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.
------- |