## Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Annual Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan

July 1, 2010

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division

1410 North Hilton Boise, Idaho 837062010 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan

ii This page left blank for double-sided printing

### Contents

1. Introduction................................................................................................................... .............1 2. Air Quality Surveillance Systems and Monitoring Objectives..............................................2 3. Idaho DEQ’s Ambient Air Monitoring Network....................................................................5 3.1. Monitoring Sites .......................................................................................................... ... 5 3.2. DEQ Monitoring Network – Monitoring Object ives, Scales of Representativeness and Area(s) Represented...................................................................................................... 14 3.3. Monitoring Methods, Monitor Design ation and Sampling Frequency......................... 18 4. DEQ Network Modifications Following EPA Approval of the 2009 Ambient Monitoring Network Plan..............................................................................................................23 5. Network Modifications Proposed in This 2010 Ambient Monitoring Network Plan........24 5.1. PM 10 Monitoring Network ............................................................................................ 24 5.2. PM 2.5 FRM Monitoring Network.................................................................................. 24 5.3. PM 2.5 Continuous Monitoring Network........................................................................ 26 5.4. Ozone Monitoring Network.......................................................................................... 27 5.5. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Monitoring Network.............................................................. 28 5.6. Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Monitoring Network .................................................................. 28 5.7. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) Monitoring Network ............................................................. 29 5.8. Lead (Pb)Monitoring Network ..................................................................................... 29 5.9. PM 10-2.5 (PMcoarse) ...................................................................................................... 30 Summary of Proposed Network Modificat ions for DEQ’s 2010 Air Monitoring........ 31 5.10. Network Plan ............................................................................................................. ... 31 6. Future Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements and Associated Costs ..............................31 6.1. Lead (Pb)................................................................................................................. ...... 31 6.2. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 )................................................................................................ 31 6.3. Ozone (O 3 ) .................................................................................................................... 32 6.4. Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) .................................................................................................... 33


### List of Tables Table 3-1. DEQ Monitoring Stations, Loca tions, and AQS Identification Codes.......................... 5 Table 3-2. Relationships Betw een Site Types and Scales of Representativeness ........................ 15 Table 3-3. Monitoring Objectives, Areas Repr esented, and Scales of Representation ................ 16 Table 3-4. Air Monitoring Method Codes .................................................................................... 18 Table 3-5. Pollutants/Monitor Designatio n/Sampling Frequency/Method Codes........................ 19 Table 3-6. DEQ Meteorological Monito ring Stations and Parameters......................................... 222010 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan

ii 

### List of Figures Figure 3-1. Coeur d’Alene Regiona l Office Monitoring Stations .................................................. 7 Figure 3-2. Lewiston Regional O ffice Monitoring Stations ........................................................... 8 Figure 3-3. Boise Regional O ffice Monitoring Stations................................................................. 9 Figure 3-4. Twin Falls Regional Office Monitoring Stations....................................................... 11 Figure 3-5. Pocatello Regional O ffice Monitoring Stations ......................................................... 12 Figure 3-6. Idaho Falls Regional Office Monitoring Stations ...................................................... 13 Figure 3-7. Minimum Monitoring Frequency Base d on Ratio of Local Concentration to Standard ...................................................................................................................... 1 92010 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan

1 

### 1. Introduction
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations §58 .10 requires that beginning July 1, 2007, the state agency shall adopt and submit to the U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator an annual monitori ng network plan which shall provi de for the establishment and maintenance of an air quality surveillance system that consists of a network made up of the following types of m onitoring stations:

• state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) including monitors that use:

- federal reference method (FRM),

- federal equivalent method (FEM), or

- approved regional method (ARM)

• NCore stations (included in the national ne twork of multi-pollutant monitoring stations)

• PM 2.5 chemical speciation stations (STN), and

• special purpose monitoring (SPM stations). The plan shall include a statement of purposes for each monitor and evidence that siting and operation of each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A, C, D, and E of 40 CFR 58 where applicable. The annual monitoring network plan must be made available for public insp ection for at least 30 days prior to submission to EPA. Any annua l monitoring network plan that proposes SLAMS network modifications including ne w monitoring sites is subject to the approval of the EPA Regional Administrator, who sha ll provide opportunity for public comment and shall approve or disapprove the plan and schedule within 120 days. If the State or local agency has already provided a public comment opportunity on its plan and has made no changes subsequent to that comment opportunity, and has submitted the receiv ed comments together with the plan, the Regional Administrator is not required to pr ovide a separate oppor tunity for comment. The plan shall provide for all required stations to be opera tional by January 1, 2011. The plan shall provide for all required non- source-oriented lead (Pb) monito ring sites to be operational by January 1, 2011. Specific site locations for the s ites to be operational by January 1, 2011, shall be included in the annual network plan due to be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator on July 1, 2010. The annual monitoring network plan must cont ain the following information for each existing and proposed site:

1. The AQS (air quality system, EPA’s da tabase) site identification number. 2. The location, including street addr ess and geographical coordinates. 3. The sampling and analysis method(s) for each measured parameter.2 4. The operating schedules for each monitor.
5. Any proposals to remove or move a monito ring station within a period of 18 months following plan submittal. 6. The monitoring objective and spatial scale of representativeness for each monitor as defined in appendix D to 40 CFR 58.
7. The identification of any sites that are suit able and any sites that are not suitable for comparison against the annual PM2.5 (p articulate matter with diameter ≤ 2.5 microns [μ] national ambient air quality stan dard (NAAQS) as described in § 58.30. 8. The metropolitan statistical ar ea (MSA), core based statisti cal area (CBSA), combined statistical area (CSA) or other ar ea represented by the monitor. 9. The designation of any Pb monitors as ei ther source-oriented or nonsource-oriented according to Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 58. 10. Any source-oriented monitors for which a wa iver has been requested or granted by the EPA Regional Administrator as allowed for under paragra ph 4.5(a)(ii) of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 58. 11. Any source-oriented or nonsource-oriented s ite for which a waiver has been requested or granted by the EPA Regional Administrator for the use of Pb-PM10 monitoring in lieu ofPb-TSP monitoring as allowed for unde r paragraph 2.10 of Appendix C to 40 CFR Part 58.

The annual monitoring network plan must documen t how States and local agencies provide for the review of changes to a PM 2.5 monitoring network that impact the location of a violating PM 2.5 monitor. The affected State or local agency must document the process for obtaining public comment and include any comments received through the pu blic notification pr ocess within their submitted plan.
This document, in accordance with the above, is the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) 2010 Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan. The primary goal of the annual network plan is to determine whether the state monitoring netw ork is achieving its monitoring objectives and to iden tify any needed modifications.



### 2. Air Quality Surveillance Sy stems and Monitoring Objectives
Ambient air monitoring objectives have shifted ov er time; a situation that requires air quality agencies to re-evaluate and reconfigure monitori ng networks. A variety of factors contribute to these shifting monitoring objectives:

• Air quality has changed since the adoption of the federal Clean Air Act and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Fo r example, the problems of high ambient concentrations of lead and carbon mo noxide have largely been solved.3 • Populations and behaviors ha ve changed. For example, the U.S. population has (on average) grown, aged, and shifted toward ur ban and suburban areas over the past four decades. In addition, rates of vehicle owners hip and annual miles driven have increased.

• New air quality objectives have been established, including rules to reduce air toxics, fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), and regional haze.

• The understanding of air quality issues and the capability to monitor air quality have both improved. Together, the enhanced understandi ng and capabilities can be used to design more effective air monitoring networks. Ambient air monitoring networks must be design ed to meet three basic monitoring objectives. These basic objectives are listed be low. The appearance of any one obj ective in the order of this list is not based upon a prioritized scheme. Each objective is impor tant and must be considered individually. (a) Provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner . Data can be presented to the public in a number of at tractive ways including air quality maps, newspaper articles or advertisements, Internet sites, and as part of weather forecasts and public advisories. (b) Provide support for determining co mpliance with ambient air quality standards and developing emissions control strategies . Data from qualified monitors for NAAQS pollutants will be used for comparing an ar ea’s air pollution levels against the NAAQS. Data from monitors of various types can be used in the development of attainment and maintenance plans. SLAMS, and especially NC ore station data, will be used to evaluate the regional air quality models used in devel oping emission strategies, and to track trends in air pollution abatement control measur es’ impact on improving air quality. In monitoring locations near major air polluti on sources, source-oriented monitoring data can provide insight into how well industrial sources are controlling their pollutant emissions. (c) Provide support for air pollution research studies . Air pollution data from the NCore multi-pollutant monitoring network can be used to supplement data collected by researchers working on health effects assessm ents and atmospheric processes, or for monitoring methods development work. In order to support the ai r quality management work indicated in the three basic air monitoring objectives, a network must be designed with a va riety of monitoring site types. Monitoring sites must be capable of informing managers about many things including the peak air pollution levels, typical levels in populated areas, air pollution transported into and outside of a city or region, and air pollution levels near specific emissions source s. These types of sites are summarized in the following list of six general site types according to th e type of information they are designed to provide: (a) Sites located to determine the maximum c oncentrations of air po llutants expected to occur in the area covered by the network.4 (b) Sites located to measure typical pollutant concentr ations in areas of high population density. (c) Sites located to determine the impact of significant sources or source categories on air quality. (d) Sites located to determine general background concentr ation levels of air pollutants. (e) Sites located to determine the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas, and to assess compliance with secondary air quality standards. (f) Sites located to measure air pollution im pacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or other welfare-based impacts. The adequacy of an ambient air monitoring netw ork may be determined by using a variety of tools including the following:

• federal monitoring requirements and network minimums,

• analyses of historical monitoring data,

• maps of pollutant emissions densities,

• dispersion modeling,

• special studies/saturation sampling,

• SIP requirements,

• revised monitoring strategies (e.g., new regulat ions, reengineering of the air monitoring network),

• network maps and network descriptions with site objectives defined, and

• best professional judgment. The appropriate location of a monitor can only be determined on the basis of stated objectives. The following tools can help determine whether monitor locations are meeting their stated objectives:

• Maps, graphical overlays, and information based on geographical information systems (GIS), which are extremely helpful for visua lizing the adequacy of monitor locations.

• Plots (graphs) of potential emissions levels and/or historical monitored levels of pollutants versus monitor locations.

• Modeling or special studies (including satu ration monitoring studies ) may be appropriate for determining the adequacy of a particular monitor location.5 

### 3. Idaho DEQ’s Ambient Air Monitoring Network
3.1. Monitoring Sites DEQ is responsible for operating and maintain ing the ambient air monitoring network for the State of Idaho. Some air mon itors in Idaho are managed by tribal monitoring organizations on tribal lands. This document is limited to the m onitors in the air monitoring network that are managed by DEQ. On January 1, 2010, DEQ’s air monitoring network consisted of 54 monitors at 30 distinct monitoring sites. DEQ’s am bient air monitoring network is operated and maintained by DEQ’s six (6) Regional Office mon itoring staff. Figures 3-1 through 3-6 display the locations of the monitoring apporti oned by the responsible Regional Office. Table 3-1 is a list of DEQ’s air monitoring sites, including addre sses, global positioning system (GPS) coordinates and AQS identifiers. Table 3-1. DEQ Monitoring Stations, Locations, and AQS Identification Codes Site Address Latitude/ Longitude AQS Identification Sandpoint – USFS 1601 Ontario St. Sandpoint ,ID 83864 +48.267500/ -116.572222 160170005
Sandpoint – University of Idaho U of I Research Center, 2105 N. Boyer Ave. Sandpoint, ID 83864 +48.291820/ - 116.556560 160170003

Coeur d'Alene – Lancaster Rd. Lancaster Road, Hayden, ID 83835 +47.788908/ -116.804539 160550003

St. Maries Forest Service Bldg St. Maries, ID 83666 +47.316667/ -116.570280 160050010

Pinehurst 106 Church St. Pinehurst, ID 83850 +47.536389/ -116.236667 160790017

Moscow 1025 Plant Sciences Rd Moscow, ID 83843 +46.721932/ -116.959180 160570005

Lewiston 1200 29 th St Lewiston, ID 83501 +46.404722/ -116.968889 160690012

Grangeville USFS Compound Grangeville, ID 83530 +45.931389/ -116.115278 160490002

McCall 500 N. Mission St, McCall ID 83638 +44.890197 -116.106500 160850002

Garden Valley 946 Banks Lowman Rd Garden Valley, ID 83622 +44.104498 -115.972386 160150002

Middleton – Purple Sage 15192 Purple Sage Rd. Caldwell, ID 83605 +43.735828/ -116.692967 160270009

Nampa 923 1st St S, Nampa, ID 83651 +43.580310/ -116.562676 160270002

Meridian St. Luke's Eagle Rd & I-84 Meridian, ID 83642 +43.600264/ -116.348434 160010010

BoiseITD 311 W. State St. Boise, ID 83703 +43.634585/ -116.233919 1600100196 Site Address Latitude/ Longitude AQS IdentificationBoiseEastman Garage 166 N. 9 th , Boise, ID 83702 +43.616379/ -116.203817 160010014BoiseFire Station #5 16 th & Front, Boise, ID 83702 +43.618889/ -116.213611 160010009

BoiseWhite Pine Elementary 401 East Linden St. Boise, ID 83706 +43.577603/ -116.178156 160010017BoiseWarm Springs 2495 W Warm Springs Ave, Boise ID 83712 +43.598833/ -116.173448 160010022 Garden City Ada County Fairgrounds, Garden City, ID 83714 +43.647819 -116.269514 160010020

Idaho City 3851 Hwy 21 Idaho City, ID 83631 +43.823017/ -115.838557 160150001

Ketchum 111 West 8th St, Ketchum, ID 83340 +43.682558/ -114.371094 160130004

Twin Falls 1913 Addison Ave E, Twin Falls, ID 83301 +42.564097/ -114.446200 160830010

Kimberly 50 Highway 50, Kimberly, 83341 +42.553325/ -114.354853 160830009

Pocatello Corner Garrett & Gould, Pocatello, ID 83204 +42.876725/ -112.460347 160050015

PocatelloSewage Treatment Plant Batiste Chubbuck Rd, Pocatello, ID 83204 +42.916389/ -112.515833 160050004

Franklin East 4800 South Road, 83237 +42.013333/ -111.809167 160410001

Soda Springs 5-Mile Rd., Soda Springs, ID 83276 +42.695278/ -111.593889 160290031

Idaho Falls Hickory and Sycamore St., Idaho Falls, ID 83402 +43.464700/ -112.046450 160190011

Salmon – Charles St. N Charles St. Salmon, ID 83467 +45.181893/ -113.890285 160590004

Salmon – Hwy 93 0.8 Miles South of Hwy 93/48 Intersection, Salmon ID 83468 +45.168433/ -113.888967 1605900057 Figure 3-1. Coeur d’Alene Regional Office Monitoring Stations8 Figure 3-2. Lewiston Regional Office Monitoring Stations9 Figure 3-3. Boise Regional Office Monitoring Stations10 Figure 3-3. (continued)11 Figure 3-4. Twin Falls Regional Office Monitoring Stations12 Figure 3-5. Pocatello Regional Office Monitoring Stations13 Figure 3-6. Idaho Falls Regional Office Monitoring Stations2010 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan

14 3.2. DEQ Monitoring Network – Mo nitoring Objecti ves, Scales of Representativeness, and Area(s) Represented The ambient air quality and mete orological data collected from DEQ’s air monitoring network is used for a variety of purposes, including:

• determining compliance with the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS),

• determining the locations of ma ximum pollutant concentrations,

• forecasting air quality to determ ine the Air Quality Index (AQI),

• providing for early detection of sm oke impacts (smoke management),

• determining the effectiveness of air pollution control programs,

• evaluating the effects of air pollu tion levels on public health,

• tracking the progress of ai r quality-related state imp lementation plans (SIPs),

• supporting pollutant dispersion models,

• developing responsible, cost-effective air pollution contro l strategies, and

• analyzing air quality trends. To clarify the nature of the link between gene ral monitoring objectives, site types, and the physical location of a particular monitor, the concept of spatial scale of representativeness is defined. The goal in locating monitors is to corr ectly match the spatial scale represented by the sample of monitored air with the spatial scale mo st appropriate for the monitoring site type, the air pollutant to be measured, and the mon itoring objective. Thus, spatial scale of representativeness is described in terms of the physical dimensions of the air parcel nearest to a monitoring site throughout which actual pollutant concentrations are reasonably similar. The scales of representativeness of mo st interest for the monitoring s ite types described above are as follows: (a) Microscale - Defines the concentrations in air vo lumes associated with area dimensions ranging from several meters up to about 100 meters. (b) Middle scale - Defines the concentrations typical of areas up to several city blocks in size with dimensions ranging from about 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer. (c) Neighborhood scale - Defines concentrations within so me extended area of the city that has relatively uniform land use with dimensi ons in the range of 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers. The neighborhood and urban scales listed below have the potential to overlap in applications that concern secondarily formed or homoge neously distributed air pollutants. (d) Urban scale - Defines concentrations within an ar ea of city-like dimensions, on the order of 4 to 50 kilometers. Within a city, the ge ographic placement of emissions sources may result in there being no single si te that can be said to repr esent air quality on an urban scale.15 (e) Regional scale - Defines an area that is usually rural, is of reasonably homogeneous geography without large emissions sources, and extends from tens to hundreds of kilometers. (f) National and global scales - These measurement scales represent concentrations characterizing a nation or the globe as a whole. Proper siting of a monito r requires specification of the monito ring objective, the types of sites necessary to meet the objective, and then the desired spatial scale of representativeness. For example, consider a case where the object ive is to determine NAAQS compliance by understanding the maximum ozone concentrations for an area. Candidate areas would most likely be located downwind of a metropolitan area , probably in suburban residential areas where children and other susceptible individuals are likely to be outdoors. Sites located in such areas are most likely to represent an urban scale of measurement. In this example, physical location was determined by considering ozone precurs or emission patterns , public activity, and meteorological characteristics a ffecting ozone formation and disp ersion. Thus, spatial scale of representativeness was not used in the selection process but wa s a result of site location. In some cases, the physical locati on of a site is determined from joint consideration of both the basic monitoring objective and the type of monitori ng site desired or requ ired. For example, to determine what PM 2.5 concentrations are typical over a ge ographic area that has relatively high PM 2.5 concentrations, a neighborhood s cale site is most appropriate. Such a site would likely be located in a residential or commer cial area having a high overall PM 2.5 emission density but not in the immediate vicinity of any single dominant source. Note that in this example the desired scale of representativeness was an important factor in determining the physical location of the monitoring site. In either case, classification of the monitor by its type and spatial scale of representativeness is necessary and will aid in interpretation of the monitoring data for a particular monitoring objective (e.g., public reporting, NAAQS compliance determination, or research support). Table 3-2 illustrates the relations hip between the various site type s that can be used to support the three basic monitoring objectives, and the scales of representativeness that are generally most appropriate for each site type. Table 3-2. Relationships Between Site Types and Scales of Representativeness Site Type Appropriate Siting Scales Maximum concentration ( sometimes urban or regional for secondarily-formed pollutants) Micro, middle, neighborhood
Population oriented Neighborhood, urban. Source impact Micro, middle, neighborhood General/background Urban, regional Regional transport Urban, regional Welfare-related impacts Urban, regional
Federal ambient air monitoring regulations use th e statistical-based definitions for metropolitan areas provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Census Bureau. These areas are referred to as metropolitan statistical areas (MSA ), micropolitan statistical areas, both of which are core-based statistical areas (CBSA), and combined statistical areas (CSA). A CBSA16 associated with at least one urbanized ar ea of 50,000 population or greater is termed a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA ). A CBSA associated with at least one urbanized cluster of at least 10,000 population or greate r is termed a micropolitan statis tical area. A CSA consists of two or more adjacent CBSAs. The term MSA is us ed to refer to a Metropolitan Statistical Area. By definition, both MSAs and CSAs have a high degree of integration; however, many such areas cross state or other polit ical boundaries. An MSA or CSA may also cross more than one airshed. The EPA recognizes that state or local agencies mu st consider MSA/CSA boundaries and their own political boundari es and geographical characteri stics in designing their air monitoring networks. The EPA recognizes th at there may be situations where the EPA Regional Administrator and the affected st ate or local agencies may need to augment or to divide the overall MSA/CSA monitoring respon sibilities and requirements among these various agencies to achieve an effective network design. Full mon itoring requirements apply separately to each affected state or local agency in the absence of an agreement between the affected agencies and the EPA Regional Administrator. Table 3-3 summarizes the monitoring objective(s), the area represented, a nd the monitoring scale of representativeness for DEQ’s monitoring sites. Table 3-3. Monitoring Objectives, Areas Represented, and Scales of Representation
Site Monitoring Objective Area Represented Monitoring Scale Sandpoint – University of Idaho AQI* Modeling-meteorological Bonner County Urban
Sandpoint – USFS AQI PM 10 * SIP* PM 10 NAAQS* Bonner County Urban

Coeur d’Alene – Lancaster Rd. AQI O 3 * NAAQS Modeling-meteorological Coeur d’ Alene, ID MSA* Urban

St. Maries PM 2.5 * NAAQS AQI Benewah County Neighborhood

Pinehurst PM 10 SIP PM 10 NAAQS PM 2.5 NAAQS AQI Modeling-meteorological Shoshone County Neighborhood

Moscow AQI Smoke Management Modeling-meteorological Latah County Neighborhood

Lewiston AQI Smoke Management Modeling-meteorological Lewiston ID – WA MSA Neighborhood

Grangeville AQI Smoke Management Modeling-meteorological Idaho County Neighborhood

McCall AQI Smoke Management Valley County Neighborhood Garden Valley Smoke Management Boise County Neighborhood
Middleton – Purple Sage AQI Smoke Management Modeling-meteorological Boise City-Nampa MSA** Urban17 Site Monitoring Objective Area Represented Monitoring Scale
Nampa PM 10 NAAQS PM 2.5 NAAQS AQI Boise City-Nampa MSA** Neighborhood

Meridian – St. Luke’s NCore-trace gas PM 2.5 NAAQS PM 2.5 Chemical Speciation O 3 NAAQS NO 2 * NAAQS AQI Modeling-meteorological Boise City-Nampa MSA** Neighborhood

Boise – ITD O 3 NAAQS Boise City-Nampa MSA* Neighborhood Boise – Eastman Garage CO* SIP CO NAAQS Northern Ada County Micro Boise – Fire Station #5 PM 10 SIP PM 10 NAAQS Northern Ada County Neighborhood Boise – White Pine Elementary O 3 NAAQS Boise City-Nampa MSA* Neighborhood Boise – Warm Springs Modeling-meteorological Boise City-Nampa MSA* Neighborhood Garden City Modeling-meteorological Boise City-Nampa MSA* Neighborhood
Idaho City Smoke Management AQI Boise County Neighborhood

Ketchum Smoke Management AQI Blaine County Urban

Twin Falls Smoke Management AQI Twin Falls, ID Micropolitan Statistical Area Neighborhood
Kimberly Modeling-meteorological Twin Falls, ID Micropolitan Statistical Area Urban

Pocatello Garrett and Gould PM 10 SIP PM 10 NAAQS AQI Modeling-meteorological Pocatello, ID MSA Neighborhood

Pocatello – Sewage Treatment Plant SO 2 * NAAQS Pocatello, ID MSA Middle

Franklin PM 2.5 NAAQS AQI Logan UT – ID MSA Urban Soda Springs SO 2 NAAQS Caribou County Micro Idaho Falls AQI Idaho Falls, ID MSA Neighborhood
Salmon – Charles St. PM 2.5 NAAQS AQI Lemhi County Neighborhood

Salmon – Hwy 93 Modeling-meteorological Lemhi County Urban * AQI – air quality index; SIP – state implementation plan; NAAQ S – national ambient air quality standard; PM10 – particulate m atter less than 10 microns in diameter; MSA – me tropolitan statistical area; O3 – ozone; PM2.5 -- particulate matter less than 2.5 mi crons in diameter; NO 2 – nitrogen dioxide; SO 2 – sulfur dioxide ** Boise City-Nampa MSA, as defined by the US Census Bur eau, includes Ada, Boise, Canyon, Gem, and Owyhee counties18 3.3. Monitoring Methods, Monitor D esignation, and Sampling Frequency Generally, monitoring methods used for maki ng NAAQS compliance determinations at a SLAMS site must be designated federal referenc e (FRM) or federal equi valent (FEM) methods, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53. A method for monitoring PM 2.5 concentrations that has not been designated as an FRM or FEM may be approved as an “approved regional method” (or ARM) by the EPA Regional Administrator. Spec ial purpose monitors (S PMs) do not meet any of the above criteria and are ty pically used for special studies or as surrogate measures or indicators of emergency episodes (e.g., nephelo meters used for early detection of smoke). Table 3-4 lists monitoring methods used by Idaho DEQ along with associated method codes required when submitting the monitoring data to EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database. Method codes for meteorological paramete rs are not included in the table.
Table 3-4. Air Monitoring Method Codes Parameter/ Pollutant* Method Designation AQS Method Code Instrument and Inst rument Parameters PM 10 FEM 079 TEOM* – gravimetric analysis , instrumental – R&P SA246B inlet CO FRM 093 Teledyne API Gas Filter Correlation M300 CO FRM 593** Teledyne API Model 300EU SO 2 FRM 100 Teledyne API Model 100A – UV Fluorescent SO 2 FRM 060 Thermo Model 43C, pulsed fluorescence SO 2 FRM 600** Teledyne API, Model 100EU – UV Fluorescent O 3 FRM 087 Teledyne API, Model 400E NO 2 FRM 099 Teledyne API, Model 200E – Chemiluminescence NOy FRM 599** Teledyne API, Model 200EU PM 2.5 FRM 118 R&P Model 2025 Sequential w/WINS, Gravimetric PM 2.5 FRM 145 R&P Model 2025 Sequential w/ VSCC PM 2.5 SPM 701 or 703*** R&P TEOM w/ SCC – no correction factor PM 2.5 SPM 715 or 716*** R&P TEOM w/ VSCC – no correction factor PM 2.5 SPM 702 or 704*** R&P TEOM w/ SCC – correction factor PM 2.5 FEM 761 R&P TEOM w/ VSCC & FDMS PM 2.5 FEM 170 Met One Beta Gauge (BAM) * PM 10 – particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; CO – carbon monoxide; SO 2 – sulfur dioxide; O 3 – ozone; NO 2 – nitrogen dioxide; Noy – total reactive nitrogen; PM 2.5 – particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; TEOM – tapered element oscillating microbalance ** Trace gas monitor – NCore *** Applicable code varies seasonally w/ in strument operating temperature settings

Monitoring sites designated as SL AMS sites (not NCore sites), ar e intended to address specific air quality management interests, and as such, ar e frequently single-pollutant measurement sites. The SLAMS sites must be approved by the EPA Regional Administrator. Monitoring sites designated as special purpose monitor (SPMs) stations in th e annual network plan and in the Air Quality System (AQS) do not count toward meeting network minimum19 requirements. SPM sites using methods designa ted as FRMs or FEMs or approved as ARMs are bound to the quality assurance requireme nts of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 58. Gaseous pollutants and meteorological paramete rs are sampled continuously and typically averaged for each hour. Data completeness for a continuous monitor is computed as the number of valid hourly samples collected divided by the number of potential hourly samples for the period in question (e.g., 8,760 potential hourly samples annually). Particulate matter (PM) can be sampled continuous ly or by time-integrated filter-based methods. Filter-based methods typically collect sample s for 24-hour periods. For NAAQS comparison, PM data is reported as a 24-hour average, collected from midnight to midnight at local standard time. As illustrated in Figure 3-7, the minimu m monitoring schedule for a site is based on the relative concentration leve l at that monitoring site with resp ect to the 24-hour standard (i.e., the ratio between the local concentration and the standard with 1:1 = 1.0) .

Figure 3-7. Minimum Monitoring Frequency Based on Ratio of Local Concentration to Standard

For the monitors in DEQ’s ambient air quality m onitoring networ, Table 3-5 lists the pollutants monitored, the monitor’s designation (e.g., SL AMS), the monitoring frequency, and the appropriate AQS method code (Table 3-4).

Table 3-5. Pollutants/Monitor Designation/Sampling Frequency/Method Codes

Site Pollutant Monitored** Monitor Designation** Monitoring Frequency AQS Method

Code Sandpoint – University of Idaho 10-meter meteorology SPM Continuous * Sandpoint – U.S. Forest Service PM 10 – TEOM PM 2.5 – TEOM SLAMS SLAMS Continuous Continuous 079 715 or 71620 Site Pollutant Monitored** Monitor Designation** Monitoring Frequency AQS Method

Code

Coeur d’Alene – Lancaster Rd. PM 2.5 - TEOM O 3 NOx 10-meter meteorology SPM SLAMS

SPM SPM Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous 715 or 716 087 099

*

St. Maries PM 2.5 – FRM PM 2.5 - TEOM PM 2.5 – BAM SLAMS SLAMS

SPM Every sixth day (1/6) Continuous Continuous 145 715 or 716 170

Pinehurst PM 2.5 – FRM PM 2.5 – FRM Precision PM 2.5 – TEOM/FDMS PM 2.5 - BAM PM 10 - TEOM 10-meter meteorology SLAMS SLAMS SLAMS

SPM SLAMS

SPM Every day (1/1) Every sixth day (1/6) Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous 145 118 761 170 079

*
Moscow PM 2.5 - TEOM 10-meter meteorology SLAMS SPM Continuous Continuous 702 or 704 *
Lewiston PM 2.5 - TEOM 10-meter meteorology SLAMS SPM Continuous Continuous 702 or 704 * Grangeville PM 2.5 - TEOM 10-meter meteorology SLAMS SPM Continuous Continuous 702 or 704 * McCall PM 2.5 – TEOM SLAMS Continuous 715 or 716 Garden Valley PM 2.5 – TEOM SPM Continuous 715 or 716 Middleton – Purple Sage PM 2.5 - TEOM 10-meter meteorology SPM SPM Continuous Continuous 715 or 716 *

Nampa PM 10 - TEOM PM 2.5 - FRM PM 2.5 - TEOM PM 2.5 – BAM SLAMS SLAMS SLAMS

SPM Continuous Every third day (1/3) Continuous Continuous 079 118 715 or 716 170

Meridian St. Luke’s PM 2.5 - FRM PM 2.5 - TEOM PM 2.5 - BAM PM 2.5 Chemical Speciation O 3 SO 2 NO 2 NOy CO 10-meter meteorology NCore NCore NCore NCore

NCore NCore NCore NCore NCore NCore Every third day (1/3) Continuous Continuous Every third day (1/3)

Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous 118 701 or 703 170 800

087 600 099 599 593

* Boise - Idaho Transportation Dept. O 3 SLAMS Continuous 087
BoiseEastman Garage CO SLAMS Continuous 093
BoiseFire Station #5 PM 10 SLAMS Continuous 07921 Site Pollutant Monitored** Monitor Designation** Monitoring Frequency AQS Method

CodeBoiseWhite Pine Elementary O 3 SLAMS Continuous 087
BoiseWarm Springs 10-meter meteorology SPM Continuous * Garden City 10-meter meteorology SLAMS Continuous * Idaho City PM 2.5 – TEOM SLAMS Continuous 715 or 716 Ketchum PM 2.5 – TEOM SLAMS Continuous 715 or 716 Twin Falls PM 2.5 – TEOM SLAMS Continuous 715 or 716 Kimberly 10-meter meteorology SPM Continuous *

Pocatello PM 2.5 - TEOM PM 10 - TEOM 10-meter meteorology SLAMS SLAMS

SPM Continuous Continuous Continuous 715 or 716 079

*PocatelloSewage Treatment Plant SO 2 SLAMS Continuous 100

Franklin PM 2.5 - FRM PM 2.5 – BAM SLAMS SPM Every sixth day (1/6) Continuous 145 170 Soda Springs SO 2 SLAMS Continuous 060 Idaho Falls PM 2.5 – TEOM SLAMS Continuous 715 or 716
Salmon – Charles St. PM 2.5 - FRM PM 2.5 – BAM SLAMS SPM Every sixth day (1/6) Continuous 145 170
Salmon – Hwy 93 10-meter meteorology SPM Continuous *
* Meteorological parameters are listed in Table 3-6 ** Abbreviations: PM 10 – particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM 2.5 – particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; TEOM – tapered element oscillating microbalance; O 3 – ozone; NO 2 – nitrogen dioxide; FRM – federal reference method; FDMS – filter dynamics measurement system; BAM – beta attenuation monitor; SO 2 – sulfur dioxide; NOy – total reactive nitrogen; CO – carbon monoxide

DEQ currently operates thirteen (13) 10-meter meteorological stations. Meteorological measurements are used to support air quality inde x forecasting and air quality modeling analyses. DEQ is adjusting and standardizing the meteor ological parameters collected to ensure the required inputs for regulatory (e.g. AERMOD) a nd airshed (e.g., CalPuff) models are provided. Table 3-6 provides a list of parameters measured at DEQ meteorological stations. DEQ operates the meteorological monitoring network in accordance with EPA’s guidance document: Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurem ent Systems Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements Version 2.0 (Final).22 Table 3-6. DEQ Meteorological Monitoring Stations and Parameters Site Meteorological Parameters Monitored Sandpoint – University of Idaho 2 m. temp.(°C); 10 m. temp .(°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degr ees); Wind Speed (m/s); So lar Radiation (Watt/cm2); Precipitation (Rain – Inches)

Pinehurst 2 m. temp.(°C); 10 m. temp .(°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degr ees); Wind Speed (m/s); So lar Radiation (Watt/cm2); Precipitation (Rain – Inches)
Coeur d’Alene – Lancaster Rd. 2 m. temp.(°C); 10 m. temp .(°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degr ees); Wind Speed (m/s); So lar Radiation (Watt/cm2); Precipitation (Rain – Inches)

Moscow 2 m. temp.(°C); 10 m. temp .(°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degr ees); Wind Speed (m/s); So lar Radiation (Watt/cm2); Precipitation (Rain – Inches)

Lewiston 2 m. temp.(°C); 10 m. temp .(°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degr ees); Wind Speed (m/s); So lar Radiation (Watt/cm2); Precipitation (Rain – Inches)
Grangeville 2 m. temp.(°C); 10 m. temp .(°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degr ees); Wind Speed (m/s); So lar Radiation (Watt/cm2); Precipitation (Rain – Inches) Middleton – Purple Sage 2 m. temp.(°C); 10 m. temp .(°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degrees); Wind Speed (m/s); Solar Radiation (Watt/cm2)
Meridian - St. Luke's 2 m. temp.(°C); 10 m. temp .(°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degrees); Wind S peed (m/s); Vertical Wind Speed (m/s); Solar Radiation (Watt/cm2);
Boise – Warm Springs 2 m. temp.(°C); 10 m. temp .(°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degrees); Wind S peed (m/s); Vertical Wind Speed (m/s); Solar Radiation (Watt/cm2); Garden City 2 m. temp (°C); 10 m. temp. (°C); Barometr ic Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degrees); Wind Speed (m/s); Solar Radiation (Watt/cm2)
Kimberly 2 m. temp.(°C); 10 m. temp .(°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degr ees); Wind Speed (m/s); So lar Radiation (Watt/cm2); Precipitation (Rain – Inches)
Pocatello 2 m. temp.(°C); 10 m. temp .(°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degrees); Wind Speed (m/s); Solar Radiation (Watt/cm2) Salmon – Hwy 93 2 m. temp. (°C); Barometric Pressure (mbar); Relative Humidity (%RH); Wind Direction (Degrees); Wind Speed (m /s); Solar Radiation (Watt/cm2)23 

### 4. DEQ Network Modifications As Planned in the EPA-Approved 2009 Ambient Monitoring Network Plan
The following sites were modified as descri bed here in accordance with the 2009 ambient monitoring network plan approved by EPA. (For each site, the AQS site number is provided in parentheses.)

1. St. Luke's meteorological tower was m oved on 9/17/2009 to approximately 30 feet adjacent to the monitoring enclosure to suppor t proper NOy reactor height installation. (16-001-0010) 2. Lakes Middle School continuous PM 2.5 tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) was terminated on 6/10/2009. (16-055-0006) 3. A continuous PM 2.5 station began monitoring 1/13/2009 at the Coeur d’Alene Lancaster Road. Site. (16-055-0003). 4. The Mountain View Elementary PM 2.5 FRM monitor was terminated on 12/01/2009. (16-001-0011)
5. The Mountain View Elementary continuous PM 2.5 TEOM was terminated on 12/03/2009. (16-001-0011) 6. A continuous PM 2.5 TEOM special purpose monitor (SPM) was installed on 7/22/2009 at Ernest Hemingway Elementary Sc hool in Ketchum. (16-013-0004).
7. The Salmon continuous TEOM PM 2.5 monitor was terminated on 10/29/2009. (16-059- 0004) 8. The St. Maries continuousTEOM PM 2.5 monitor was terminated on 1/7/2010. (16-005- 0010) 9. A continuous beta attenua tion monitor (BAM) 1020 PM 2.5 FEM monitor was initiated at the Salmon site on 9/01/2009. 10. A continuous BAM 1020 PM 2.5 FEM monitor was initiated at the Pinehurst site on 6/12/2009. 11. A continuous BAM 1020 PM 2.5 FEM monitor was initiated at the St. Maries site on 6/12/2009. 12. A continuous BAM 1020 PM 2.5 FEM monitor was initiated at the Nampa Fire Station site on 10/06/2009. 13. A continuous BAM 1020 PM 2.5 FEM monitor was initiated at the Meridian St. Luke’s site on 7/02/2009. 14. Sandpoint Middle Sch ool continuous PM 10 TEOM monitor was moved to the Sandpoint – U. S. Forest Service (USFS) site (16-017-0005) on 3/30/2009.24 

### 5. Network Modifications Proposed in This 2010 Ambient Monitoring Network Plan

Below is a brief discussion of DEQ’s rationale in pr oposing network modifica tions (if any) for each monitored pollutant, followed by a summary of those proposed changes. Annual air quality data summaries for DEQ’s air monitoring network can be found at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/ data_reports/monitoring

. More information about criteria pollutants (t hose pollutants for which EPA has established NAAQS) and NAAQS can be located at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/data_re ports/monitoring/overview.cfm#NAAQS

5.1. PM 10 Monitoring Network

Five PM 10 monitoring sites are curr ently in operation. These m onitors support local state implementation plans (SIPs) and/or PM 10 maintenance plans by demonstrating compliance with the PM 10 NAAQS, and will continue operation through 2011. PM 10 monitoring site locations are selected to represent average population exposure to spatially repr esentative PM concentrations in the middle, neighborhood, and urban scales.

Airsheds classified as “moderat e” nonattainment for the 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS (50 μg/m 3 ) in Idaho are:

• Bonner County – partia l (City of Sandpoint)

• Shoshone County – partial (excluding City of Pinehurst)

• Pinehurst (Shoshone County – pa rtial – City of Pinehurst)

• Fort Hall Reservation (Bannock County – partial, Power County – partial) The Fort Hall Reservation nonattainment area is on Tr ibal land and is not administered by DEQ. Airsheds previously classified as nonattainment , but now classified as maintenance areas with EPA-approved maintenance plans that identif y specific emissions control programs and demonstrate compliance with a specific NAAQS over specific tim eframes include:

• Boise-Northern Ada County

• Portneuf Valley (Bannock County – pa rtial, Power County – partial) Due to the necessity of PM 10 monitoring to meet the regulatory requirements associated with SIPs and maintenance plan objectives, DEQ proposes no change to the PM 10 monitoring network.

5.2. PM 2.5 FRM Monitoring Network DEQ operates a “core network” of six PM 2.5 monitoring sites for NAAQS compliance (FRM monitors). DEQ began monitoring PM 2.5 by FRM in 1998 with an initi al network of 13 sites. Over time, the network has been reduced to si x sites due to either site redundancy within25 airsheds, or overall low ambient concentrations relative to the NAAQS. The six remaining sites
are:

• Pinehurst

• St. Maries

• Treasure Valley (Nampa – Fire Station)

• Treasure Valley (Meridian – St. Luke’s)

• Salmon

• Franklin Federal regulations require a mini mum of two sites in the Treasu re Valley based on population. The Meridian monitor also satisfies the requirement for PM 2.5 FRM monitoring at NCore sites. In March 2008, EPA granted designation to Me t One Instruments’ BAM 1020, when equipped with the right accessories, federal equivalency as a PM 2.5 monitoring method. That is, the BAM 1020 (properly equipped) is a fede rally equivalent method (FEM) and data collected by the BAM 1020 is suitable for NAAQS compliance monito ring. The BAM 1020 is a continuous monitor, providing hourly-averaged data, which makes it us eful for air quality forecasting, air quality index reporting and NAAQS compliance determinati ons. In addition, the data is resolved at hourly intervals and provides more robust information to scientists performing public health assessments. Recognizing the advantage of m onitoring with an FEM that reconciles multiple monitoring objectives at a much reduced cost, DEQ purchased six BAM 1020 units to co-locate with the six FRM monitoring site s. DEQ will operate the BAM un its, co-located with the FRM monitors, for a period of one year and then perf orm a statistical assessment of the relationship (linear correlation) of the BAM 24-hr data to the FRM. If summary statistics indicate satisfactory correlation, DEQ will propose to EPA that the BAM 1020 units become the primary reporting monitors at the six core PM 2.5 monitoring sites. In additi on to substantial savings in filter processing costs associated with the FRM, the BAM 1020 can provide a daily (1/1) sampling frequency at a greatly reduced cost. The effective dates when the BAMs began collecting this data are:

• St. Maries BAM - 6/12/2009

• Pinehurst BAM - 6/12/2009

• Salmon BAM – 9/01/2009

• Nampa - FS BAM – 10/06/2009

• Meridian - St. Luke's BAM – 7/02/2009

• Franklin BAM – due to electrical issues , this monitor has not been initiated Co-located BAM 1020 and FRM m onitoring will continue until an alytical precision of the method can be assessed, after which change s may be proposed, as discussed above.26 With the exception of an issue at the Franklin FRM site (power, securi ty), which may require relocation of the monitor to another location nearby, DEQ is proposing no changes to the PM 2.5 FRM monitoring network in this 2010 Monito ring Network Plan. DEQ will notify EPA in advance of any proposal to relocate the Fra nklin monitor to ensure prior approval.

5.3. PM 2.5 Continuous Monitoring Network DEQ monitors PM 2.5 year-round at nineteen (19) sites th roughout the state with continuous PM 2.5 monitors (tapered element oscillating microbalan ce [TEOM] monitors), which are not designated as FRM or FEM, and therefore the data are not used for determining NAAQS compliance. The PM 2.5 TEOM data support DEQ’s air quality forecasting, AQI, and smoke management programs such as emergency response for wildfire smoke impacts. BAM 1020 monitors are operated at the Salmon and St. Maries sites for these same objectives. Although the BAM 1020 has been designated an FEM, data are not be ing used for NAAQS compliance assessment as stated in Section 5.2.

The PM 2.5 TEOMs are located at these monitoring sites:

• Sandpoint – USFS

• Coeur d’Alene – Lancaster Rd.

• St. Maries (BAM 1020)

• Pinehurst

• Moscow

• Lewiston

• Grangeville

• McCall

• Garden Valley

• Idaho City

• Nampa

• Meridian - St. Luke’s

• Idaho City

• Ketchum

• Twin Falls

• Pocatello

• Idaho Falls

• Salmon (BAM 1020)27 DEQ is proposing no changes to the PM 2.5 continuous monitoring network in this 2010 monitoring network plan. However, based on the outcome of the BAM 1020 v. FRM data assessments (Section 5.2), the BAM 1020 units may be selected to replace the TEOM units for continuous PM 2.5 monitoring at certain sites and then data would be used for AQI, air quality forecasting, and NAAQS compliance determinations.
5.4. Ozone Monitoring Network DEQ currently operates three ozone monitors in the Treasure Valley and one in Kootenai County on the Rathdrum Prairie near Coeur d’Alene. Fe deral regulations require two ozone monitors in an urban area or MSA the size of the Boise City MSA. One site must be designed to record the maximum concentration for the MSA. NCore site s are expected to complement the ozone data collection that take place at a si ngle-pollutant SLAMS site and both types of sites can be used to meet the network minimum requirements. The Treasure Valley ozone monitors are located at:

• The Boise Idaho Transportation (ITD) site on State Street

• The Meridian St. Luke’s site near the Meridian St. Luke’s Hospital

• The White Pine Elementary site in southeast Boise. DEQ began monitoring at the White Pine Elementa ry school in 2009 when it had to relocate the old Whitney Elementary School site when the school was demolished in 2008. The White Pine Elementary site was chosen based on eviden ce that it would repres ent the maximum ozone concentration for the Boise City MSA. Results of the study “ Ozone and its Precursors in the Treasure Valley, Idaho,” performed in the summer of 2007, concluded that southeast Boise demonstrated the maximum measured ozone concen trations in the Treasure Valley. The final report can be viewed at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/data _reports/reports/ada_co/oz one_treasure_valley_report.pdf

. In the summer months, Coeur d’Alene is typica lly downwind from the City of Spokane in Washington, about 25 miles southwest. EPA’s AirNow web site ( http://airnow.gov/ ) was frequently projecting the Coeur d’Alene area as “moderate” air quality based on ozone data collected in Spokane and regional meteorological data. In an e ffort to reconcile the AirNow forecasts for the airshed, DEQ began monitoring ozone at the Coeur d’ Alene Lancaster Road site in 2005. The Lancaster Road site was se lected based on EPA guidance that uses average afternoon wind direction and wind speed criteria to locate a ma ximum “downwind” monitoring site for an urban area like Spokane. In January 2010, EPA announced a proposed rulema king which, if enacted, will lower the ozone 8-hour NAAQS from its current level of 0.075 part s per million (ppm) to somewhere within the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm. EPA expects to an nounce a final determination in August 2010. Compliance with the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be determined from “design values” based on 2008-2010 monitoring data. Compliance is base d on the monitor with the highest 3-year design value. The 8-hour ozone design values ar e calculated by averaging the 4th-highest 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentration over three cons ecutive years. The design value is a 3-year28 rolling average in the sense that each year’s data adds a new number to the rolling figure while the oldest year drops off from the calculation. Although 2009 data is not yet official, it is pr ojected that the 2007 – 2009 design values for DEQ’s ozone monitors are:

• Meridian – St. Luke’s 0.069 ppm

• Boise – ITD 0.071 ppm

• Boise – White Pine – cannot be determined until after 2011 ozone monitoring season

• Coeur d’ Alene – Lancaster Rd. 0.061 ppm Because of the importance of the 2008 – 2010 ozone design values in regard to EPA’s proposed tightening of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, DEQ is proposing no cha nges to the ozone monitoring network in this 2010 monitoring network plan. DEQ is evaluating the potential relocation of the Boise – ITD monitor to the Middleton – Purple Sage site after the 2010 ozone monitoring season. EPA criteria for urban ozone monitoring will be retained with the Boise – White Pine Elemen tary and Meridian St. Luke’s site, while the Middleton Purple Sage site will provide ozone data from a location “upwind” of the urban influence and an estimate of ambien t ozone transported to the airshed. 5.5. Carbon Monoxide (C O) Monitoring Network Monitoring for carbon monoxide (CO) in the Treas ure Valley began in 1977. Violations of the health-based standard for CO occurred every winter from 1977 until 1986. As a result of these high levels of CO, northern Ada County was de signated a CO nonattainment area by EPA. In December 2002, the Northern Ada County CO Lim ited Maintenance Plan was approved by EPA, which reclassified the area as attainment fo r the CO NAAQS. No exceedances of the CO NAAQS have occurred since 1991. DEQ operates two CO monitors, on e at the Boise – Eastman site in downtown Boise, and one at the Meridian St. Luke’s site. The Boise – Eastma n site is an “urban canyon” site designed to measure maximum concentrations to which the popul ation is exposed. This site is needed to demonstrate NAAQS compliance as specified in the Northern Ada County CO Maintenance Plan. The Meridian St. Luke’s CO monitor is a “trace-level” monitor, measuring much lower CO than conventional CO monitors used for NA AQS compliance. The Meridian St. Luke’s CO monitor is required for NCore sites. DEQ is proposing no changes to the CO monito ring network in this 2010 monitoring network plan.
5.6. Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Monitoring Network

Three SO 2 monitors currently operate in Idaho:

• Pocatello – Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)

• Soda Springs

• Meridian – St. Luke’s29 The Pocatello Sewage Treatment Plant site is a maximum concentration site used to assess impacts of local industrial emissions. The Soda Springs monitor is also a maximum concentration site for assessing industrial impacts from a nearby source. Both SO 2 monitoring locations in southeastern Idaho were identifi ed as fence-line “hot spots” from conventional dispersion model applications. Th e St. Luke’s monitor is a “tra ce-level” monito r, required for NCore monitoring. DEQ is proposing no changes to the SO 2 monitoring network as part of this 2010 monitoring network plan.
5.7. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) Monitoring Network

NO 2 is monitored at the Meridian - St. Luke's NC ore site on a year-round ba sis and is monitored during ozone season (May through September) at the Coeur d’Alene Lancaster site. The Meridian - St. Luke's monitor is a “trace-leve l” monitor and is an NCore requirement. The Coeur d’ Alene Lancaster Road site is collecting oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) information which includes both nitrogen oxide (NO) and NO 2 measurements. This data will be useful for modeling ozone in the airshed.

No exceedances or violations of the NO 2 NAAQS have been measured in Idaho. DEQ is proposing no changes to the NO 2 monitoring network as part of this 2010 monitoring network plan.
5.8. Lead (Pb) Monitoring Network Except for PM 2.5 chemical speciation at the Meridi an NCore site, DEQ currently does not monitor lead in Idaho. However, on November 12, 2008, EPA tightened the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead. EPA revise d the level of the primary standard from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) to 0.15 μg/m 3 , measured as total suspended particulate (TSP). EPA also promulgated new monitoring re quirements, requiring monitoring near sources that emitting more than 1.0 ton pe r year of lead, and in Core Base d Statistical Areas with greater than 500,000 population. The source-oriented m onitors were deployed January 1, 2010, and the nonsource-oriented monitors are requir ed to be deployed January 1, 2011. On December 23, 2009, EPA proposed to revise the ambient monitoring requirements for measuring airborne lead. EPA is proposing to change the lead em issions monitoring threshold to 0.50 tons per year (tpy). Air qual ity monitoring agencies would use this threshold to determine if placement of an air quality monitor near a facility that emits lead is required. EPA proposes that these source-oriented monitors would begin operati ng one year after this ru le is finalized (the final rule is expected in Apr il 2010). EPA is also proposing to require lead monitoring at NCore sites instead of the current requ irement to place lead monitors in each Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) with a population of 500,000 or more . Under this proposal, lead monitoring at NCore sites would begin January 1, 2011.30 EPA will allow the use of Pb-PM 10 monitoring instead of Pb-TSP monitoring in certain limited circumstances. If Pb-PM 10 low-volume monitoring would be a llowed where lead is not expected to occur as large particles and a monitoring agency can demonstrate that lead concentrations are not expected to have three-month av erages greater than or equal to 0.1 μ g/m 3 , then Pb-PM 10 monitoring would be allowed. If a Pb-PM 10 monitor measures three-month levels greater than or equal to 0.1 μ g/m 3 , then the monitoring agency would ha ve to install and operate a Pb-TSP monitor within six months. Any Pb-PM 10 measurements exceeding the NAAQS could lead toward a violation of the standard. DEQ is proposing to monitor Pb-PM 10 at the Meridian – St. L uke’s NCore site, beginning January 1, 2011. Pb-PM 10 was a parameter monitored durin g the Treasure Valley Community Scale Hazardous Air Pollutants Study in 2007 and 2008. There were 290 samples collected at five monitoring sites in Parma, Nampa, and Bois e. The maximum lead concentration measured during this study was 0.019 μg/m 3 and the median concentration was 0.002 μg/m 3 . The 2005 National Emission Inventory iden tifies non-road mobile sources (e.g., general aviation) as the major emissions category for lead in Ada County, indicating that lead is not likely found in the coarser fraction (larger particles) of TSP. DEQ proposes to utilize a low-volume PM10 sampler to collect samples for lead concentrations determination. DEQ will install two Partisol 2025 sequential samplers (EPA method RFPS1298-127); one will collect the primary reporting sample and the second will be the precision monitor for quality control assessments. The primary sampler is required to collect samples every sixth day (1/6) in accordan ce with the national monitoring schedule, the precision sampler is required to collect sample s every twelfth day (1/12), also on the national schedule. Laboratory analysis will be perfor med either by Idaho’s Bureau of Laboratories or an alternate laboratory through a national co ntract managed by EPA. EPA is currently working on establishing a national contract for lead analysis , and is also working on establishing alternate FEM(s) for Pb-PM 10 lead analysis. If a suitable FEM is promulgated, the first option with the Idaho Bureau of Laboratories is preferred by DEQ. The annual cost for monitoring lead w ill be approximately $20,270, including operation, maintenance, laboratory analysis of PM 10 mass, laboratory analysis of Pb, data handling, and quality assurance.

5.9. PM 10-2.5 (PMcoarse) PMcoarse is defined as the particulate fracti on with a nominal diameter between 2.5 and 10.0 μ. PMcoarse can be monitored by calculating the fr actional mass difference between co-located and matching (i.e., same type of monitor) FRM PM 10c and FRM PM 2.5 monitors. Section 3 of Appendix D, 40 CFR Part 58, requires PMcoarse monitoring at NCore monitoring stations. As with all NCore monitoring require ments, agencies are required to initiate this requirement by January 1, 2011.31 DEQ proposes to initiate PMco arse monitoring at the Meridi an – St. Luke’s NCore site, beginning January 1, 2011. DEQ will calculate Pmcoarse concentrations by calculating mass difference between data collected from the existing PM 2.5 FRM sampler currently in operation and data collected from the PM 10 sampler proposed in Section 5.8.

Both the PM 2.5 and PM 10c samplers will be operated every thir d day (1/3) in accordance with the national monitoring schedule. The annual cost for monitoring PMcoarse is es timated at $9,386 for the laboratory processing of the additional PM 10 filters due to the 1/3 sampling freque ncy, added operations and maintenance, and data management. Much of the cost for PMcoarse is already encumbered by the routine PM 2.5 monitoring and PM 10 monitoring associated with Pb-PM 10 . 5.10. Summary of Proposed Networ k Modifications for DEQ’s 2010 Air Monitoring Network Plan

• Initiation of Pb-PM 10 monitoring, beginning January 1, 2010, at Meridian St. Luke’s NCore site.

• Initiation of PMcoarse monitoring, beginning January 1, 2010, at Meridian St. Luke’s NCore site.



### 6. Future Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements and Associated Costs
EPA is required to review criteria pollutant NAAQS on a routine 5-year schedule. EPA has recently completed their review of a number of pollutants and through rulemaking is proposing changes to ambient air monitoring requirements fo r those pollutants. In most cases, additional monitors and new monitoring sites will be required in Idaho. New funding sources for new monitoring initiatives have yet to be identifi ed. Below is a summary of recent proposals and final rules for certain criteria pollutants.
6.1. Lead (Pb)
As mentioned in Section 5.8, EPA is reconsidering the ambient ai r monitoring requirements in the 2008 lead NAAQS final rule. Monitoring will begin January 1, 2011, and will add approximately $20,000 to DEQ’s annual monitoring costs. EPA intends to finalize lead monitoring requirements in April of 2010.
6.2. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) On January 22, 2010, EPA announced a fi nal rule that tightened the NO 2 NAAQS. It establishes a new one-hour NO 2 standard of 100 parts per billion (ppb ) while retaining the annual standard of 53 ppb.32 Within the rule are new monitoring requirements. For Idaho, the addition of a “near roadway” monitor will be required in the Bo ise urban area by January 1, 2013. This site will have to be within 50 meters from the curb of the busiest road segment in the Boise City-Nampa MSA. DEQ’s proposed NO 2 monitoring network modifications will be submitted to EPA in the 2012 ambient air monitoring network plan, due July 1, 2012. Capital start-up costs for the one near-roadwa y site will be approximately $100,000. Annual operations, maintenance, and data manage ment costs will be approximately $20,000.
6.3. Ozone (O 3 ) In July 2009, EPA announced a proposed rulema king to revise ambient air ozone monitoring requirements. In the proposal, EPA is recomm ending that air monitoring agencies establish ozone monitors in MSAs with populations between 50,000 and 350,000. In addition, agencies will need to establish monitors in three additional types of locati ons: 1) a micropolitan statistical are with population between 10,000 and 50,000, in orde r to characterize ozone concentrations in areas of lesser population where high ozone concentrations ar e expected; 2) a federally managed or tribal non-urban location, to characterize sens itive ecosystems; and 3) a rural location where high ozone concentrations transported from urba n areas are expected. EPA has proposed that monitoring agencies can leverage data from ozone monitors currently operated by federal agencies (meeting all required EPA criteria), wh ich can be applied toward the minimum network requirements. EPA expects to issue the final ozone monito ring requirements in the spring of 2010. These additional ozone monitoring requirements are proposed to begin January 1, 2012. If finalized as proposed, the impact on DEQ’s ozone monitoring network will be the required addition of either five or six new sites. If DEQ proposes to include the already-established Craters of the Moon (operated by the National Park Service at Craters of the Moon National Monument) ozone monitor and EPA approves, DEQ w ill be have to add five sites to its ozone network by January 1, 2012, lik ely in the following areas:

• Idaho Falls (MSA ≥ 50,000 ≤ 350,000)

• Pocatello (MSA ≥ 50,000 ≤ 350,000)

• Lewiston (MSA ≥ 50,000 ≤ 350,000)

• Twin Falls (micropolitan statistical area)

• Site to be determined (rural transport)

• Craters of the Moon National Monument (fed eral lands) If approved, this alreadyestablished monitoring s ite would become part of the ozone network) Assuming the addition of just five new ozone sites, the capital start-up cost(s) will be approximately $450,000 and the costs for annual opera tions, maintenance, and data management will be approximately $92,000.33 DEQ’s proposed ozone monitoring network modifi cations will be submitted to EPA in the 2011 ambient air monitoring network plan, due July 1, 2011.
6.4. Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) On November 16, 2009, EPA proposed to strengthen the SO 2 NAAQS with a 1-hour standard. EPA expects to publish the final SO 2 rule in June 2010. Under the same rule, EPA is also proposing to change the monitoring requireme nts to a two-pronged approach based on a population-weighted emissions index (PWEI) and on statewide SO 2 emissions relative to the national total SO 2 emissions. Under this proposal, Ida ho would not be required to deploy a monitor based on the PWEI, but would be required to deploy a minimum of one monitor based on relative emissions. As mentioned in Section 5.6, DEQ already operates three SO 2 monitors in the state. It is expected that one of the two monitors in southeastern Idaho will be approved by EPA to meet the network minimu m required by this proposed rule. Monitoring required by this rule is proposed to begin January 1, 2013. DEQ expects no impact in monitoring costs to comply with the monitoring requirements. DEQ’s proposed SO 2 monitoring network modifications (if any) will be submitted to EPA in the 2012 ambient air monitoring netw ork plan, due July 1, 2012.