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 83706 
 2010 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 Objectives, Scales of Representativeness and 

Area(s) Represented...................................................................................................... 14 

3.3. Monitoring Methods, Monitor Designation 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. PM10 Monitoring Network ............................................................................................ 24 

5.2. PM2.5 FRM Monitoring Network.................................................................................. 24 

5.3. PM2.5 Continuous Monitoring Network........................................................................ 26 

5.4. Ozone Monitoring Network.......................................................................................... 27 

5.5. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Monitoring Network.............................................................. 28 

5.6. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Monitoring Network .................................................................. 28 

5.7. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Monitoring Network ............................................................. 29 

5.8. Lead (Pb)Monitoring Network ..................................................................................... 29 

5.9. PM10-2.5 (PMcoarse) ...................................................................................................... 30 

 Summary of Proposed Network Modifications 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 (NO2)................................................................................................ 31 

6.3. Ozone (O3) .................................................................................................................... 32 

6.4. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) .................................................................................................... 33 

List of Tables 

Table 3-1. DEQ Monitoring Stations, Locations, and AQS Identification Codes.......................... 5

Table 3-2. Relationships Between Site Types and Scales of Representativeness ........................ 15

Table 3-3. Monitoring Objectives, Areas Represented, and Scales of Representation ................ 16

Table 3-4. Air Monitoring Method Codes .................................................................................... 18

Table 3-5. Pollutants/Monitor Designation/Sampling Frequency/Method Codes........................ 19

Table 3-6. DEQ Meteorological Monitoring Stations and Parameters......................................... 22
 2010 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan 

ii 

List of Figures 

Figure 3-1. Coeur d’Alene Regional Office Monitoring Stations .................................................. 7

Figure 3-2. Lewiston Regional Office Monitoring Stations ........................................................... 8

Figure 3-3. Boise Regional Office Monitoring Stations................................................................. 9

Figure 3-4. Twin Falls Regional Office Monitoring Stations....................................................... 11

Figure 3-5. Pocatello Regional Office Monitoring Stations ......................................................... 12

Figure 3-6. Idaho Falls Regional Office Monitoring Stations ...................................................... 13

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

Standard ...................................................................................................................... 19
 2010 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. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional 

Administrator an annual monitoring network plan which shall provide for the establishment and 

maintenance of an air quality surveillance system that consists of a network made up of the 

following types of monitoring 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 network of multi-pollutant monitoring stations) 

• PM2.5 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 inspection for at least 30 

days prior to submission to EPA. Any annual monitoring network plan that proposes SLAMS 

network modifications including new monitoring sites is subject to the approval of the EPA 

Regional Administrator, who shall 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 received comments together with the plan, the 

Regional Administrator is not required to provide a separate opportunity for comment. 

The plan shall provide for all required stations to be operational by January 1, 2011. The plan 

shall provide for all required non-source-oriented lead (Pb) monitoring sites to be operational by 

January 1, 2011. Specific site locations for the sites 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 contain the following information for each existing 

and proposed site: 

1. The AQS (air quality system, EPA’s database) site identification number. 

2. The location, including street address 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 monitoring 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 suitable and any sites that are not suitable for 

comparison against the annual PM2.5 (particulate matter with diameter ≤ 2.5 microns 

[μ] national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) as described in § 58.30. 

8. The metropolitan statistical area (MSA), core based statistical area (CBSA), combined 

statistical area (CSA) or other area represented by the monitor. 

9. The designation of any Pb monitors as either source-oriented or nonsource-oriented 

according to Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 58. 

10. Any source-oriented monitors for which a waiver has been requested or granted by the 

EPA Regional Administrator as allowed for under paragraph 4.5(a)(ii) of Appendix D 

to 40 CFR Part 58. 

11. Any source-oriented or nonsource-oriented site 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 under paragraph 2.10 of Appendix C to 40 

CFR Part 58. 

The annual monitoring network plan must document how States and local agencies provide for 

the review of changes to a PM2.5 monitoring network that impact the location of a violating PM2.5

monitor. The affected State or local agency must document the process for obtaining public 

comment and include any comments received through the public notification process 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 network is achieving its 

monitoring objectives and to identify any needed modifications. 

2. Air Quality Surveillance Systems and Monitoring Objectives 

Ambient air monitoring objectives have shifted over time; a situation that requires air quality 

agencies to re-evaluate and reconfigure monitoring 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). For example, the problems of high ambient 

concentrations of lead and carbon monoxide have largely been solved. 
3 

• Populations and behaviors have changed. For example, the U.S. population has (on 

average) grown, aged, and shifted toward urban and suburban areas over the past four 

decades. In addition, rates of vehicle ownership and annual miles driven have increased. 

• New air quality objectives have been established, including rules to reduce air toxics, fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), and regional haze. 

• The understanding of air quality issues and the capability to monitor air quality have both 

improved. Together, the enhanced understanding and capabilities can be used to design 

more effective air monitoring networks. 

Ambient air monitoring networks must be designed to meet three basic monitoring objectives. 

These basic objectives are listed below. The appearance of any one objective in the order of this 

list is not based upon a prioritized scheme. Each objective is important 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 attractive 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 compliance with ambient air quality standards and 

developing emissions control strategies. Data from qualified monitors for NAAQS 

pollutants will be used for comparing an area’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 NCore station data, will be used to evaluate 

the regional air quality models used in developing emission strategies, and to track trends 

in air pollution abatement control measures’ impact on improving air quality. In 

monitoring locations near major air pollution 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 assessments and atmospheric processes, or for 

monitoring methods development work. 

In order to support the air quality management work indicated in the three basic air monitoring 

objectives, a network must be designed with a variety 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 sources. These types of sites are 

summarized in the following list of six general site types according to the type of information 

they are designed to provide: 

(a) Sites located to determine the maximum concentrations of air pollutants expected to 

occur in the area covered by the network. 
4 

(b) Sites located to measure typical pollutant concentrations 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 concentration 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 impacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or other 

welfare-based impacts. 

The adequacy of an ambient air monitoring network 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 regulations, 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 visualizing 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 saturation 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 maintaining the ambient air monitoring network for the 

State of Idaho. Some air monitors in Idaho are managed by tribal monitoring organizations on 

tribal lands. This document is limited to the monitors 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 ambient air monitoring network is operated and 

maintained by DEQ’s six (6) Regional Office monitoring staff. Figures 3-1 through 3-6 display 

the locations of the monitoring apportioned by the responsible Regional Office. 

Table 3-1 is a list of DEQ’s air monitoring sites, including addresses, 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 29th 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 160010019 
6 

Site Address Latitude/ 

Longitude 

AQS 

Identification

BoiseEastman Garage 166 N. 9th, Boise, ID 83702 +43.616379/ 

-116.203817 160010014 

BoiseFire Station #5 16th & Front, Boise, ID 83702 +43.618889/ 

-116.213611 

160010009 

BoiseWhite Pine Elementary 401 East Linden St. Boise, ID 83706 +43.577603/ 

-116.178156 160010017 

BoiseWarm 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 

160590005 
7 

Figure 3-1. Coeur d’Alene Regional Office Monitoring Stations
8 

Figure 3-2. Lewiston Regional Office Monitoring Stations 
9 

Figure 3-3. Boise Regional Office Monitoring Stations 
10 

Figure 3-3. (continued) 
11 

Figure 3-4. Twin Falls Regional Office Monitoring Stations 
12 

Figure 3-5. Pocatello Regional Office Monitoring Stations 
13 

Figure 3-6. Idaho Falls Regional Office Monitoring Stations
 2010 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan 

14 

3.2. DEQ Monitoring Network – Monitoring Objectives, Scales of 

Representativeness, and Area(s) Represented 

The ambient air quality and meteorological 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 maximum pollutant concentrations, 

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

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

• determining the effectiveness of air pollution control programs, 

• evaluating the effects of air pollution levels on public health, 

• tracking the progress of air quality-related state implementation plans (SIPs), 

• supporting pollutant dispersion models, 

• developing responsible, cost-effective air pollution control strategies, and 

• analyzing air quality trends. 

To clarify the nature of the link between general 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 correctly match the spatial scale represented by the 

sample of monitored air with the spatial scale most appropriate for the monitoring site type, the 

air pollutant to be measured, and the monitoring 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 most interest for the monitoring site types described above are as 

follows: 

(a) Microscale - Defines the concentrations in air volumes 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 some extended area of the city that 

has relatively uniform land use with dimensions 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 homogeneously distributed air pollutants. 

(d) Urban scale - Defines concentrations within an area of city-like dimensions, on the order 

of 4 to 50 kilometers. Within a city, the geographic placement of emissions sources may 

result in there being no single site that can be said to represent 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 monitor requires specification of the monitoring 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 objective 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 precursor emission patterns, public activity, and 

meteorological characteristics affecting ozone formation and dispersion. Thus, spatial scale of 

representativeness was not used in the selection process but was a result of site location. 

In some cases, the physical location of a site is determined from joint consideration of both the 

basic monitoring objective and the type of monitoring site desired or required. For example, to 

determine what PM2.5 concentrations are typical over a geographic area that has relatively high 

PM2.5 concentrations, a neighborhood scale site is most appropriate. Such a site would likely be 

located in a residential or commercial area having a high overall PM2.5 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 relationship between the various site types 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 the 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 CBSA 
16 

associated with at least one urbanized area 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 greater is termed a micropolitan statistical area. A CSA consists of 

two or more adjacent CBSAs. The term MSA is used 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 political boundaries. An MSA or CSA may also cross more than one 

airshed. The EPA recognizes that state or local agencies must consider MSA/CSA boundaries 

and their own political boundaries and geographical characteristics in designing their air 

monitoring networks. The EPA recognizes that there may be situations where theEPA Regional

Administrator and the affected state or local agencies may need to augment or to divide the 

overall MSA/CSA monitoring responsibilities and requirements among these various agencies to 

achieve an effective network design. Full monitoring 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, and 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 

PM10* SIP* 

PM10 NAAQS* 

Bonner County Urban 

Coeur d’Alene – 

Lancaster Rd. 

AQI 

O3* NAAQS 

Modeling-meteorological 

Coeur d’ Alene, ID MSA* Urban 

St. Maries PM2.5* NAAQS 

AQI Benewah County Neighborhood 

Pinehurst 

PM10 SIP 

PM10 NAAQS 

PM2.5 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** Urban 
17 

Site Monitoring Objective Area Represented Monitoring 

Scale 

Nampa 

PM10 NAAQS 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

AQI 

Boise City-Nampa MSA** Neighborhood 

Meridian – 

St. Luke’s 

NCore-trace gas 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

PM2.5 Chemical Speciation 

O3 NAAQS 

NO2* NAAQS 

AQI 

Modeling-meteorological 

Boise City-Nampa MSA** Neighborhood 

Boise – 

ITD O3 NAAQS Boise City-Nampa MSA* Neighborhood 

Boise – 

Eastman Garage 

CO* SIP 

CO NAAQS Northern Ada County Micro 

Boise – 

Fire Station #5 

PM10 SIP 

PM10 NAAQS Northern Ada County Neighborhood 

Boise – 

White Pine Elementary O3 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 

PM10 SIP 

PM10 NAAQS 

AQI 

Modeling-meteorological 

Pocatello, ID MSA Neighborhood 

Pocatello – 

Sewage Treatment Plant SO2* NAAQS Pocatello, ID MSA Middle 

Franklin PM2.5 NAAQS 

AQI Logan UT – ID MSA Urban 

Soda Springs SO2 NAAQS Caribou County Micro 

Idaho Falls AQI Idaho Falls, ID MSA Neighborhood 

Salmon – 

Charles St. 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

AQI Lemhi County Neighborhood 

Salmon – 

Hwy 93 Modeling-meteorological Lemhi County Urban 

* AQI – air quality index; SIP – state implementation plan; NAAQS – national ambient air quality standard; PM10 – particulate matter 

less than 10 microns in diameter; MSA – metropolitan statistical area; O3 – ozone; PM2.5 -- particulate matter less than 2.5 microns 

in diameter; NO2 – nitrogen dioxide; SO2 – sulfur dioxide

** Boise City-Nampa MSA, as defined by the US Census Bureau, includes Ada, Boise, Canyon, Gem, and Owyhee counties 
18 

3.3. Monitoring Methods, Monitor Designation, and Sampling Frequency 

Generally, monitoring methods used for making NAAQS compliance determinations at a 

SLAMS site must be designated federal reference (FRM) or federal equivalent (FEM) methods, 

in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53. A method for monitoring PM2.5 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. Special purpose monitors (SPMs) do not meet any 

of the above criteria and are typically used for special studies or as surrogate measures or 

indicators of emergency episodes (e.g., nephelometers 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 parameters are not included in the table. 

Table 3-4. Air Monitoring Method Codes 

Parameter/ 

Pollutant* 

Method 

Designation 

AQS Method 

Code Instrument and Instrument Parameters 

PM10 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 

SO2 FRM 100 Teledyne API Model 100A – UV Fluorescent 

SO2 FRM 060 Thermo Model 43C, pulsed fluorescence 

SO2 FRM 600** Teledyne API, Model 100EU – UV Fluorescent 

O3 FRM 087 Teledyne API, Model 400E 

NO2 FRM 099 Teledyne API, Model 200E – Chemiluminescence 

NOy FRM 599** Teledyne API, Model 200EU 

PM2.5 FRM 118 R&P Model 2025 Sequential w/WINS, Gravimetric 

PM2.5 FRM 145 R&P Model 2025 Sequential w/ VSCC 

PM2.5 SPM 701 or 703*** R&P TEOM w/ SCC – no correction factor 

PM2.5 SPM 715 or 716*** R&P TEOM w/ VSCC – no correction factor 

PM2.5 SPM 702 or 704*** R&P TEOM w/ SCC – correction factor 

PM2.5 FEM 761 R&P TEOM w/ VSCC & FDMS 

PM2.5 FEM 170 Met One Beta Gauge (BAM) 

* PM10 – particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; CO – carbon monoxide; SO2 – sulfur dioxide; O3 – ozone; NO2 – 

nitrogen dioxide; Noy – total reactive nitrogen; PM2.5 – particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; TEOM – tapered 

element oscillating microbalance 

** Trace gas monitor – NCore 

*** Applicable code varies seasonally w/ instrument operating temperature settings 

Monitoring sites designated as SLAMS sites (not NCore sites), are intended to address specific 

air quality management interests, and as such, are 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 the annual network 

plan and in the Air Quality System (AQS) do not count toward meeting network minimum 
19 

requirements. SPM sites using methods designated as FRMs or FEMs or approved as ARMs are 

bound to the quality assurance requirements of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 58. 

Gaseous pollutants and meteorological parameters 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 continuously or by time-integrated filter-based methods. 

Filter-based methods typically collect samples 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 minimum monitoring schedule for a site is based on the 

relative concentration level at that monitoring site with respect 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 monitoring networ, Table 3-5 lists the pollutants 

monitored, the monitor’s designation (e.g., SLAMS), 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 

PM10 – TEOM 

PM2.5 – TEOM 

SLAMS 

SLAMS 

Continuous 

Continuous 

079 

715 or 716 
20 

Site Pollutant 

Monitored** 

Monitor 

Designation**

Monitoring 

Frequency 

AQS 

Method 

Code 

Coeur d’Alene – 

Lancaster Rd. 

PM2.5 - TEOM 

O3

NOx 

10-meter meteorology

SPM 

SLAMS 

SPM 

SPM 

Continuous 

Continuous 

Continuous 

Continuous 

715 or 716 

087 

099 

* 

St. Maries 

PM2.5 – FRM 

PM2.5 - TEOM 

PM2.5 – BAM 

SLAMS 

SLAMS 

SPM 

Every sixth day (1/6) 

Continuous 

Continuous 

145 

715 or 716 

170 

Pinehurst 

PM2.5 – FRM 

PM2.5 – FRM Precision

PM2.5 – TEOM/FDMS

PM2.5 - BAM 

PM10 - 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 PM2.5 - TEOM 

10-meter meteorology

SLAMS 

SPM 

Continuous 

Continuous 

702 or 704 

* 

Lewiston PM2.5 - TEOM 

10-meter meteorology

SLAMS 

SPM 

Continuous 

Continuous 

702 or 704 

* 

Grangeville PM2.5 - TEOM 

10-meter meteorology

SLAMS 

SPM 

Continuous 

Continuous 

702 or 704 

* 

McCall PM2.5 – TEOM SLAMS Continuous 715 or 716 

Garden Valley PM2.5– TEOM SPM Continuous 715 or 716 

Middleton – 

Purple Sage 

PM2.5- TEOM 

10-meter meteorology

SPM 

SPM 

Continuous 

Continuous

715 or 716 

* 

Nampa 

PM10 - TEOM 

PM2.5 - FRM 

PM2.5 - TEOM 

PM2.5 – BAM 

SLAMS 

SLAMS 

SLAMS 

SPM 

Continuous 

Every third day (1/3) 

Continuous 

Continuous 

079 

118 

715 or 716 

170 

Meridian 

St. Luke’s 

PM2.5 - FRM 

PM2.5 - TEOM 

PM2.5 - BAM 

PM2.5 Chemical 

Speciation 

O3

SO2

NO2

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. O3 SLAMS Continuous 087 

BoiseEastman Garage CO SLAMS Continuous 093 

BoiseFire Station #5 PM10 SLAMS Continuous 079 
21 

Site Pollutant 

Monitored** 

Monitor 

Designation**

Monitoring 

Frequency 

AQS 

Method 

Code 

BoiseWhite Pine Elementary O3 SLAMS Continuous 087 

BoiseWarm Springs 10-meter meteorology SPM Continuous * 

Garden City 10-meter meteorology SLAMS Continuous * 

Idaho City PM2.5 – TEOM SLAMS Continuous 715 or 716 

Ketchum PM2.5 – TEOM SLAMS Continuous 715 or 716 

Twin Falls PM2.5 – TEOM SLAMS Continuous 715 or 716 

Kimberly 10-meter meteorology SPM Continuous * 

Pocatello 

PM2.5 - TEOM 

PM10 - TEOM 

10-meter meteorology

SLAMS 

SLAMS 

SPM 

Continuous 

Continuous 

Continuous 

715 or 716 

079 

* 

PocatelloSewage Treatment Plant SO2 SLAMS Continuous 100 

Franklin PM2.5 - FRM 

PM2.5 – BAM 

SLAMS 

SPM 

Every sixth day (1/6) 

Continuous 

145 

170 

Soda Springs SO2 SLAMS Continuous 060 

Idaho Falls PM2.5 – TEOM SLAMS Continuous 715 or 716 

Salmon – 

Charles St. 

PM2.5 - FRM 

PM2.5 – 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: PM10 – particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 – particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in 

diameter; TEOM – tapered element oscillating microbalance; O3 – ozone; NO2 – nitrogen dioxide; FRM – federal reference method; 

FDMS – filter dynamics measurement system; BAM – beta attenuation monitor; SO2 – 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 index forecasting and air quality modeling analyses. 

DEQ is adjusting and standardizing the meteorological parameters collected to ensure the 

required inputs for regulatory (e.g. AERMOD) and 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 Measurement 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 (Degrees); Wind Speed (m/s); Solar Radiation (Watt/cm2); 

Precipitation (Rain – Inches) 

Pinehurst 

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); 

Precipitation (Rain – Inches) 

Coeur d’Alene – 

Lancaster Rd. 

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); 

Precipitation (Rain – Inches) 

Moscow 

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); 

Precipitation (Rain – Inches) 

Lewiston 

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); 

Precipitation (Rain – Inches) 

Grangeville 

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); 

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 Speed (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 Speed (m/s); Vertical Wind Speed (m/s); 

Solar Radiation (Watt/cm2); 

Garden City 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) 

Kimberly 

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); 

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 described 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 moved on 9/17/2009 to approximately 30 feet 

adjacent to the monitoring enclosure to support proper NOy reactor height installation. 

(16-001-0010) 

2. Lakes Middle School continuous PM2.5 tapered element oscillating microbalance 

(TEOM) was terminated on 6/10/2009. (16-055-0006) 

3. A continuous PM2.5 station began monitoring 1/13/2009 at the Coeur d’Alene Lancaster 

Road. Site. (16-055-0003). 

4. The Mountain View Elementary PM2.5 FRM monitor was terminated on 12/01/2009. 

(16-001-0011) 

5. The Mountain View Elementary continuous PM2.5 TEOM was terminated on 12/03/2009. 

(16-001-0011) 

6. A continuous PM2.5 TEOM special purpose monitor (SPM) was installed on 7/22/2009 at 

Ernest Hemingway Elementary School in Ketchum. (16-013-0004). 

7. The Salmon continuous TEOM PM2.5 monitor was terminated on 10/29/2009. (16-059-

0004) 

8. The St. Maries continuousTEOM PM2.5 monitor was terminated on 1/7/2010. (16-005-

0010) 

9. A continuous beta attenuation monitor (BAM) 1020 PM2.5 FEM monitor was initiated at 

the Salmon site on 9/01/2009. 

10. A continuous BAM 1020 PM2.5 FEM monitor was initiated at the Pinehurst site on 

6/12/2009. 

11. A continuous BAM 1020 PM2.5 FEM monitor was initiated at the St. Maries site on 

6/12/2009. 

12. A continuous BAM 1020 PM2.5 FEM monitor was initiated at the Nampa Fire Station 

site on 10/06/2009. 

13. A continuous BAM 1020 PM2.5 FEM monitor was initiated at the Meridian St. Luke’s 

site on 7/02/2009. 

14. Sandpoint Middle School continuous PM10 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 proposing network modifications (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 (those pollutants for which EPA has established 

NAAQS) and NAAQS can be located at: 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/data_reports/monitoring/overview.cfm#NAAQS

5.1. PM10 Monitoring Network 

Five PM10 monitoring sites are currently in operation. These monitors support local state 

implementation plans (SIPs) and/or PM10 maintenance plans by demonstrating compliance with 

the PM10 NAAQS, and will continue operation through 2011. PM10 monitoring site locations are 

selected to represent average population exposure to spatially representative PM concentrations 

in the middle, neighborhood, and urban scales. 

Airsheds classified as “moderate” nonattainment for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS (50 μg/m3) in 

Idaho are: 

• Bonner County – partial (City of Sandpoint) 

• Shoshone County – partial (excluding City of Pinehurst) 

• Pinehurst (Shoshone County – partial – City of Pinehurst) 

• Fort Hall Reservation (Bannock County – partial, Power County – partial) 

The Fort Hall Reservation nonattainment area is on Tribal land and is not administered by DEQ. 

Airsheds previously classified as nonattainment, but now classified as maintenance areas with 

EPA-approved maintenance plans that identify specific emissions control programs and 

demonstrate compliance with a specific NAAQS over specific timeframes include: 

• Boise-Northern Ada County 

• Portneuf Valley (Bannock County – partial, Power County – partial) 

Due to the necessity of PM10 monitoring to meet the regulatory requirements associated with 

SIPs and maintenance plan objectives, DEQ proposes no change to the PM10 monitoring 

network. 

5.2. PM2.5 FRM Monitoring Network 

DEQ operates a “core network” of six PM2.5 monitoring sites for NAAQS compliance (FRM 

monitors). DEQ began monitoring PM2.5 by FRM in 1998 with an initial network of 13 sites. 

Over time, the network has been reduced to six sites due to either site redundancy within 
25 

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 minimum of two sites in the Treasure Valley based on population. 

The Meridian monitor also satisfies the requirement for PM2.5 FRM monitoring at NCore sites. 

In March 2008, EPA granted designation to Met One Instruments’ BAM 1020, when equipped 

with the right accessories, federal equivalency as a PM2.5 monitoring method. That is, the BAM 

1020 (properly equipped) is a federally equivalent method (FEM) and data collected by the BAM 

1020 is suitable for NAAQS compliance monitoring. The BAM 1020 is a continuous monitor, 

providing hourly-averaged data, which makes it useful for air quality forecasting, air quality 

index reporting and NAAQS compliance determinations. In addition, the data is resolved at 

hourly intervals and provides more robust information to scientists performing public health 

assessments. Recognizing the advantage of monitoring 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 sites. DEQ will operate the BAM units, co-located with the FRM 

monitors, for a period of one year and then perform 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 PM2.5 monitoring sites. In addition 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 monitoring will continue until analytical precision of the 

method can be assessed, after which changes may be proposed, as discussed above. 
26 

With the exception of an issue at the Franklin FRM site (power, security), which may require 

relocation of the monitor to another location nearby, DEQ is proposing no changes to the PM2.5

FRM monitoring network in this 2010 Monitoring Network Plan. DEQ will notify EPA in 

advance of any proposal to relocate the Franklin monitor to ensure prior approval. 

5.3. PM2.5 Continuous Monitoring Network 

DEQ monitors PM2.5 year-round at nineteen (19) sites throughout the state with continuous PM2.5

monitors (tapered element oscillating microbalance [TEOM] monitors), which are not designated 

as FRM or FEM, and therefore the data are not used for determining NAAQS compliance. The 

PM2.5 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 being used for NAAQS compliance assessment as 

stated in Section 5.2. 

The PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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. Federal 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 sites are expected to complement the ozone data 

collection that take place at a single-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 Elementary 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 evidence that it would represent 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 concentrations in the Treasure Valley. The final 

report can be viewed at: 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/data_reports/reports/ada_co/ozone_treasure_valley_report.pdf. 

In the summer months, Coeur d’Alene is typically 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 effort 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 selected based on EPA guidance that uses average 

afternoon wind direction and wind speed criteria to locate a maximum “downwind” monitoring 

site for an urban area like Spokane. 

In January 2010, EPA announced a proposed rulemaking which, if enacted, will lower the ozone 

8-hour NAAQS from its current level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to somewhere within the 

range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm. EPA expects to announce 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 based on the monitor with the highest 3-year 

design value. The 8-hour ozone design values are calculated by averaging the 4th-highest 8-hour 

daily maximum ozone concentration over three consecutive years. The design value is a 3-year 
28 

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 projected 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 changes 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 Elementary 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 ambient ozone transported to the airshed. 

5.5. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Monitoring Network 

Monitoring for carbon monoxide (CO) in the Treasure 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 designated a CO nonattainment area by EPA. In 

December 2002, the Northern Ada County CO Limited Maintenance Plan was approved by EPA, 

which reclassified the area as attainment for the CO NAAQS. No exceedances of the CO 

NAAQS have occurred since 1991. 

DEQ operates two CO monitors, one at the Boise – Eastman site in downtown Boise, and one at 

the Meridian St. Luke’s site. The Boise – Eastman site is an “urban canyon” site designed to 

measure maximum concentrations to which the population 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 NAAQS compliance. The Meridian St. Luke’s CO 

monitor is required for NCore sites. 

DEQ is proposing no changes to the CO monitoring network in this 2010 monitoring network 

plan. 

5.6. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Monitoring Network 

Three SO2 monitors currently operate in Idaho: 

• Pocatello – Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) 

• Soda Springs 

• Meridian – St. Luke’s 
29 

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 SO2 monitoring 

locations in southeastern Idaho were identified as fence-line “hot spots” from conventional 

dispersion model applications. The St. Luke’s monitor is a “trace-level” monitor, required for 

NCore monitoring. 

DEQ is proposing no changes to the SO2 monitoring network as part of this 2010 monitoring 

network plan. 

5.7. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Monitoring Network 

NO2 is monitored at the Meridian - St. Luke's NCore site on a year-round basis 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-level” monitor and is an NCore requirement. The 

Coeur d’ Alene Lancaster Road site is collecting oxides of nitrogen (NOx) information which 

includes both nitrogen oxide (NO) and NO2 measurements. This data will be useful for 

modeling ozone in the airshed. 

No exceedances or violations of the NO2 NAAQS have been measured in Idaho. 

DEQ is proposing no changes to the NO2 monitoring network as part of this 2010 monitoring 

network plan. 

5.8. Lead (Pb) Monitoring Network 

Except for PM2.5 chemical speciation at the Meridian 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 revised the level of the primary standard from 1.5 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) to 0.15 μg/m3, measured as total suspended particulate 

(TSP). EPA also promulgated new monitoring requirements, requiring monitoring near sources 

that emitting more than 1.0 ton per year of lead, and in Core Based Statistical Areas with greater 

than 500,000 population. The source-oriented monitors were deployed January 1, 2010, and the 

nonsource-oriented monitors are required 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 emissions monitoring threshold to 

0.50 tons per year (tpy). Air quality 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 operating one year after this rule is finalized (the 

final rule is expected in April 2010). EPA is also proposing to require lead monitoring at NCore 

sites instead of the current requirement 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-PM10 monitoring instead of Pb-TSP monitoring in certain limited 

circumstances. If Pb-PM10 low-volume monitoring would be allowed 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 averages greater than or equal to 0.1 μg/m3

, then Pb-PM10

monitoring would be allowed. If a Pb-PM10 monitor measures three-month levels greater than or 

equal to 0.1 μg/m3

, then the monitoring agency would have to install and operate a Pb-TSP 

monitor within six months. Any Pb-PM10 measurements exceeding the NAAQS could lead 

toward a violation of the standard. 

DEQ is proposing to monitor Pb-PM10 at the Meridian – St. Luke’s NCore site, beginning 

January 1, 2011. Pb-PM10 was a parameter monitored during 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 Boise. The maximum lead concentration measured 

during this study was 0.019 μg/m3

 and the median concentration was 0.002 μg/m3. The 2005 

National Emission Inventory identifies 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 accordance with the national monitoring schedule, the precision sampler 

is required to collect samples every twelfth day (1/12), also on the national schedule. 

Laboratory analysis will be performed either by Idaho’s Bureau of Laboratories or an alternate 

laboratory through a national contract 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-PM10 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 will be approximately $20,270, including operation, 

maintenance, laboratory analysis of PM10 mass, laboratory analysis of Pb, data handling, and 

quality assurance. 

5.9. PM10-2.5 (PMcoarse) 

PMcoarse is defined as the particulate fraction with a nominal diameter between 2.5 and 10.0 μ. 

PMcoarse can be monitored by calculating the fractional mass difference between co-located and 

matching (i.e., same type of monitor) FRM PM10c and FRM PM2.5 monitors. Section 3 of 

Appendix D, 40 CFR Part 58, requires PMcoarse monitoring at NCore monitoring stations. As 

with all NCore monitoring requirements, agencies are required to initiate this requirement by 

January 1, 2011. 
31 

DEQ proposes to initiate PMcoarse monitoring at the Meridian – St. Luke’s NCore site, 

beginning January 1, 2011. DEQ will calculate Pmcoarse concentrations by calculating mass 

difference between data collected from the existing PM2.5 FRM sampler currently in operation 

and data collected from the PM10 sampler proposed in Section 5.8. 

Both the PM2.5 and PM10c samplers will be operated every third day (1/3) in accordance with the 

national monitoring schedule. 

The annual cost for monitoring PMcoarse is estimated at $9,386 for the laboratory processing of 

the additional PM10 filters due to the 1/3 sampling frequency, added operations and maintenance, 

and data management. Much of the cost for PMcoarse is already encumbered by the routine 

PM2.5 monitoring and PM10 monitoring associated with Pb-PM10. 

5.10. Summary of Proposed Network Modifications for DEQ’s 2010 Air 

Monitoring Network Plan 

• Initiation of Pb-PM10 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 for 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 identified. 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 air 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 (NO2) 

On January 22, 2010, EPA announced a final rule that tightened the NO2 NAAQS. It establishes 

a new one-hour NO2 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 Boise 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 NO2 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-roadway site will be approximately $100,000. Annual 

operations, maintenance, and data management costs will be approximately $20,000. 

6.3. Ozone (O3) 

In July 2009, EPA announced a proposed rulemaking to revise ambient air ozone monitoring 

requirements. In the proposal, EPA is recommending 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 locations: 1) a micropolitan statistical 

are with population between 10,000 and 50,000, in order to characterize ozone concentrations in 

areas of lesser population where high ozone concentrations are expected; 2) a federally managed 

or tribal non-urban location, to characterize sensitive ecosystems; and 3) a rural location where 

high ozone concentrations transported from urban 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), which can be applied toward the minimum network 

requirements. 

EPA expects to issue the final ozone monitoring 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 will be have to add five sites to its ozone 

network by January 1, 2012, likely 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 (federal lands) If approved, this alreadyestablished monitoring site 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 operations, maintenance, and data management 

will be approximately $92,000. 
33 

DEQ’s proposed ozone monitoring network modifications will be submitted to EPA in the 2011 

ambient air monitoring network plan, due July 1, 2011. 

6.4. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

On November 16, 2009, EPA proposed to strengthen the SO2 NAAQS with a 1-hour standard. 

EPA expects to publish the final SO2 rule in June 2010. Under the same rule, EPA is also 

proposing to change the monitoring requirements to a two-pronged approach based on a 

population-weighted emissions index (PWEI) and on statewide SO2 emissions relative to the 

national total SO2 emissions. Under this proposal, Idaho 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 SO2 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 minimum 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 SO2 monitoring network modifications (if any) will be submitted to EPA in the 

2012 ambient air monitoring network plan, due July 1, 2012.