14.02  per acre.   From the same reference,  overall  costs of smoke manage-
   ment on all  Western Oregon  and Western Washington  National  Forests currently
   total an estimated  $26  per acre,  or  approximately  $2 million  per year.   To
   arrive  at  a projection  of the added  costs  that the SIP  revision strategies
   may bring  about,  I'd  like you to  look first at a general  map  showing the
   proximity  of  the National  Forests to Class I Federal  Areas being afforded
   visibility protection.


   The cost impact  of  the  SIP  revision  10-mile  and 30-mile lines of demarcation
   for different restrictions  is made most clear  when you  examine closely  an
   area like  the Olympic Peninsula.   There the  Class  I Olympic National  Park is
   surrounded by, and  mixed  with,  the relatively  narrow band  of  the Olympic
   National Forest.  Added costs  to  manage prescribed fire smoke within this
   narrow  National  Forest  band  (much  of  it just about 10 miles wide)  are
   expected to be greatest in  the  cost  elements Sandberg and  Schmidt identified
   as: "Work  Plan Changes;"  and  "Extra  Work."   By  assuming a  simple proportion
   to be representative  of the change from 7-day  to 5-day  opportunities  to
   burn, we arrive  at  a  projected  added  cost  of $  4.40 per acre.   With  this
   cost borne by the timber  being  harvested,  a  reduction in Federal  and  County
   revenues will be experienced.

   Anywhere within  the 30-mile line of  demarcation  some cost  impact is  also
   possible for  other  land ownerships.   A  competitive  disadvantage  is  thus
   imposed upon  the timber industry in  this area.  Similar costs  borne  by  the
   U.S. Government  and the Counties,  or  passed  on  to  industry  and ultimately  to
   the consumer, will be experienced  on  forest  lands  surrounding  other
   Mandatory  Class I Federal Areas.

   Other potential  costs must also be considered.  Those values  used above  do
   not include the cost of lost production  (for example, through  changes in
   site productivity where the restrictions make necessary the use  of machines
   that result in soil  compaction, or through time lost in growing  a new crop
   of trees).  Neither do they include costs like those of tree planting stock
   grown  in the nursery and left unused because of lost opportunities to burn
   on "Visibility Important Days."  These increased costs may be  borne by the
   industry or passed on to the taxpayer, depending on circumstances.

   In regard to possible improvements, I promised early in this testimony tp
  Heal more specifically with attainable sophistication in the management of
   smoke.   We believe that the SIP revision offers the currently  best available
   technology in a  straight forv/ard,  easy to follow manner.  We also believe
   that in  critical  areas like the Olympic Peninsula referred to  above, it will
   be desirable,  and soon be  possible, to apply a much more sophisticated tech-
   nology  to smoke  management.

-------
 Washington SIP Rev., page 4


     A Smoke Management Screening and Approval Process Handbook  documenting
     application of the latest state of knowledge is now roughly 80 percent
     complete.  Programming for the first generation of an automated approach
     that will make the process easy to use is now approximately 50 percent
     complete.  Field trials of the process are targeted to begin on the Olympic
     National  Forest in August of this year.  In the "past few weeks, we have seen
     promising results from the first trial runs of the process  using climatolo-
     gical  data with the burns actually conducted in 1982.  The  results compare
     decision  outcomes between the proposed SIP revision strategies and the pro-
     cess under development.  I think it is safe to say we can meet the require-
     ment of "equal  or better performance."

     Our goal  is to complement the Cooperative Smoke Management Program adminis-
     tered  by  the Washington State Department of Natural  Resources, and recog-
     nized  as  a vital  component of the proposed SIP  Revision.  We intend that the
     Screening and Approval  Process will  be applied  on the National  Forests in
     any locale where  its  use will  help to  hold down both  tangible and intangible
     costs.  By "intangible" I  mean such  costs as  impaired weekday visibility,
     increased smoke in  areas not being afforded protection by the proposed SIP
     revision  or other special  smoke management measures,  and such costs as the
     potential  to lose opportunities to maintain desired components  within
     wilderness ecosystems.   These  are high  aspirations, and  we  can  expect  to see
     an  evolution through  several  generations  of the process.

     I have  earlier  promised to make a suggestion  regarding smoke from both
     planned and unplanned ignition prescribed fires for maintaining wilderness
     ecosystems.  I  suggest  that  by treating both  categories  of  ignition the
     same, and by merely limiting  the  extent of  total  visibility  impact  within
     the Mandatory Class I  Federal  Areas, we can achieve both visual quality and
     desired ecosystems, themselves  part  of  the  view.   Criteria  in the Screening
     and  Approvals Process  discussed above  are intended to  accomplish  this.

     Also under Subsection C -  Prescribed Burning  and Wildfires a continuing com-
     mitment is made to  reducing  the amount  of fuel  that will  be  consumed,  and
     thus a  reduction  in total  emissions.   I am  confident  that each  of the  acti-
     vities  outlined by  the  proposed SIP revision will  lead to this  goal.
     Individual  specialists  in  the  Forest Service Pacific Northwest  Region  have
    been assigned to  develop strategies that  will be in direct support  to  the
    cooperative effort  outlined by  the proposed Plan.  Emphasis  in  these assign-
    ments is  on  further improvements  in utilization of trees  being  harvested.
    Among the activities  listed  in  the proposed Plan is one  in particular  I
    would like to underscore:  "Continued refinement of burning  techniques..."
    The  technology  for  reducing smoldering  combustion  will alone deal with  one
     of  the most  troublesome  aspects of burning  residues.  Scientists in the
    Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station who are working  to
    make this  technology  available  should be  sought out by anyone interested in
    applying  what has been  learned  to  date.

The  final area  of Forest Service concern to be covered here  is in SectionVI -
Long-Term Visibility Monitoring Strategy.  This is a highly technical  area  in
which we will   encourage our own specialfsts to continue to work  with the
Washington Department of Ecology to arrive at the most sound  plan.  Limited  .
dollars  and personnel suggest we will have to prioritize this work.  I do not
see  the  need  for a longstanding program in any one Class 1 Area.  We are par-
ticularly concerned that monitoring sites for wilderness be within wilderness,
despite  inconveniences of access and meeting  the need  for virtually no impact.
We presently  see automation of the Photographic Visibility Monitoring Technique
as most  adaptable to wilderness needs.

-------
Washington SIP  Rev.,  page 5


These comments  have been aimed  at  achieving  clarity  in  our  relationship to  the
State Visibility Protection Program.   I  do not  view  even  the more critical  com-
ments,  such  as  the matters of costs  or risks, as  reason to  fall back  from the
position of  support the Forest  Service is expected to provide.  I can  reaffirm
our continued support for the Cooperative Smoke Management  Program  administered
by the  State Department of Natural Resources, and am inviting both  that
Department and  the Department of Ecology to  monitor  or  participate  in  the field
trials  and further developmental work  on the Smoke Management Screening and
Approval Process.

In closing I want to  thank personally  each of the State and other cooperating
organization specialists who have  worked to  formulate an  approach acceptable to
the individuals and organizations  it affects.  I  believe you have been success-
ful .   With implementation, we can  expect to  meet  better the Federal  Land Manager
responsibilities mandated by Congress  to the Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service.
                                Reference Cited
         SANDBER6, DAVID V. and R. GORDON SCHMIDT, 1982.
                         Smoke management costs for forest burning.
                         Paper presented at the Air Pollution Control
                         Association Pacific Northwest International
                         Section Annual  Meeting, Vancouver, B.C.,
                         Canada, November 15-17, 1982.  10 pp.

-------