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. ------- |