REGION 1

AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

APRIL 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

PURPOSE 1

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 1

 

THE CLEAN AIR ACT 1

 Prevention of Significant Deterioration 1

 New Source Review 2

 Conformity 2

 FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWABLE RESOURCES ACT AND FEDERAL

 LAND MANAGEMENT POLICY ACT 3

WILDERNESS ACT 3

STEWARDSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES 3

 

NATIONAL POLICY AND DIRECTION 3

 Chief’s Course to the Future 3

 National Strategy for Air Resource Management 4

 Forest Service Manual Direction (FSM 2580) 4

REGIONAL POLICY AND DIRECTION 4

 Conversation Leadership Framework 4

 Living with Fire 4

 Regional Air Resource Management Direction 5

OVERVIEW OF NORTHERN REGION PROGRAM 5

 MEETING LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 5

 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review and Response 5

 A Screening Procedure 6

 New Source Review 6

Conformity 7

Current Region 1 Sources of Air Pollution 7

 
MEETING STEWARDSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES 8

 Planning - Geographic Levels 8

 Regional/Multi-stateLevel 9

 Forest Plan Level 9

 Defining Air Quality Issues 9

Standards and Guidelines 10

Affected Environment 10

Environmental Consequences 10

Monitoring 10

Project Level Air Quality NEPA Analysis 11

Affected Environment 11

Environmental Consequences 11

 Pollution Exposure Index 12

 Smoke Management 13

 State Airshed Group 13

 Training and Background 13

 Weather Program 14

NORTHERN REGION AIR RESOURCE MONITORING 15

 

AQRV MONITORING AND SURVEY PLANS 15

 Lake Monitoring 16

 Acid Deposition Modeling 16

 Visibility Monitoring 17

 

DATABASE, ANALYSIS, AND REPORTING 18

 National Atmospherice Deposition Program 18

 Lake Data 18

 Visibility Data 19

 Lichen Data 20

 Particulate Data 20

 National Database System 20

TRAINING 20
APPENDIX 1

Air Resource Management Responsibilities 22

APPENDIX 2

Class I and Class II Areas in the Northern Region 24

APPENDIX 3

Ambient Air Quality Standards 26

APPENDIX 4

Non-Attainment Areas in Montana and Northern Idaho 27

APPENDIX 5

Major Stationary Sources In Montana 28

APPENDIX 6

Major Stationary Sources in Idaho 30

APPENDIX 7

Columbia River Basin Assessment, Air Pollution Sources and Non-attainment Areas

32

APPENDIX 8

Sources of Weather Information 34

APPENDIX 9

Baseline Conditions and Sources of Existing Information 44

APPENDIX 10

Annual Cost Per Forest to Implement Monitoring 51

APPENDIX 11 

Glossary 53
April 1997 Air Resource Management 1 of 58 

AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

APRIL 1997

PURPOSE

This document describes the legislative requirements and stewardship philosophy for 

managing air as a resource in the Northern Region. It outlines a program for the Region to meet air regulatory responsibilities, to better protect Forest resources from air 

pollution, and to move the Region toward integrating air quality considerations, both 

on and off the National Forest, into land management planning. 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Four statutes directly refer to air resource management of National Forests: 1) the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 - 7626); 2) the Forest 

and Rangeland Renewable Resource Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1601), as amended by the 

National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1602); 3) the Federal Land Management 

Policy Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701). The Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et. seq.) refers to air resource management indirectly.

THE CLEAN AIR ACT

The 1977 Clean Air Act amendments, strengthened by the 1990 amendments, gave 

Federal Land Managers (FLM’s) an "affirmative responsibility" to protect the Air 

Quality Related Values (AQRVs) of Class I areas from adverse air pollution impacts. 

Although Regional Foresters have been delegated this responsibility within the Forest 

Service, each level of the organization has an important role to play (appendix 1). 

AQRVs, as defined by Congress, include "the fundamental purposes for which [Class 

I areas] have been established and preserved by the Congress and the responsible 

federal agency" (Senate Report 95-127, p. 36). AQRVs are also those features or 

properties of a Class I area which can be changed by air pollution. Mandatory Class I 

areas were designated under the Clean Air Act and are usually pristine areas of the 

country which receive the highest degree of regulatory protection from air pollution 

impacts. Appendix 2 defines the Classes designated under the Clean Air Act and lists 

the areas in Region 1. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

The regulatory protection of AQRVs in Class I areas is embedded in the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) section of the 1977 amendments. This section describes a permitting program to preserve the "clean" air usually found in pristine areas while allowing controlled economic growth around these areas. The Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration permitting program applies to new, major sources of air 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 2 of 58 

pollution or modifications to existing sources which have the potential to emit certain 

amounts of air pollution regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration program is administered by the State air regulatory agencies with oversight authority retained by EPA. It is a very complex process 

and requires detailed descriptions of the proposed operation and its pollution control 

technology, anticipated emissions, and a comparison with air quality standards and 

pollution increment increases. In the Prevention of Significant Deterioration review 

process, the Forest Service has delegated to the Regional Forester the authority to determine the effects of emissions on AQRVs and recommend to regulatory agencies 

whether or not a permit should be issued or modified. If an adverse impact determination is to be made, the Washington Office should be consulted.

Specific sensitive receptors and Desired Future Conditions must be identified for 

each AQRV in order to respond to the regulatory needs of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration process. Sensitive receptors are specific components of an AQRV 

which can first exhibit man-caused change from air pollution. For instance, a specific wilderness lake may serve as a sensitive receptor for wilderness aquatic ecosystems. The Desired Future Condition is the desired long-term health of the AQRV over 

the next 10, 15, or 20 years. 

New Source Review

The Environmental Protection Agency has established ambient air quality standards 

for six pollutants know to harm human health: ozone, carbon monoxide, particulates, 

sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxides (Appendix 3). If these standards are exceeded, in other words not attained in an area or community, that place then becomes a "non-attainment" area. Appendix 4 lists the non-attainment areas in Region 

1. If a major new air pollution source is to be located in a non-attainment area, that 

source is subject to the New Source Review process instead of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration process. The New Source Review process is designed to allow a 

net air quality improvement in the area even after the proposed source begins operation. The proposed source must undergo an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and control techniques. It must also determine that the benefits 

of the source outweigh its environmental and social costs. Although the Forest Service may be involved in pre-application meetings and other consultations, the formal 

involvement is through the public comment period. It is important that the Forest 

Service take the opportunity to comment on the effects of the new source on National 

Forest lands including Class I and Class II areas.

Conformity

Section 176(C) of the 1990 amendments states that activities of all federal agencies 

must conform to the intent of the appropriate State Implementation Plan. Further, 

agencies cannot:
April 1997 Air Resource Management 3 of 58 

- cause or contribute to any violations of ambient air quality standards,

- increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations,

- or, impede a State’s progress in meeting their air quality goals.

The intent of conformity applies to all federal activities or federally sponsored 

activities regardless if they are located in an attainment or non-attainment 

area. However, EPA’s current rules (1994) are specific to non-attainment areas 

and, although open to interpretation, apply only to non-attainment areas. EPA 

may issue additional rules in the future for attainment areas. 

FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWABLE RESOURCES ACT AND FEDERAL LAND 

MANAGEMENT POLICY ACT

These Acts and subsequent rules provide a mandate to:

· Protect and improve the quality of the air resource on National Forests,

· Manage public lands in a manner which protects air quality and atmospheric values,

· Requires the Federal Land Manager (FLM) to comply with requirements imposed 

by federal, state, interstate or local administrative authorities or courts, and

· Requires consultation with states on matters of air quality. 

WILDERNESS ACT

The Wilderness Act (and subsequent Acts designating individual Wilderness Areas) 

was enacted to preserve wilderness resources and character. Although air quality 

and its effects are not directly mentioned in the Wilderness Act, the Act requires the 

Forest Service to minimize the effects of human use or influence on natural ecological 

processes and preserve "untrammeled" natural conditions within wilderness. Consequently, this includes minimizing the effects of human caused air pollution to the wilderness and its air quality related values.

STEWARDSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES

NATIONAL POLICY AND DIRECTION 

Chief’s Course to the Future

The Forest Service is committed to sustaining ecosystems by ensuring their health, 

diversity, and productivity. The Agency is also committed to working collaboratively 

and using appropriate scientific information in caring for the land and serving people 

(Chief’s Course to the Future, 1994). The management of air quality is integral to 

meeting these goals because of its effects to resources and people.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 4 of 58 

National Strategy for Air Resource Management

The mission for the Forest Service in air resource management is to protect NFS 

lands from air pollution impacts, to manage NFS emissions in accordance with national and local ambient air quality standards, and to protect visibility in Class I areas. This plan envisions a leading role for the Forest Service in recognizing that air is 

a resource that can and should be protected to meet the changing needs of the public 

(National Strategic Plan for Air Resource Management, 1994).

Forest Service Manual Direction (FSM 2580)

The Forest Service policy is to integrate air resource management objectives into all 

Forest Service resource planning and management activities and to use cost effective 

methods to achieve these objectives. These objectives are: 

1. To protect AQRVs within Class I areas from adverse impacts caused by air 

pollution.

2. To control and minimize air pollutant impacts from land management activities.

3. To cooperate with air regulatory authorities to prevent significant adverse effects of air pollutants and atmospheric deposition on forest and rangeland resources.

REGIONAL POLICY AND DIRECTION

Conversation Leadership Framework

The Region 1 philosophy seeks to enhance community relationships through sustaining production of resources while conserving ecosystems. This is to be done by 1) 

performing annual work in a timely cost-effective manner which provides goods and 

services while sustaining healthy ecosystems, 2) adjusting long-term direction in response to new information and technology, 3) and aligning behavior to be more adaptive and responsive in order to meet 1 and 2 above.

Living with Fire

Region 1 has a strategy aimed at restoring the health and sustainability of shortinterval fire dependent ecosystems. This strategy crosses all program areas because 

of its direct link to forest health. Air resource management will be a critical part of 

this program because of the obvious impacts of smoke. It will be important to look 

beyond the obvious however to evaluate how emissions, whether generated by fire or 

humans off-site, impact these restored systems and vice-versa. 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 5 of 58 

Regional Air Resource Management Direction

In air quality terms, the Conservation Leadership Framework and the Living with Fire 

strategies, mean 1) performing the annual work of inventory, monitoring, and modeling, 2) integrating and applying the data and information to decision making in the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Review processes and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

processes, and 3) evaluating the results of management and monitoring decision to 

better align the air program to meet desired goals.

OVERVIEW OF NORTHERN REGION PROGRAM

MEETING LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

"Prevention of Significant Deterioration" Permit Review and Response

In Region 1, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the Idaho Division of 

Environmental Quality, and the North Dakota Department of Health / Environmental 

Engineering Division are responsible to implement and enforce the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act. In some cases, such as Missoula or Flathead counties, MT, the responsibility has been delegated to a local regulatory agency but oversight for the program rests with the state government and ultimately rests with the Environmental 

Protection Agency.

As mentioned earlier, when a major new source of air pollution (such as a power 

plant) or modification of an existing source wants to locate in an attainment or unclassified area and will emit a certain kind and amount of air pollution, a Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration permit application must be submitted to the appropriate 

air regulatory authority (see glossary for definition of major source). Although Montana, Idaho, and North Dakota have similar time scales for reviewing and responding 

to Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit applications, some things are different. All three States must notify the Region within 30 days of a pre-application notice. Once an application has been received, the state has 30 days to inform the 

owner or operator of the source whether or not their application is complete. The Regional Forester should submit comments to the state regarding the completeness of 

the application within this 30-day period. 

Once an application is complete, the States have a specified amount of time to recommend whether the permit should be issued, denied, or modified before it is issued. 

This timeframe includes time for public comment. In Montana, it is the same timeframe as that of the Montana public hearing process (Administrative Rules of MT 

16.8.960-961). In Idaho, the timeframe is 60 days (Idaho Air Pollution Authority 

16.01.01-012,13). In North Dakota, it may be as long as a year (ND Air Pollution 

Control Law 33-15-15-01).
April 1997 Air Resource Management 6 of 58 

During this time, the Regional Forester, in consultation with the Forest, should recommend the permit be issued as is or modified. If the impacts to AQRVs are not adverse, the notification should state the Forest Service has no specific air quality objections. If the impacts are unknown, the recommendation should be to request 

more information from the applicant. If the impacts are clearly adverse, the Regional 

Forester should recommend emission reduction alternatives or consult with the 

Washington Office to make an adverse impact determination. A VALID recommendation is based on much information, including the baseline air quality for the area, the 

increments which have already been consumed, computer modeling of the source’s 

emissions, and impacts of the projected emissions on AQRVs.

Over the last seven years, the Region has commented on Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits proposed for modified facilities near Columbia Falls, Helena, Trident, Townsend, Livingston and other places. The Forest Service Handbook FSH 

2509.19 (draft) contains a listing of appropriate procedures helpful to the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration process. The Region’s "screening document" (see below) 

also provides guidance for this process.

A Screening Procedure to Evaluate Air Pollution Effects in Region 1 Wilderness Areas (Stanford, J.A., et al., in press)

This document was developed by scientists and managers who gathered to evaluate 

air pollution effects on aquatic, terrestrial, and visibility resources in Region 1 wilderness areas. Workshop participants identified parameters, such as lake chemistry, or 

visual range that would predictably react to changes in air quality. They also developed thresholds or criteria to help managers assess the potential effects of air pollution to resources. The resulting document can be used by managers to "screen" the 

sources whose emissions will not likely have an effect versus those that will. This allows the manager to focus his/her time, energy, and resources more effectively in 

protecting areas most at risk.

New Source Review

The requirement for New Source Review for the States of Montana, Idaho, and North 

Dakota are found in the following rules: 

· Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources or Modifications Located 

Within Non-attainment Areas (MT ARM 16.8.1701)

· Permit Requirements for New Major Facilities or Major Modification in Nonattainment Areas (IDAPA 16.01.01012,06)

· Designated Air Contaminant Sources, Permit to Construct, Permit to Operate (ND Air Pollution Control Rules 33-15-24).
April 1997 Air Resource Management 7 of 58 

Conformity

In Region 1, non-attainment boundaries are usually based on city boundaries. Virtually all land management activities in Region 1 occur outside these non-attainment 

areas (Appendix 4), therefore the issue of conformity is technically moot. (For example, prescribed burning occurring on Blue Mountain would be outside the Missoula non-attainment area and hence would be exempt from the conformity requirements). For those activities occurring within non-attainment areas such as leasing 

federal land, granting a special use permit, construction of federal buildings, or prescribed burning, a conformity determination is required. EPA has developed a flow 

chart to determine applicability which is based mainly on the amount of emissions to 

be produced from the project and the existing background air quality. If conformity 

applies, certain criteria, procedures (including public participation), and mitigation 

must be followed. To arbitrarily omit any part of the process exposes the Region to 

legal action. To be as consistent and correct as possible, it is important to contact 

the Regional Office Air staff if a project is to be located in a non-attainment area. 

Current Region 1 Sources of Air Pollution

Current stationary sources in Montana producing more than 100 tons per year of 

pollutants are shown in Appendix 5. Stationary sources in Northern Idaho producing 

more than 90 tons per year are shown in Appendix 6. 

Montana - The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has published annual 

monitoring summaries since the early 1970’s. The most persistent problems have 

been consistent violations of PM-10 ambient air quality standards in Libby, Missoula, 

Butte, Columbia Falls, Kalispell, Polson, Ronan, and Thompson Falls. Sources include a combination of smoke from residential wood burning, forest practices, road 

dust, motor vehicles, and several other minor sources. Carbon monoxide violations 

have been measured in Missoula, Great Falls, and Billings. Many of these areas have 

been designated as non-attainment areas by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Several of the municipalities and industrial sources are working with 

the Department to develop plans to bring the areas into compliance.

Total stationary sources of emissions in Montana have been reduced significantly 

during the last 15 years. The old Anaconda smelter, which emitted over 300,000 tons 

of sulfur dioxide (SO2) per year, shut down in 1980 thereby reducing the statewide 

total of SO2 emissions by 80%. The largest stationary sources of air pollution in Montana include the Coalstrip power plant units in Rosebud County (about 13,000 

tons/year of SO2 and 17,000 tons/year of nitrogen oxides (NOx)), Yellowstone 

County (Billings/Laurel) oil refineries and coal burning power plants (23,000 

tons/year of SO2, 6,000 tons/year of NOx), and a lead smelter in East Helena (about 

23,000 tons/year of SO2). All of the these sources occur in areas of predominantly 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 8 of 58 

westerly wind flow and good pollution dispersion. Lead ambient air quality standards 

have been consistently violated in the area around the smelter in East Helena since 

monitoring was started in the early 1970’s. Some violations of sulfation rates and 

SO2 have been measured in Billings. Particulate and SO2 ambient standards around 

Coalstrip have not been violated.

Most of the Montana point sources are downwind or at considerable distance from 

National Forest Wilderness areas. The largest potential for Wilderness area impact in 

Montana from stationary sources appears to be in the Gates of the Mountains from 

the East Helena lead smelter and the northeast part of the Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness from the Yellowstone County SO2 sources.

The most notable form of observed air pollution in the Montana Region 1 Wilderness 

areas is smoke from wildland fires and broadcast burning (forest and grass fields) in 

Montana, Idaho, and several other western states.

Idaho - Large point source emissions in northern Idaho total only 26% compared to 

the emissions from large point sources in Montana. Major point sources are located 

in almost every northern Idaho county. The largest point sources of emissions are 

from the Three River Timber Company in Idaho county, the Potlatch complex at 

Lewiston in Nez Perce county, the Potlatch complexes at St. Maries and Edwards 

Lumber Mill in Benewah county, and the Potlatch Jaype Plywood facility in Clearwater county. Carbon monoxide and particulates are the pollutants emitted in greatest 

quantities from these facilities. In Kootenai county, the Athol compressor in Kootenai 

county produces large quantities of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. 

The State has also identified non-point sources or area sources as major contributors 

to air problems. Area sources include residential wood burning stoves, automobiles, 

large and small industry, agricultural activities, unpaved roads, grass field burning 

and forest fires. In northern Idaho, the communities with particulate matter concerns are Sandpoint (Bonner County), Pinehurst and the Silver Valley (Shoshone 

County). 

MEETING STEWARDSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES

To most effectively meet stewardship responsibilities, the Region needs to be diligent 

in addressing air quality concerns at all levels of planning. This planning may be at 

the multi-state or Regional level such as with the Columbia River Basin assessment, 

at the Forest level as Forest Plans are revised, or at a project level when NEPA analysis is required. We are guided not only by the Clean Air Act Amendments but by the 

National Forest Management Act and the Federal Land Management Policy Act.

Planning - Geographic Levels
April 1997 Air Resource Management 9 of 58 

Regional / Multi-state Level

This level of planning needs to consider emissions sources and effects across a broad 

geographic scale. Work done for the Columbia River Basin Assessment (Appendix 7) 

displays the major emission sources within or impacting the Basin, and their proximity to Class I and non-attainment areas. Ecosystems and resources at risk from 

air pollution may be Ponderosa pine, fir, and spruce species because of increases in 

nitrogen deposition due to expanding human population and fertilizing of agricultural 

land. Also, certain high elevation lakes and streams may be at risk because of their 

inability to buffer any future inputs of acid deposition (Schoettle, et al., in press). The 

air quality information from the Columbia River Basin assessment should be considered and incorporated into future Forest planning as much as possible.

Forest Plan Level

A much more complete addressing of air quality issues is anticipated in the next 

round of Region 1 Forest Plan revisions. The major air quality emphasis areas include 

defining air quality issues; establishing objectives and standards; describing the affected environment, proposed environmental consequences and proposed monitoring.

Defining Air Quality Issues

Several air quality issues should be evaluated as part of the NEPA process for Forest 

plan revisions including: 

1. What are the current air quality conditions within the Forest and are state and national air quality standards being met? If non-compliance areas occur on the Forest, 

what are the sources? 

 2. Will the management activities proposed by the Forest plan meet air quality standards and visibility requirements?

3. How will the Forest, through participation in the air regulatory process, insure that 

permitted activities and potential emission increases from outside the Forest meet air 

quality standards and protect AQRV’s in Class I areas?

Objectives and Standards 

Subsequent forest plan implementation and NEPA efforts will use the Forest Plan objectives and standards for air quality direction. These are: 

1. Forest management and permitted activities will comply with National and State 

ambient air quality standards, regional haze visibility requirements, Class I and Class 

II Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments, conformity analysis 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 10 of 58 

requirements, and other state and national air quality standards and coordination requirements (such as the Montana Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement, 

1988). 

2) Activities which pose potential to substantially change air quality conditions (such 

as broadcast burning, oil and gas leasing, and ski area development) should include 

an air quality issue in NEPA analysis and include effects disclosure and comparison 

to air quality standards using accepted analysis methods. 

3) AQRV’s will be identified in Class I areas and AQRV inventory and monitoring 

plans integrated into Wilderness Implementation plans. Monitoring of AQRV’s will be 

conducted to determine condition, trend, and sensitivity for AQRV’s particularly subject to air pollution. 

4) AQRV’s will be protected through coordination with the State regulatory agencies 

in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permitting process, and other permitting 

activities. This requirement applies primarily to upwind industrial developments with 

the potential to adversely impact Class 1 AQRV’s. 

5) To prevent significant adverse effects of air pollutants and atmospheric deposition 

on forest and rangeland resources by cooperating with air regulatory authorities.

Affected Environment

Existing air quality condition information in and around a Forest can be summarized 

or referenced. Much of this information is summarized in this Region 1 Air Resource 

Management Program document.

Environmental Consequences

Specific air quality environmental consequences will be disclosed in NEPA project 

documents such as for broadcast burns, timber sales, mining, and oil and gas development. However a general discussion of air quality effects of Forest Plan alternatives 

should be included in the environmental consequences section. This could include a 

summary of the number of acres by decade of broadcast burns, amount of timber 

sale activity and associated slash burning, and other emissions. A general disclosure 

of emissions and consequences could be discussed. The main thrust would be to 

evaluate if typical projects (broadcast burns, timber sale activities, mining, oil and 

gas emissions) pose a potential to violate ambient air quality standards. 

Monitoring

The monitoring sections of the Forest plan should include the proposed air quality 

monitoring activities. Much of the air quality monitoring will be associated with Class 

I Wilderness AQRV plan implementation such as visibility, lake chemistry, snow 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 11 of 58 

chemistry, and lichen monitoring. AQRV monitoring plans should be incorporated 

into Wilderness Implementation Plans. 

Project Level Air Quality NEPA Analysis

Project level NEPA documents should include air quality issues and concerns when 

they are likely to be significant, such as:

* The project is highly controversial with intense public scrutiny or air quality was 

raised as an issue in scoping .

* The project’s emissions has the potential to impact a Class I area or other environmentally sensitive areas.

* The project could add emissions to a designated non-attainment area. 

* Public health or safety could be affected by emissions. 

A Desk Reference for NEPA Air Quality Analysis (Ch2MHill, 1995), developed for the 

Forest Service, contains specific air quality NEPA guidance and procedures for evaluating emissions from Forest Service activities. The desk reference summarizes models 

which can be used in NEPA analysis as well as aerometric monitoring. The Air Quality Analysis for Oil and Gas Leasing, USFS R1, 1994 contains a description of methodology appropriate for NEPA analysis of oil and gas drilling and production.

When an air quality issue is included in a NEPA document the disclosure should include:

Affected Environment

• Describe air quality background conditions

• Describe wind dispersion patterns in the area, including inversion potential

• Describe downwind sensitive areas (environmental and municipal), Pollution 

Exposure Index may be helpful.

• Summarize regulatory emission requirements

Environmental Consequences

• Estimate emission levels by alternative

• Analyze air quality impacts under various atmospheric conditions. Potential 

computer models to be used include FOFEM, SASEM, SCREEN2, COMPLEX1, and 

NFSPUFF. 

• Compare computer model results to ambient air quality standards
April 1997 Air Resource Management 12 of 58 

• When Class I areas are involved, an analysis of potential effects on AQRV’s is 

appropriate. This can include dispersion modeling and comparison to Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration increments, VISCREEN modeling for visibility, and 

MAGIC/WAND modeling for lake chemical changes. 

There are several documents which can guide a District or Forest in adequately addressing air quality concerns. These include:

CH2MHill. 1995. A Desk Reference for NEPA Air Quality Analyses. Prepared for 

USDA Forest Service.

CH2MHill. 1994. An Introduction to Air Quality Modeling. Prepared for USDA Forest Service.

CH2MHill. 1996. An Introduction to Smoke Emissions and Dispersion Modeling. A 

Short Course prepared for the Northern Region. 

Region 1. 1994. Air Quality Guidance for Oil & Gas Leasing.

Region 1. 1993. Describing Air Resource Impacts from Prescribed Burning Activities 

in NEPA Documents.

Forests and Districts are expected to have the expertise to operate the smoke management models such as FOFEM, SASEM, or NFSPUFF. For other air quality dispersion or visibility models, the Regional Office air staff is available to help.

Pollution Exposure Index

Mark Schaaf, of CH2M HILL, worked with Bill Jackson, of the Forest Service Region 

8, to improve Emission Distance Criterion by adding terrain elevations and atmospheric mixing heights. Emission Distance Criterion evolved to be called Pollution 

Exposure Index. The Pollution Exposure Index model is a computer GIS application 

used to estimate the exposure of National Forests to airborne pollutants. New 

Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit processing, Forest 

Plan revision and NEPA project analysis can be assisted by mapping relative areas of 

sensitivity to airborne pollutants using the Pollution Exposure Index model.

Pollutant exposure rates are calculated for user-specified receptor sites based on pollutant emission rates from regional point and area sources, terrain landforms, seasonal wind frequencies, and distances between the receptors and pollutant sources. 

The Pollution Exposure Index is then calculated using digital elevation files, prevailing wind frequency data between pollutant sources and receptors, seasonal and annual mixing height, EPA and State pollutant source data for area and point sources 

of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 13 of 58 

particulate matter, and lead. The GIS computer programs of Arc/Info and ArcView 

are used to estimate and map a Pollution Exposure Index.

Receptors could include acid sensitive high acid sensitive high elevation lakes of a 

Class I wilderness area, visually sensitive vistas, and air pollution sensitive biological 

or cultural features. Upwind sulfate emissions from a power plant can be mapped as 

Pollution Exposure Index contours over the lake watershed to see potential pollutant 

impacts. 

The Pollution Exposure Index offers much utility in Forest Plan revisions, NEPA 

analysis and permit reviewing. At the Forest Plan level, it should be used to help define air quality issues, to describe the affected environment, to evaluate proposed alternatives and focus future air quality monitoring. In NEPA analysis, it should be 

used to highlight where pollution sensitive areas are which allows the user to better 

address the affected environment and consider the consequences of proposed management activities. In permit reviewing, it should be used as a first evaluation of 

whether or not a proposed source’s emissions will impact an area.

Smoke Management

State Airshed Group

Historically, fire, and therefore smoke, have been a part of the Northern Rockies ecosystem. Currently, smoke is a very sensitive issue in many areas of the Region both 

from a health and visibility perspective. Several communities in Montana and Idaho 

are non-attainment for particulate matter which can be exacerbated by smoke impacts. To minimize impacts, the Region participates in the Montana and north Idaho 

State Airshed Groups, which are self-regulated cooperatives of major open burners in 

Montana and Idaho. The smoke management cooperative uses fuels and weather information combined with burning restrictions to disperse, dilute and minimize smoke 

impacts in local communities.

The Montana and Idaho air regulatory agencies recognize the current smoke management practices of the Airshed Groups as Best Available Control Measures for prescribed burning.

Training and Background

A formal smoke management techniques course, RX-450, is offered at the Regional 

and National level. The contents of the course include managing and monitoring 

smoke and becoming involved in the air quality rule making process. Smoke modeling courses have also been developed and are continually being improved to help 

managers estimate smoke impacts.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 14 of 58 

Weather Program

An agreement between the Regional Office and the Bitterroot National Forest for assistance in air resources and weather management was developed in 1992. A 

weather committee was established to coordinate and develop a Regional weather 

system to interact with the new Weather Information Management System and the 

network of weather stations maintained by Fire, Aviation and Air. The weather committee coordinates Regional weather information needs with emphasis on climate requirements for sustainable ecosystem management. The objective of the weather program is to identify and coordinate weather information sources and applications for 

all resources.

The Weather Information Management System is being implemented by Forests 

throughout the nation as well as by National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and state agencies. Present emphasis is focused on fire weather information, 

especially the daily manual and automated fire danger rating system information, but 

the system includes access to National Weather Service computer graphic products. 

Other resource needs for weather information will be met by the Weather Information Management System, as well as other systems like the Natural Resource Conservation Service Climate Data Access Facility at Portland, Oregon.

Air resource management needs for weather information include visibility, which in 

itself is a meteorological measurement. Regional and local visibility are expressions 

of synoptic and meso or micro scale meteorology, respectively. Historic weather data 

of relative humidity, atmospheric stability, wind, and precipitation are analyzed to interpret visibility effects of air emissions.

Smoke dispersion, direction, and concentrations can be predicted based upon 

weather information. Remote automated weather stations can be combined with air 

quality samplers to evaluate air quality. For example, a high elevation automatic 

weather station has been installed above Missoula to augment atmospheric stability 

and dispersion condition information.

The Pollution Exposure Index mentioned earlier uses prevailing winds and atmospheric conditions.

Regional wilderness lake water and sediment chemistry surveys and lichen surveys 

are correlated with weather information to assess emission sources as well as model 

potential pollutant effects. Precipitation and chemistry are being evaluated at Lost 

Trail Pass for correlation with aquatic ecosystems. Visibility monitoring at Sula Peak 

and Stevensville Ranger District are being correlated with weather information as well 

as smoke emissions.

Ecosystem modeling uses weather data to characterize the effect of average, wet, and 

dry conditions on landscapes including airsheds with histories of fire and smoke 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 15 of 58 

effects. Global warming potential from carbon dioxide increases is being modeled for 

ecosystem effects. A computer file of weather information sources and applications is 

planned (Appendix 8) to assist all weather information users in ecosystem management, including air resources management.

NORTHERN REGION AIR RESOURCE MONITORING

AQRV MONITORING AND SURVEY PLANS 

To enable the Region to meet Congressional and Chief’s directions, AQRV monitoring 

plans have been developed for each Class I Wilderness to assure that AQRVs are 

monitored and protected. Forest Supervisors are responsible for identifying AQRVs 

and completing and implementing monitoring plans. AQRV monitoring plans are 

critical to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulatory process and protecting resources from future air pollution impacts. A similar plan will be prepared for 

the Class II Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness which will be incorporated into its Wilderness Implementation Schedule.

Specific AQRV inventory and monitoring plans have been prepared by the Forests for 

each of the Class I Wilderness areas in Region 1 (except for the Hells Canyon Wilderness Area on the Nez Perce NF which is administered by the Wallowa-Whitman NF in 

Region 6). These plans include a specific analysis of existing and potential air pollution problems which could affect Wilderness AQRVs. The plans establish the appropriate inventory and monitoring program for each Class I area. Baseline conditions of AQRV’s and known information is summarized in Appendix 9. The AQRV 

plans, Forests, and completion years are shown below.

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

AQRV Monitoring Plans Completed

CLASS 1 WILDERNESS AREA YR FOREST

Bob Marshall 89 Flathead, Lewis and Clark

Cabinet Mountains 93 Kootenai

Gates of the Mountains 93 Helena

Selway Bitterroot 93 Bitterroot, Clearwater, Nez Perce

Anaconda Pintler 94 Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Beaverhead

Mission Mountains 96 Flathead

Scapegoat 97 Helena, Lewis & Clark, Lolo

Contact the Forests or the Regional Office Air Staff for copies.

Appendix 10 schedules specific monitoring items by Forest from 1997 through 2002. 

Specific known monitoring items and costs are displayed by Forest by year.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 16 of 58 

Lake Monitoring

Lake monitoring in Region 1 has included a three-phased program initially measuring 

a few parameters at many lakes followed by more intensive analysis at a few long 

term benchmark lakes.

Phase 1 lake monitoring included measuring pH, alkalinity, conductivity, and documenting watershed factors (geology, vegetation, drainage characteristics) of 146 lakes.

Phase 2 lake monitoring protocols repeat Phase 1 plus measure cations (calcium, 

magnesium, sodium, potassium, ammonium) anions (fluoride, chloride, nitrate, sulfate), silica, phosphorus, and aluminum. The Phase 2 parameters allow more specific 

understanding of lake chemical characteristics in relation to watershed factors which 

facilitates the selection of Phase 3 lakes. Phase 2 monitoring has been done on 176 

lakes.

Phase 3 "benchmark" monitoring of lake chemistry conditions over several years is 

designed to establish trends in lake chemistry and lake ecology. Phase 3 parameters 

include one or two times sampling of Phase 2 parameters plus organic nitrogen 

(kjeldahl), organic carbon, chlorophyll A, and periodic qualitative identification of 

phytoplankton species. Phase 3 lakes include Upper and Lower Libby lakes in the 

Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, Shasta and North Kootenai Lakes in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, and Twin Island and Stepping Stone Lakes in the Absaroka 

Beartooth Wilderness. Phase 3 monitoring needs to be conducted for at least 7-10 

years to establish clear trends.

Acid Deposition Modeling

Acid deposition modeling using MAGIC/WAND (Model of Acidification of Groundwater 

in Catchments/With Aggregrated Nitrogen Dynamics) was completed for Upper and 

Lower Libby Lakes in the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness in February 1997. The 

MAGIC/WAND model calibrates lake chemistry to atmospheric deposition and 

watershed/soil/hydrology factors enabling predicting lake chemistry response to potential upwind changes in emissions. The model is extremely useful in Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration analysis. MAGIC/WAND calibrations are scheduled for the 

Phase 3 lakes in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness (1997) and Absaroka-Beartooth 

Wilderness (1998). The model is extremely useful in Prevention of Significant Deterioration analysis. The MAGIC model calibrations require: 

1) At least two years of Phase 3 lake chemistry information

2) A survey of soil depth, cation exchange capacity (calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium), base saturation, soil pH, bulk density, and porosity for each of the major 

soil types in the watershed above the lake
April 1997 Air Resource Management 17 of 58 

3) An estimate of percent carbon and nitrogen in leaves for at least eight dominant 

plant species in each lake watershed

4) A map of rock outcrops, permanent snow fields, and vegetation in the lake watershed

5) A characterization of dominant rock minerals

6) A plot of stream network upstream of the lake

6) A depth profile for lake volume 

7) An estimate of annual water routing through the lake watershed including average 

annual precipitation, evapotranspiration, total discharge into and out of the lake, and 

lake retention time.

8) A characterization of deposition chemistry from the nearest NADP site (Glacier National Park for Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, Lost Trail Pass for Selway Bitterroot 

Wilderness, and Tower Junction (Yellowstone National Park) for Absaroka-Beartooth 

Wilderness.)

The MAGIC/WAND model calibrations are not practical for lakes with acid neutralizing capacity greater than 50 μeq/liter since these lakes are not likely be acidified in 

any reasonably foreseeable acid deposition scenario. This factor negates the need to 

conduct MAGIC/WAND model calibrations in the Anaconda Pintler, Bob Marshall, 

Scapegoat, and Mission Mountain Wilderness Areas. Increased emissions in those areas would trigger Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments and visibility 

contrast limits at emission levels much less than would have to occur to initiate 

acidification of these moderately to highly buffered systems.

The actual MAGIC/WAND model calibrations are being contracted with E&S Environmental Chemistry of Corvallis, Oregon. A final product will be a PC format for use by 

Region 1 personnel.

Visibility Monitoring

Monitoring has occurred to characterize the visibility of the Bob Marshall, Cabinet 

Mountains, Selway Bitterroot and Anaconda Pintler Wilderness Areas. Current visibility monitoring is focused on the Selway Bitterroot and Anaconda Pintler Wilderness areas. Sula Peak Lookout on the Bitterroot NF has a visibility camera and an 

ambient air quality monitor to document and characterize the components in the air 

and how they affect visibility. This information, combined with that from other visibility sites, will be used to establish visibility conditions in the Region. 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 18 of 58 

DATABASE, ANALYSIS, AND REPORTING 

The purpose of inventorying and monitoring of AQRV’s is to produce scientifically 

and legally credible information for use in the air regulatory process. Data storage 

and appropriate analysis are essential to extract meaningful information. The intent 

of the monitoring program is to establish baseline conditions of sensitive receptors. 

Some of the receptors will be monitored over several years to evaluate trends, such as 

the chemistry of Phase 3 lakes. Analysis generally includes statistical evaluations, 

modeling, and comparisons with available literature or unpublished information to 

determine if AQRV’s are being protected from adverse changes due to air pollution. 

Procedures for data base, analysis, and reporting will vary considerably by the parameter being monitored. 

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)

The NADP chemistry and precipitation database is managed by the Natural Resource 

Ecology Laboratory (NREL) in Fort Collins, CO. The Bitterroot NF receives data summaries for the Lost Trail Pass site. The Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory distributes annual and semi-annual data reports for the national network. The Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory can send data in disks in Lotus format. In addition, NADP 

data can be retrieved on the NADP internet WEB site at:

 http://nadp.nrel.colostate.edu/nadp/sitelist.html.

Currently the NADP data is being loaded into Quattro Pro PC files for a variety of 

analysis methods including calculation of monthly and quarterly averages, annual 

wet deposition rates, and graphic display of trends.

The Lost Trail Pass NADP data will be evaluated at least every two years with a summary report prepared and sent to the Bitterroot NF.

Lake Data

Lake data collected in the Bob Marshall Wilderness is analyzed, evaluated, and reported by Bonnie Ellis and Jack Stanford of the Flathead Lake Biological Station (U. 

of Montana). Reports have been prepared and distributed for 1989, 1990, 1991, 

1992, 1993, and 1994.

Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 chemistry data is loaded into Quattro Pro 3 files. This 

allows a wide variety of simple statistical tests and graphic analysis as well as the 

convenience of quickly transmitting the data to users. More comprehensive statistical 

tests are done with STATGRAPHICS. Lake analysis consists of:

1) Evaluating data quality by calculating average values and standard deviations, 

comparing lake samples with duplicate and blanks, camparing % ion difference 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 19 of 58 

between cations and anions, comparing Phase 1 and Phase 2 data for the same lakes, 

and comparing the Phase 2 data with the 1985 Western Lake Survey.

2) Evaluating relationships between parent material, geochemistry, and water chemistry.

3) Comparing lake data to screening criteria.

4) Evaluating XY graph parameter plots such as calcium versus conductivity, silica 

versus cations, and gran ANC versus conductivity

5) Analyzing time trends for Phase 3 lakes

6) Reviewing literature for phytoplankton algae, benthic algae, and chlorophyll A biomass in Phase 3 lakes

Biological parameters (such as phytoplankton) are identified, evaluated, and reported 

by contractors such as the Flathead Lake Biological Station for the Bob Marshall Wilderness lakes.

Phase 1, 2, and 3 lake data have been statistically analyzed, evaluated, and reported 

each year. Reports are sent to respective Forests as well as to several interested nonNFS agencies and people. Phase 3 data time trend analysis will be evaluated and reported at least every 2 years.

Visibility Data

Visibility data for the Bob Marshall, Cabinet Mountains, and Selway Bitterroot Wilderness areas was analyzed and reported by Acheson (1993).

Representative slides of the least, greatest, and median standard visual range (SVR) 

are sent quarterly from the visibility contractor (Air Resource Specialists, Inc. of Fort 

Collins) to the Regional Office and to the respective Forests. Quarterly reports, which 

include floppy disks, of all Forest Service camera sites nationwide are sent to the Regional Office.

The cumulative frequency of standard visual range is listed for each site. The contrast between the terrain and the sky is calculated and then converted into standard 

visual range. Median and 90th percentile standard visual range are calculated in relation to the target distance in the photos.

A report from the group which represents the Interagency Monitoring to Protect Visual Environments (IMPROVE) is expected in 1997 which will document visibility 

conditions of the Selway Bitterroot/Frank Church River of No Return/Anaconda 

Pintler Wilderness. Fine particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns in diameter 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 20 of 58 

affects visibility. Fine particulates have been monitored with IMPROVE module A 

samplers since December 1993 on Baldy Mountain near Salmon, Idaho, and since 

August 1994 on Sula Peak near Sula Montana. A comparison of regional and local 

visibility conditions will be made between the sites located at Baldy Mountain on the 

Salmon NF, and Sula Peak on the Bitterroot NF. 

Lichen Data

Lichen evaluations consist of an initial inventory of species composition, abundance, 

and chemistry of the lichen thallus material. Analysis and reporting are prepared by 

Dr. Larry St. Clair and a draft is distributed to the Regional Office and the respective 

Forests within a year of inventory. Lichens surveys in 1992-1994 in the Selway Bitterroot, Anaconda Pintler, and Cabinet Mountain Wilderness will be reinventoried in 

about the year 2000.

Particulate Data

Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter is monitored at Stevensville and 

West Fork Ranger Districts, Bitterroot National Forest. Hourly data at Stevensville is 

input to the EPA national database by the Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality. They also input the 24-hour average PM-10 data taken every sixth day at 

Stevensville and West Fork. Annual interpretative reports are available for August 

1994 - August 1995, and for August 1995 - August 1996, showing the ambient PM10 as well as nearby and long distance upwind wildfire levels. Correlation of particulate matter concentration with visibility photographs is included. Sula Peak IMPROVE PM-2.5 is also used in the annual PM-10 reports. 

National Database System

An Air Resource Monitoring System (ARMS) is being developed at the national level as 

pert of the Common Survey Data Structure. The Air Resource Monitoring System is 

being designed to incorporate most of the air and weather related information generated by the Forest Service including visibility, air quality, weather, flora, water, and 

fauna. Much of Region 1’s air related monitoring data will be incorporated when the 

Air Resource Monitoring System becomes operational.

TRAINING

The most intensive technical training has been invested in Region 1’s air quality specialists (Ann Acheson and Mark Story) and weather program coordinator (Bob Hammer). This training consists of workshops and courses (such as EPA correspondence 

courses) in Prevention of Significant Deterioration reviews and other air quality 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 21 of 58 

regulatory issues, emission dispersion modeling, air quality modeling, visibility modeling, and weather related training and workshops. 

Air Resource Management requires not only technical knowledge of air quality but information from many natural resource disciplines. It is fortunate, therefore, that Forest and District personnel involved in local air quality issues have expertise in other 

resources. An individual’s education and experience in natural resources is useful 

for additional training in ARM. Most training opportunities for Region 1 personnel 

are on-the-job. It is important that Forest Air Contacts be knowledgeable about 

Clean Air Act legislation and regulations, dispersion modeling, air pollution effects, 

and budgeting. As the Air Quality Program in Region expands, the largest increase 

in air quality knowledge will likely result from training existing personnel rather than 

hiring new air quality specialists.

Individuals may attend as necessary EPA courses or workshops, and courses sponsored by state agencies, universities, or federal agencies. Suggested EPA self-study 

courses include:

S1:422 Air Pollution Control Orientation Course

S1:448 Diagnosing Vegetation Injury Caused by 

Air Pollution

S1:451 Introduction to PM10 SIP Development

S1/ST:453 Overview of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Regulations

S1:409 Basic Air Pollution Meteorology

S1:410 Introduction to Dispersion Modeling

These are free courses offered through the EPA Air Pollution Training Institute. Contact the Air Pollution Training Institute at: Environmental Research Center MD 17, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-2497 for an updated course catalog.

The Air & Waste Management Association also offers annual courses in air pollution 

effects and air quality legislation. Contact them at P.O. Box 2861, Pittsburgh, PA 

15230, (412) 232-3444 for further information.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 22 of 58 

APPENDIX 1

AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Regional Foresters have the following responsibilities (from Forest Service Handbook 

2509.19):

A. Provide regional, station and area leadership and direction in air resource matters 

affecting lands under their jurisdiction.

1) Consider present and potential effects on AQRVs in planning and implementing all resource protection and management activities.

2) Establish background conditions of AQRVs in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I areas using acceptable techniques.

3) Establish screening procedure and values that will protect AQRVS

4) Monitor the effects of air pollution, including atmospheric deposition, on forest resources that will:

a) Assure that the national standards and special protection requirements for Class I areas are being met.

b) Obtain useful data describing the air resource to support other Forest 

Service management activities such as smoke management, resource 

management plans and reclamation activities.

c) Determine air resource impacts to and/or adverse effects on National 

Forest resources due to man-caused emission sources.

d) Develop baseline data for modeling potential impacts from proposed 

new emission sources.

e) Support multiagency monitoring programs when it is in the Forest 

Service or national interest. Monitoring will be conducted in coordination with other data user groups whenever feasible.

5) Provide consultation, technical assistance and training to forest resource 

managers and specialists.

B. Provide continuing liaison with federal, state and local government agencies having responsibilities for air quality regulations and participate with them when regional, state or local air quality standards or regulations affecting forest resources are 

being developed.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 23 of 58 

C. Ensure compliance of all agency activities with requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and with federal, state, and local air quality regulations. Ensure conformity to the 

appropriate State Implementation Plan of all Forest Service or Forest Service authorized or permitted activities.

Forest Supervisors have the following responsibilities: 

A. Identify AQRVs, sensitive receptors and desired future conditions for their wilderness.

B. Develop monitoring to determine the status of the above parameters. Forward 

data and information to the Regional Forester to aid in fulfilling the Regional 

Forester’s responsibility.

C. Incorporate AQRV monitoring plans into the next revision of Forest Plans.

D. Aid in the review of Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits and air quality 

issues identified in Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).

E. Determine the air quality budget needs of the forest and forward those needs to 

the Regional Office.

F. Identify the air quality training needs of the forest staff, forward those needs to the 

Regional Office for review, and schedule needed training.

Forest Air Contacts have the following responsibilities:

A. Support the Forest Supervisor in fulfilling the above responsibilities in air resource management.

B. Take the lead in planning and preparing the air quality budget for the Forest.

C. Be the communication contact between the Regional Office and the Forest on air 

quality related issues including (but not limited to) air quality regulations, air quality 

related values inventory and monitoring, global climate change, and NFMA and NEPA 

concerns.

D. Disseminate air resource management information to Districts and other interested parties on the Forest.

E. Attend, or send a suitable substitute to, air resource management training sponsored by the Regional Office.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 24 of 58 

APPENDIX 2

CLASS I AND CLASS II AREAS IN THE NORTHERN REGION

Under the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), areas of the 

country could be designated as Class I, II, or III for Prevention of Significant Deterioration purposes with the option that Class II and III areas could be upgraded to Class 

I.

Class I areas are all international parks, national parks greater than 6000 acres, and 

national wildernesses greater than 5000 acres which existed on August 7, 1977. This 

class provides the most protection to pristine lands by severely limiting the amount of 

additional air pollution which can be added to these areas. The seven Forest Service 

Class I areas in the Northern Region are: 

Wilderness Forest(s)

Selway-Bitterroot Bitterroot, Clearwater, Nez Perce

Anaconda-Pintler Bitterroot, Beaverhead, Deerlodge

Bob Marshall Flathead, Lewis & Clark

Cabinet Mountains Kootenai

Gates-Of-The-Mountains Helena

Mission Mountains Flathead

Scapegoat Helena, Lewis & Clark, Lolo

Hells Canyon* Nez Perce

*Hell’s Canyon is administered by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in Region 6.

Other Class I areas within Region 1 are Glacier, Yellowstone, and Theodore Roosevelt 

National Parks, the Northern Cheyenne, Flathead, and Fort Peck Indian Reservations 

and Medicine Lake, Red Rock Lake, and UL Bend Wildlife Refuges. 

Class II areas are all other areas of the country. These areas may be upgraded to 

Class I. A greater amount of additional air pollution may be added to these areas. 

All Forest Service lands which are not designated Class I are Class II lands.

Class II Wilderness Areas in Region 1 are:

Wilderness Forest(s)

Absaroka Beartooth Gallatin, Custer

Gospel Hump Nez Perce

Great Bear Flathead

Lee Metcalf Gallatin, Beaverhead

Rattlesnake Lolo

River of No Return# Nez Perce, Bitterroot

Welcome Creek Lolo
April 1997 Air Resource Management 25 of 58 

#The River of No Return Wilderness is managed jointly by Region 1 and Region 4. Region 4, however, 

manages their portion of the Wilderness as a Class I area.

Class III areas have the least amount of regulatory protection from additional air pollution. To date, no Class III areas have been designated anywhere in the country.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 26 of 58 

APPENDIX 3

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS*

For Six Criteria Pollutants & Visibility

(in μg/m3 unless otherwise stated)

POLLUTANT AVERAGING 

TIME

FED’L

STND

MONTANA STANDARD

IDAHO STANDARD NDAK

STAN

Particulate Matter (PM-10) Annual 24-Hour 50 150 50 150 50 150 Nitrogen Dioxide(NO

2)

Annual

1-Hour

100

 ---

100566

100

---

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour 1-Hour 10,000 40,000 9 ppm 23 ppm 10,000 40,000 Sulfur Dioxide(SO

2)

Annual

24-hour

1-hour

80

365

---

.02 ppm 

(52.4μg/m

3)

.10 ppm (262 

μg/m

3)

.50 ppm (1810 

μg/m

3)

80

365

---

Ozone (O

3) 1-hour 235 .10 ppm .12 ppm (235 

ug/m3)

Lead (Pb) Calendar 1.5 1.5 1.5 Visibility Annual --- 3 x 10 -5 meter

(scattering coefficient)

--- ---

* Annual standards are never to be exceeded. Other standards are not to be exceeded more tha
April 1997 Air Resource Management 27 of 58 

APPENDIX 4

NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS IN

 MONTANA and NORTHERN IDAHO 

STATE CITY PM-10 CO SO2 Pb

MONTANA Butte xx

East Helena xx

Laurel xx

Great Falls xx xx

Missoula xx xx

Kalispell xx

Columbia Falls xx

Libby xx

Thompson Falls xx

Whitefish xx

Billings xx xx

TRIBAL Lame Deer xx

Polson xx

Ronan xx

IDAHO Sandpoint xx

Pinehurst xx

Shoshone County 

(parts)

xx

Kootenai County (proposed)xx
April 1997 Air Resource Management 28 of 58 

APPENDIX 5

MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES IN MONTANA

Montana Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (greater than 100 tons per year)

SOURCE PM10 SO2 NOX VOC Pb TONS

POLL

COUNTY

Spring Creek Coal 192 18 202 23 0 435 Bighorn

Decker Coal 929 54 417 34 0 1434 Bighorn

Westmoreland Res. 257 15 135 14 0 421 Bighorn

Havre Pipeline LLC 4 2053 10 87 0 2144 Blaine

Continental Lime 143 5 238 8 0 394 Broadwater

Mont Pwr-Redlodge 0 0 100 25 0 125 Carbon

Dept. AF/Malstrom 1 17 96 0 0 114 Cascade

FH Stoltze L&T 65 1 4 44 0 114 Flathead

American Timber Co 89 4 20 41 0 154 Flathead

Plum Crk-Evergreen 69 8 144 84 0 305 Flathead

Plum Creek-CF 367 14 405 396 0 1182 Flathead

Columbia Falls Al 504 1262 10 390 0 21650 Flathead

Louisiana Pacific 85 1 10 74 0 170 Gallatin

Luzenac America 62 4 41 3 0 110 Gallatin

Holnam, Inc. 187 32 1330 2 1 1552 Gallatin

Mont. Tunnels Mine 190 44 408 31 0 673 Jefferson

Golden Sunlight Mi 475 40 407 27 0 949 Jefferson

Ash Grove Cement 139 84 491 1 1 716 Lewis & Clk

ASARCO 195 13225 25 0 21 13494 Lewis & Clk

Luzenac America 62 4 41 3 0 110 Madison

Stimson Lumber 131 10 181 90 0 412 Missoula

Louis. Pac. Corp. 133 2 18 163 0 316 Missoula

Stone Container Co. 487 165 2059 883 0 3594 Missoula

Louis Pac. Deerlodge 76 2 19 79 0 176 Powell

Zortman-Landusky 772 60 544 27 0 1403 Phillips

MT-Dakota Utility 29 1006 896 8 0 1939 Richland

Holly Sugar 153 57 29 19 0 258 Richland

N.Cheyene P-Ashlnd 86 1 4 9 0 100 Rosebud

Western Energy 1025 76 471 36 0 1608 Rosebud

Big Sky Coal Co. 427 26 238 18 0 709 Rosebud

Coalstrip Energy 10 1044 662 9 0 1725 Rosebud

MPC-Colstrip 1&2 91 9633 97 51 0 9872 Rosebud

MPC-Colstrip 3 147 3310 16177 199 0 19833 Rosebud

Koch Hydrocarbon 2 2 166 0 0 170 Roosevelt

Beal Mountain Mine 73 13 119 11 0 216 Silverbow
April 1997 Air Resource Management 29 of 58 

Montana Resources 1062 44 396 41 0 1543 Silverbow

SOURCE PM10 SO2 NOX VOC Pb TONS

POLL

COUNTY

Rhone Poulenc Chem 96 263 194 1 0 554 Silverbow

Stillwater Min-Nye 58 8 90 8 0 73 Silverbow

Montana Pwr Shelby 0 16 122 43 0 181 Toole

Williston Bsn-Saco 1 0 327 85 0 413 Valley

Williston B Ft.Pck 1 0 81 26 0 108 Valley

Yellowstone Energy 3 811 137 12 0 963 Yellowstone

Montana P-Billings 100 6439 3467 24 0 10030 Yellowstone

Conoco 121 959 700 790 0 2570 Yellowstone

Mt. Sulphur 1 3422 11 0 0 3434 Yellowstone

Cenex 136 2865 892 1295 0 5188 Yellowstone

Exxon 252 8738 736 1082 0 10808 Yellowstone

Western Sugar 49 486 360 17 0 912 Yellowstone

TOTALS 8537 54319 35803 6313 23 105955 All
1Information based on most recent fee data collected from the sources. Most recent 

is generally 1993.

*Described as Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) instead of PM. 

_________________________

April 1997 Air Resource Management 30 of 58 

APPENDIX 6

MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES IN NORTHERN IDAHO

Northern Idaho Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (greater than 90 tons 

per year)1

TONS PER YEAR

SOURCE PM CO SO2 NOx VOC COUNTY

Potlatch Corp. Edwards Lumber Mill52 1638 10 45 109 Benewah

Potlatch Corp. St. 

Maries Complex

832 1890 12 176 163 Benewah

Rayonier Inland 98 544 3 60 9 Benewah

Regulus Stud Mill 101* 69 2 5 10 Benewah

Ceda-Pine Veneer 70 28 1 5 12 Bonner

Crown Pacific Inland (formerly D.A.W.)310 200 49 28 47 Bonner

Louisiana Pacific 121 202 3 58 28 Bonner

Loiusiana Pacific - 

Priest River

142* 3 Bonner

Pacific Gas Transmission - Samuels 

Compressor

3 21 2 349 <1 Bonner

Riley Crk Lumber 413* 374 8 62 190 Bonner

Crown Pacific Inland145 100 1 6 2 Boundary

Louisiana Pacific 37 96 3 60 25 Boundary

Pacific Gas Transmission Co. (Eastport Compressor)7 402 3 814 8 Boundary

Potlatch Corp. 

Jaype Plywood

415 777 10 88 96 Clearwater

Clearwater Forest 100* 189 1 21 28 Idaho

IdaPine Mills 170 11 2 31 3 Idaho

Seubert Excavators 184 1 <1 6 <1 Idaho

Shearer Lumber 243* 159 1 21 3 Idaho

Three River Timber 869 1084 6 28 58 Idaho

Gem State Lumber 70 172 1 5 9 Latah

University of ID 39 28 3 42 4 Latah

Bennett Lumber 61* 259 1 29 4 Latah

Kamiah Mills 34 23 <1 3 34 Lewis
April 1997 Air Resource Management 31 of 58 

SOURCE PM CO SO2 NOx VOC COUNTY

Potlatch Corp. 

Lewiston Complex

650 5657 359 2120 395 Nez Perce

BTU Energy (Proposed)7 75 18 98 17 Kootenai

Crown Pacific (formerly D.A.W.)150 231 3 13 5 Kootenai

Harpers, Inc 9 17 199 Kootenai

Idaho Forest Industries100 79 1 24 10 Kootenai

Idaho Forest Industries - Dearmond 

Division

90 78 2 37 15 Kootenai

Idaho Veneer 140 114 1 7 4 Kootenai

Imsamet 94 14 24 45 39 Kootenai

Louisiana Pacific, 

Chilco

81 172 7 30 266 Kootenai

Louisiana Pacific, 

Post Falls

110* 172 1 5 9 Kootenai

Pacific Gas Transmission Co., Athol 

Compressor

7 447 2 948 9 Kootenai

Potlatch Corp, Post 

Falls

288 201 1 22 60 Kootenai

Washington Water 

Power Co.

32 240 13 235 8 Kootenai

TOTALS 6274 15747 555 5554 1883 ALL NO. 

COUNTIES
April 1997 Air Resource Management 32 of 58 

APPENDIX 7

COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENT

AIR POLLUTION SOURCES AND NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS

From: Schoettle, et al. in press.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 33 of 58 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 34 of 58 

APPENDIX 8

SOURCES OF WEATHER INFORMATION

b.hammer, 12/20/96

Introduction

Weather is a condition of the atmosphere at a particular place and time, while climate 

is the prevailing average and extreme weather conditions of a place over a period of 

years. Weather and climate database sources presented are selections which are 

hoped to be useful for natural resources management activities such as: environmental assessment reporting; ecosystem, watershed, and air quality modeling; vegetation 

classification and phenology; silviculture; range and fire management; tree planting; 

recreational activities; water supply management; insect and disease control; and 

road or trail construction and maintenance.

Databases are distinguished by being either historic/archived or interactive/real 

time. Comments on data quality, cost, period of record, and uses are included with 

available sources. Databases must include metadata, which is information about the 

data site and instrumentation. Sources of weather information and potential applications will be a dynamic file with updating as new information and needs arise. User 

feedback will be appreciated and used to make this weather source information most 

useful.

The Internet is evolving daily and is becoming an important major source of weather 

information and a network connecting weather data systems. An interagency effort is 

underway to make a unified climate access network (UCAN). A brief introduction to 

Internet and UCAN are included in the following weather source systems of use to resource management.

Specific Weather Databases

1. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

The largest climate data center in the world, operated by National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration of US Dept of Commerce, is located in Asheville, 

NC. NCDC contains all historical US weather records generated by NOAA and 

its predecessor agencies. NCDC databases are mostly from national networks 

such as radar, airway surface observations, and upper air soundings. Cooperative observer daily weather observations are included.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 35 of 58 

source: NCDC phone: (704) 271-4800

151 Patton Avenue, Room 120

Asheville, NC 28801-5001

internet = http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

data storage: computer tapes, microfiche, paper, data cassettes

data types: historic; all weather parameters; 215 separate data sets, historical 

publications, special studies, statistical tabulations, climatological analyses, 

and analyzed weather charts. On-line data access includes downloadable climate and satellite data; surface daily, monthly, and other data types; inventory 

systems; NEXRAD services directory; and publications.

use: all weather information applications of NOAA databases

period of records: 1850’s to present

data quality/comments: quality control varies according to data set; good summaries and data management; usually valley, not wildlands, locations for data 

collection. NCDC does not maintain most non-NOAA databases for the western 

US.

cost/time: charges for most NCDC data, including other federal agencies; long 

time (a month) to obtain some requested data; on-line data access

2. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in cooperation with 

other agencies and universities administers six Regional Climate Centers to 

provide national coverage of regional climatic databases. The Western Regional 

Climate Center is affiliated with the Desert Research Institute in Reno, NV, and 

has memorandum of understanding with the Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management to enhance the utilization of RAWS meteorological data. 

States served are MT, ID, WA, OR, CA, NV, UT, AZ, NM, WY, CO, AK, HI, and 

Pacific Islands. The WRCC is a leader in UCAN and the Internet for weather 

and climate information.

source: Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC)

P.O. Box 60220

Reno, NV 89506-0220

Director: Dr. Richard Reinhardt, 702-667-3103,

internet = rrwrcc@nimbus.sage.unr.edu
April 1997 Air Resource Management 36 of 58 

Regional Climatologist: Dr. Kelly Redmond, 702-677-3139,

internet = krwrcc@nimbus.sage.unr.edu

generic: 702-677-3106 voice, 702-677-3157 fax,

internet = wrcc@nimbus.sage.unr.edu

internet = http://wrcc.sage.dri.edu/

data storage: computer tapes, paper, disk on-line

data types: primarily historic, but also some interactive databases; all weather 

parameters; 6100 stations for the 14 western most states; historical database 

updated twice each month; all hourly data from FAA and NWS kept on-line for 

at least one year; period-of-record RAWS 24 hourly observations maintained 

on-line; useful graphical statistics over the Internet showing maximums, minimums, and means for climatic parameters for all weather stations by states 

and stations which can be clicked on by personal computer mouse using the 

World Wide Web; very involved in UCAN

use: all weather information applications

period of records: 1850’s to present

data quality/comments: varies according to data set; good data management; 

can coordinate with WRCC to adapt to forestry data sources and applications 

and produce specific data products

cost/time: small charges for all data; telephone requests met within about a 

day; developing menu-driven user-accessible remote access system to directly 

query the data

3. National Agriculture Water and Climate System

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly called Soil Conservation Service, Portland, OR, has a Centralized Database System, until recently called the Climatic Data Access Facility Systems, with NRCS SnowTelemetry (SNOTEL) data, NRCS Global Change data, NWS cooperative climate 

data from national network and a variety of hydrologic data. SNOTEL sites are 

located throughout western rangelands and mountain watersheds, and provide 

daily remote high elevation snowpack, precipitation, and temperature data.

source: Natural Resources Conservation Service

101 SW Main Street, Suite 1600

Portland, OR 97204-3224
April 1997 Air Resource Management 37 of 58 

Administrative contact is Phil Pasteris, 503-414-3058, 

A16PPasteris@ATTMAIL.COM.

Technical contact is Jim Marron, 503-414-3047, A16JMarron@ATTMAIL.COM.

Internet access is evolving over World Wide Web. Very involved in UCAN. Accounts and passwords are often assigned by state. Contact NRCS state office, 

Climate Data Liaison or Snow Survey staff, in Boise and Bozeman.

Cooperator manuals and on-line training in data access as well as assistance 

in obtaining climate databases are readily available through the Snow Survey 

Data Collection and Water Supply Specialist staff in each state office. Bozeman 

contacts are Roy Kaiser, (406) 587-6991, and Jerry Beard, 587-6843. Boise 

NRCS Snow Survey number is (208) 334-1614.

data storage: computer tapes, disk storage

data types: historic and interactive; precipitation, temperature, snow depth, 

snow water content primarily, but other weather parameters on some sites. 

Excellent summary reports including interpretations relative to water supply. 

Trend toward more environmental parameters with global climate monitoring. 

GIS maps using Oregon State University PRISM model.

use: water supply forecasting related to snowpack, precipitation, and soil moisture. Other environmental parameters possible make applications potential 

unlimited, especially relating to remote rangelands and mountain watersheds. 

GIS maps for all ecosystem management needs.

period of record: most SNOTEL from about 1980 to present. Includes NOAA 

station data from 1850’s (very few prior to 1948) to present.

data quality/comments: good data management and site equipment is well 

maintained. Excellent help at state offices and Portland center. Can obtain 

any data set in a timely manner with no charge. Addition of sensors to SNOTEL is a simple matter of working with state Snow Survey personnel, usually 

costing only sensor purchase price, with operation and maintenance by the 

NRCS.

cost/time: no cost and rapid, near real time data interaction possible

4. Weather Information Management System (WIMS)

The Weather Information Management System (WIMS) became available on the 

USDA National Information Technology Center in Kansas City, MO, in April, 

1993. WIMS is a replacement for the Administrative Forest Fire Information 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 38 of 58 

Retrieval and Management System (AFFIRMS) as a host for the National Fire 

Danger Rating System. WIMS provides a gateway to National Weather Service 

computer graphics products in the Automated Forecasting and Observing System (AFOS). WIMS is intended to expand from traditional fire weather data 

management to a system for all weather data users in natural resources management.

source: WIMS

National Information Technology Center

8330 Ward Parkway

Kansas City, MO 64114

WIMS is an interactive database system for DG and PC use by Forest Service, 

BLM, NPS, and other agencies including state personnel. User support and 

system administration are provided by staff located in Boise, ID. Phone number for WIMS support is 1-800-253-5559 or 208-387-5287, and DG address is 

FIRE?:W02A. Each National Forest’s fire management staff has WIMS user expertise.

data storage: on-line relational database

data types: interactive and batch, with historic data. Mainly 1300 hour fire 

weather data such as temperature, precipitation, humidity, lightning activity 

level, state of the weather, wind speed and direction. Both manual and RAWS 

data. One year of on-line 24 hour daily RAWS data. Wide variety of NWS 

graphics AFOS products available by PC connection through WIMS.

use: fire weather is immediate use, but other resources can use the data and 

NWS products. Software programs will be added to statistically work with the 

data to aid in resource management decision making.

period of records: One year of 24 hour daily data is kept on-line.

data quality/comments: a new system which primarily manages daily 1300 

hour fire weather for National Fire Danger Rating System. RAWS data coordination with BLM Boise operations is ongoing. RAWS are often fire season only, 

and there is a need for year-round sensors for precipitation. Many automatic 

weather station (AWS) sites are replacing manual stations rather than being remote, but AWS does provide wildland weather information. Data management 

is evolving with WRCC for archived weather information. Other resource 

weather data needs and applications can be added to the system. RAWS maintenance and training programs are continuing to help ensure quality data.

cost/time: charges for Kansas City computer time to each user; real-time data 

interaction
April 1997 Air Resource Management 39 of 58 

5. Agrimet & Hydromet

Bureau of Reclamation in Boise, ID, maintains a Northwest Cooperative Agricultural Weather Network, as a part of the Pacific Northwest Hydrometeorological Network for river and reservoir management. Refer to CHROMS below for 

more comprehensive discussion of hydrometeorological data. The AgriMet network is dedicated to improved irrigation water management through crop water 

use modeling with 42 weather stations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 

Montana. Like the Hydromet, transmissions from each AgriMet station deliver 

data at 4 hour intervals via the GOES satellite to the Reclamation’s computer 

in Boise. Data from 11 agricultural weather stations operated by Washington 

State University is also available through AgriMet.

source: Monte McVay (208) 378-5282

Bureau of Reclamation

1150 N. Curtis Rd. 

Boise, ID 83706

data storage: computer tapes, on-line archives; historical data at WRCC

data types: all weather parameters and soil moisture and soil temperature; parameters recorded every 15 minutes or every hour; daily historical records such 

as maximums, minimums, means, and accumulated values; crop water use 

and evapotranspiration calculations on daily basis

use: all weather information applications

period of records: 1983 to present

data quality/comments: good data management and site maintenance. Contact Monte McVay for details.

cost/time: no charge for username and password; interactive on pc with modem

6. CHROMS

The Columbia River Operational Hydromet System (CHROMS) is a dedicated 

real-time data collection, processing, and display system for reservoir watermanagement in the Pacific Northwest. CHROMS is a number of independent 

data collection systems all forwarding data to a central data bank in Portland, 

Oregon, for processing and access by other users. Hydromet data systems include Bureau of Reclamation, Geological Survey, Natural Resources and Conservation Service (SCS), Corps of Engineers, National Weather Service, 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 40 of 58 

Bonneville Power Service, Forest Service, and British Columbia Hydro and 

Power Authority. The CHROMS Automated Front End (CAFE) provides over 

1500 hydromet stations of data interactively via pc.

source: Roger Ross, Meteorologist 503-326-3762

CENPD-PE-WMgineers, Northern

Portland, OR 97208-2870

data storage: no storage available on CAFE; there are over 11 remote networks 

with over 7 agencies storing hydromet data

data types: generally hourly, 3 hourly, 6 hourly, and daily data; about one year 

of data on-line; every conceivable type of hydromet data

use: water resource management and all weather information applications

period of records: about one year of data on-line; see individual agency data 

networks for historical records

data quality/comments: responsibility of collecting agency; no external quality 

control flags

cost/time: no cost; interactive real-time data

7. ASCADS

Bureau of Land Management’s Remote Automatic Weather Station/Remote Environmental Monitoring System (RAWS/REMS) Automated Storage Conversion 

and Distribution System (ASCADS) is located in Boise, ID, at the National Interagency Fire Center. A Direct Read Only Terminal (DROT) in Boise receives 

RAWS/REMS data from a Domestic Satellite (DOMSAT) service which relays 

the data from the GOES satellite. The DROT relays the data to ASCADS. ASCADS provides automatic storage, conversion, and distribution of RAWS/REMS 

data in a real-time format. ASCADS interacts with Initial Attack Management 

System and the Forest Service’s WIMS, as well as WRCC and NWS.

source: Phil Sielaff 208-387-5726

NIFC - RAWS

3833 S. Development Ave.

Boise, ID 83705-5354

data storage: holds as much data on-line as possible, about 60 days for each 

system; inputs to WIMS for 1 year storage and WRCC for archival
April 1997 Air Resource Management 41 of 58 

data types: fire RAWS with data set of 8 elements hourly; REMS with data sets 

of 21 elements recorded hourly, in some cases, every 15 minutes; weather observations, hydrology, soils, HAZMAT, air quality data

use: all weather information applications; originally fire weather focus

period of records: about 60 days

data quality/comments: "Watchdog" data quality monitoring and reporting

cost/time: no cost; interactive on pc

8. Private or localized sources of weather information

National Weather Service weather radar network NEXRAD information vendors 

are four private companies: Kavouras, Inc., Minneapolis, MN; WSI Corp, Billerica, MA; Paramax Systems Corp., Ivyland, PA; and Zephyr Weather Information Service, Westborough, MA. Many weather data private vendors provide information via PCs for a fee including: WeatherBank, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT; 

Weather Network, Inc., Chico, CA; WSI Corp., Billerica, MA; CompuServe, Columbus, OH; and AccuWeather, State College, PA. Weather data maybe obtained on the Internet from many sources, one of the more popular being The 

Weather Underground, maintained by the University of Michigan.

Large environmental databases, including NCDC climate data sets, are available on CD-ROM technology from: the NCDC; EarthInfo, Inc. and Hydrosphere, Inc.; WeatherDisc Associates; and others. Ilana Stern of the National 

Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, CO, provides a summary of available weather information from many private sources. Some major private distributors of weather data include: Accu-Weather; Cyclogenesis; WeatherBank; 

Weather Network; WSI; and CompuServe. There are many consulting meteorologists who are certified through the American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA.

There are many other sources of weather information. One example is the 

Campbell Scientific stations run for avalanche condition monitoring with 

weather stations on the Gallatin National Forest at Big Sky and Bridger Bowl 

ski areas, and one on the Flathead National Forest at Big Mountain ski area. 

Glacier National Park operates weather stations as part of global climate 

change research. Montana’s Highway Department operates a network of 

weather and highway conditions automatic weather stations.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 42 of 58 

9. Meteorological Master Directory

NASA provides a multidisciplinary database of information service, called Global Change Master Directory, available at no cost on-line, accessible with a pc 

and modem. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Geenbelt, MD 20771, provides assistance and information on this meteorological information service, 

phone 301-441-4202 or FAX 301-441-9486.

10. State Climatologists

NOAA, National Weather Service funding of state climatology programs ceased 

years ago, but many states have typically supported climatologists at a university. Montana’s Jon Wraith, at Montana State University, Bozeman, 406-994-

1997, tried to provide climatological services for a time after Joe Caprio retired, 

but Montana is currently without a climatologist. Idaho’s Myron Molnau, at 

University of Idaho, Moscow, 208-885-6182, provides their climatological services, a linkage with the NWS cooperative weather observing program and Regional and National climate centers. All western states except Montana and 

New Mexico have a state climatologist.

11. Internet

Almost all weather information agencies and companies are available on the Internet. Observations, forecasts, radar maps, satellite images, weather maps, 

statistics, ... virtually everything about weather and climate is now available 

over the World Wide Web by pointing and clicking your computer mouse. 

Many of the weather and climate products are provided by private companies 

using government systems of weather and climate data collection. As an example of the Internet World Wide Web home pages for weather and climate, one 

might try http://wrcc.sage.dri.edu/ for the Western Regional Climate Center, 

which provides linkage to numerous weather and climate data systems. Refer 

to UCAN below for discussion of the rapidly evolving Internet linking all agencies weather and climate data systems.

12. Unified Climate Access Network

Federal and state agencies have joined together to unify access and availability 

of climate data and information for natural resource management. Unified Climate Access Network (UCAN) will provide users with virtual access via the Internet to climate datasets collected by federal, state, and county networks. 

UCAN will also provide a variety of climate applications such as statistical averages, frequency analyses, spatial mapping and risk analyses. Precipitation, 

temperature, wind, snow, solar radiation, and evaporation data by quarter 

hour, hourly, daily, monthly, and annually will be available over the Internet. 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 43 of 58 

Many climate interpretations will be available over the Internet, including: GIS 

precipitation and temperature layers; temperature and precipitation summaries; daily, weekly, monthly, and annual normals; frost free days and growing season lengths; wetland determination tables; evapotranspiration estimates; construction days; Palmer Drought Index; Standardized Precipitation 

Index; rainfall frequencies; and climate generation parameters. Regional climate networks available and connected through the Internet include: High 

Plains Regional Climate Center; SNOTEL (NRCS); RAWS (BLM, FS); AGRIMET 

(Bur Rec); State networks like ALERT; and others. UCAN will provide historical 

datasets and near real-time climate data.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 44 of 58 

APPENDIX 9

BASELINE CONDITIONS

and

SOURCES OF EXISTING INFORMATION

The purpose of this section is to summarize existing information sources regarding 

air quality and AQRVs on Region 1 National Forest lands.

State Air Regulatory Agencies (Idaho, Montana and North Dakota). The primary responsibility of the state air regulatory agencies is to protect public health and safety 

from air pollution impacts. Much of the state air regulatory responsibility derives 

from Federal laws (i.e., as the Clean Air Act) and subsequent regulations, usually developed by EPA. In addition, states may have developed additional legislation e.g., 

the Clean Air Act of Montana, and rules such as the Montana Air Quality Rules. Because the primary responsibility of the state air regulatory agencies is to protect public health, much of their monitoring is in cities where the largest concentrations of 

pollution and people occur.

EPA Emission Source Inventories. EPA has national and international emissions inventory databases which may be useful to the Forest Service. Among them are the 

National Emissions Data System (NEDS) containing data on point and area sources 

throughout the country, the US NAPAP (National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program) Natural Particulate Emissions Inventory, the Canadian NAPAP Natural Particulate Emissions Inventory, and the NAPAP Modelers’ Emissions Inventory (Version 2).

University Research and Publications. The University of Montana, Montana State 

University, University of Idaho, Idaho State University and others have conducted independent research which may be useful to the Forest Service in identifying baseline 

conditions for air quality, AQRVs, and Resource Values Affected by Air Pollution.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program. The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) network consists of about 200 sites throughout the United States which 

continuously monitor precipitation chemistry. Some sites also monitor dry deposition. Region 1 installed a high elevation site (MT97) at Lost Trail Pass on the Bitterroot NF which became operational in October, 1990. This is the only high elevation 

site in Montana or Region 1. The 1990-1996 Lost Pass site data had an average pH 

of 5.39, and sulfate of 0.19 mg/L. These low levels of acid deposition are comparable 

to three low elevation sites which occur within 25 miles of National Forest lands in 

Region 1: MT05, Glacier National Park; MT07, Clancy (near Helena); WY08, Tower 

Falls (Yellowstone NP, Wyoming). Precipitation chemistry is fairly uniform at all three 

sites. Average annual NADP pH from 1990-1996 is 5.19 at Glacier, 5.2 at Clancy, 

and 5.48 at Yellowstone. Average annual (1990-1996) sulfate (SO4) varied from 0.39 

mg/L at Yellowstone, 0.43 mg/L at Glacier, and 0.46 mg/L at Clancy. These 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 45 of 58 

measured levels of pH and sulfate deposition are also relatively moderate. Greater 

deposition loadings could be occurring at higher elevations where the most sensitive 

lakes are located.

Visibility. Two visibility camera sites were installed in the Bob Marshall Wilderness in 

July, 1989. Visibility cameras were also installed near the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness in 1990, and next to the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness in 1992. The Selway Bitterroot visibility camera was moved from Hells Half Lookout to Sula Peak Lookout in 

1994. Only the camera at the Sula Peak Lookout continues to operate. Baldy Mountain visibility camera on the Salmon National Forest is adjacent to the Frank Church 

River of No Return and Selway Bitterroot Wilderness areas, with its camera aimed 

into the nearby Anaconda Pintler Wilderness. Close out reports are being prepared 

for the Montana sites which have been discontinued. All visibility data is stored at 

Air Resource Specialists, Inc. and with the Scott Copeland, air quality analyst for the 

Forest Service in Fort Collins, Colorado. 

In addition to camera only sites operated by the Forest Service there is the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. This is a 

three phased effort to monitor visibility trends in Class I areas. The three phases or 

kinds of data that are collected are optical, scene, and aerosol. Sula Peak IMPROVE 

module A was installed in 1994, and Baldy Mountain IMPROVE module A on the 

nearby Salmon National Forest was installed in 1993. Other nearby IMPROVE sites 

are located in Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks. 

EPA Western Lake Survey. During September and early October of 1985, the Forest 

Service and EPA cooperated in a survey of 719 lakes in the western US for the purposes of acid deposition baseline characterization. Results are reported in Western

Lake Survey Phase I (EPA, 1/87). In Region 1, lake samples were obtained from the 

following wildernesses: Absaroka-Beartooth, Anaconda-Pintler, Cabinet Mountains, 

Great Bear, Lee Metcalf, Mission Mountains, Rattlesnake, and Selway Bitterroot. 

Relative to other western Regions, Region 1 was about average in lake sensitivity to 

acid deposition. Generally, lakes within the Lewis Range (including the Great Bear, 

Mission Mountain, and Rattlesnake Mountains) had relatively high alkalinity (and 

acid buffering) due to the predominately sedimentary geology. The Bitterroot and 

Beartooth Ranges had a high percentage of highly sensitive lakes (very low alkalinity).

Phase 1 and Phase 2 Lake Monitoring. In 1991, 93 lakes in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness and 32 lakes in the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness were monitored for Phase 

1 parameters (pH, alkalinity, acid neutralizing capacity, conductivity, and watershed 

characteristics). The sampling criteria included lakes which had potential for low 

amounts of acid neutralizing capacity (high elevation cirque lakes in resistant parent 

material). Many lakes were measured which had acid neutralizing capacity’s less 

than the most sensitive lakes reported in the Western Lake Survey (1985). In 1992, 

44 lakes in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, 19 in the Cabinet Mountains 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 46 of 58 

Wilderness, 39 in the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness, and six near the Anaconda 

Pintler Wilderness were sampled for Phase 2 parameters (Phase 1 plus several additional anions and cations). Excellent correspondence was found between parent 

material and lake water chemistry. Several acid deposition sensitive lake systems 

were identified and 10 lakes were tentatively identified for Phase 3 (long term benchmark) monitoring. Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness Phase 2 parameters has included 

35 lakes in 1993, 19 lakes in 1994, and 15 lakes in 1995. The Absaroka Beartooth 

Wilderness has fairly homogeneous parent material so variation in lake chemistry is 

related more to elevation and the amount of soil development and vegetation in the 

lake watersheds. In 1995 21 lakes were monitored for Phase 1 parameters in the Mission Mountains Wilderness. None of the Mission Mountains Wilderness lakes are 

highly sensitive to acid deposition. 

Phase 3 Lake Monitoring. Phase 3 lake monitoring is designed to measure long term 

trends in lake chemistry on biological conditions. Phase 3 monitoring is designed to 

measure long term trends in lake chemistry and biological conditions. Phase 3 monitoring includes all of the chemical parameters in phase 2 plus chlorophyll a (index of 

productivity) and phytoplankton. In 1994 Phase 3 monitoring was initiated in Upper 

and Lower Libby lakes and Engle lake in the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness. In 1995 

the Phase 3 monitoring was extended to include 4 lakes in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness: North Kootenai and Upper Grizzly lakes in the Bitterroot NF, South Colt lake 

in the Clearwater NF, and Shasta lake in the Nez Perce NF. In 1996 reduced funding 

constrained the Phase 3 monitoring to 1 times per year at Libby lakes, North 

Kootenai, Shasta but added Twin Island and Stepping Stone lakes in the Absaroka 

Beartooth Wilderness.

Lake Periphyton Monitoring. Periphyton (algae scraped off lake substrate rocks) were 

collected for Phase 2 lakes in cooperation with the Montana Water Quality Division in 

an assessment of lake and wetland diatom periphyton in Montana. Periphyton species and abundance were evaluated for potential use as bioassessment indicators (D. 

Charles, F. Acker, and N.A. Roberts, 1996. Diatom Periphyton in Montana Lakes and 

Wetlands: Ecology and Potential as Bioassessment Indicators. Environmental Research Division, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA). The results show 

that all of the Region 1 Wilderness areas evaluated (Cabinet Mountains, Selway Bitterroot, Anaconda Pintler, and Absaroka Beartooth) have low concentrations of diatoms dominated by "clean" water species with no observable impairment. The assessment found that Cabinet Mountains, Selway Bitterroot, and Anaconda Pintler Wilderness periphyton are similar but that Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness periphyton were 

distinctly different, with lower concentrations and fewer species. The authors speculated that the differences are due to the high elevation of the Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness lakes (most lakes >10,000 feet in alpine environments). The Absaroka 

Beartooth Wilderness lakes have low pH and conductivity, few organic compounds, 

and substantial water flow and chemistry variability through the year. Other than the 

strong relationships between diatom type and water quality characteristics, there 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 47 of 58 

were no readily apparent patterns in the data (i.e. individual indicator taxa, diversity 

metrics) that looked promising for distinguishing lake impairment.

Lake Sediments. Lake sediments can provide a record of metal deposition which 

could be useful to determine if metals are or were being deposited from air pollution 

or lake watershed sources. The 1992 sediment core samples in the Anaconda Pintler 

Wilderness were of limited utility in determining lake metal sediment deposition since 

the sediment cores were not analyzed in chronological sections. Sediment core 

samples should be collected in the deepest part of a lake (finest textured sediments), 

dried, subsampled at 2 mm sections and analyzed using intensive 

digestion/extraction ICP chemical analysis techniques for major metal parameters. 

Sediment cores should be taken sufficiently deep (10-15 cm) to allow a comparison of 

background sediment chemistry (prior to 1860) chronologically to the present.

Lichens

Lichens as Bioindicators of Air Quality

Air quality can be monitored using lichens, a composite organism of a fungus and a 

green algae and/or a bluegreen bacterium. Using lichens to monitor air quality involves chemical analysis of lichen tissue for pollutants and a survey of lichens abundance and composition to detect presence/absence/changes in sensitive species. Lichens can absorb and accumulate pollutants in much larger amounts than in the tissue of higher plants and can serve as living pollution storage indicators. Lichens are 

particularly useful indicators of sulfur dioxide and metals pollution.

Lichen Surveys in Three Northern Region Wilderness Areas

The Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, Anaconda Pintler Wilderness, and Cabinet Mountains Wilderness have been surveyed for lichen community representation as an index of air quality conditions. Dr. Larry St. Clair of Brigham Young University monitored lichen composition, density, and metal concentrations in the above wilderness 

areas in 1992, and the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness again in 1993 and 1994. Lichens 

were collected from rocks, soil, and bark at reference sites representative of the wilderness area diversity of climate, landforms, hydrology, geology, soils, plants, and 

vegetation.

Selway Bitterroot Wilderness Lichens

St. Clair established 15 air quality biomonitoring sites in and near the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness from 1992 to 1994. A total of 210 lichen species were identified and 

collected. Three to 5 pollution sensitive species were analyzed for 20 potential pollutants at each of the 15 reference sites. Elements analyzed are within background levels, with nickel, copper, titanium, and zinc elevated in some samples which may reflect substrate enrichment. The Selway Bitterroot Wilderness lichen flora is healthy, 

diverse, and unimpacted by air pollutants. St. Clair recommends 2 to 3 more sites be 

established on north boundary and 2 more sites on southwestern boundary of the 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 48 of 58 

Selway Bitterroot Wilderness and to re-evaluate sensitive species every 5 to 8 years 

(about year 2000).

Anaconda Pintler Wilderness Lichens

St. Clair established 10 air quality biomonitoring sites across the Anaconda Pintler 

Wilderness and adjacent areas west of Anaconda Copper Smelter in 1992. A total of 

143 lichen species were identified and collected in the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness 

with additional 18 species outside. Three to 5 pollution sensitive species were analyzed for 20 potential pollutants at each of the 10 reference sites. The Anaconda 

Pintler Wilderness lichen tissue elements analyzed are within background levels, 

with nickel, titanium, and zinc elevated in some samples which may reflect substrate 

enrichment. The Anaconda Pintler Wilderness lichen flora is healthy, diverse, and 

unimpacted by air pollutants. On four of the five reference sites east of the Anaconda 

Pintler Wilderness in proximity to the Anaconda Copper smelter influence zone, lichen species diversity is low, sensitive species are poorly developed, there are more 

rock substrate lichen species, and lichen tissue has elevated levels of arsenic, nickel, 

chromium, copper, and lead. During smelter operations significant damage was done 

to most sensitive lichens east of the Wilderness. St. Clair recommends more sites in 

this Wilderness and to re-evaluate sensitive species every five to eight years (about 

year 2000).

Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Lichens

St. Clair established three air quality biomonitoring sites across the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness in 1992. A total of 94 lichen species were identified and collected. 

One to three pollution sensitive species were analyzed for 20 potential pollutants at 

each of the 10 reference sites. Elements analyzed are within background levels, with 

titanium and zinc being elevated in some samples which may reflect substrate enrichment. Cabinet Mountains Wilderness lichen flora is healthy, diverse, and unimpacted by air pollutants. St. Clair recommends more sites be established in other 

parts of the wilderness area and to re-evaluate sensitive species every 5 to 8 years 

(about year 2000).

Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Snow pH Monitoring. During the winters of 1980-81, 

1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983-84, the Soil Conservation Service measured pH of surface snow at several snow course sites in Montana. Generally, the pH measurements 

in the southwest section of Montana were less than 5.0 pH units while the rest of 

western Montana had snow pH commonly greater than 5.0 pH units. The yearly 

variation in the shape of the pH zones may be associated with storm patterns. The 

SCS reports speculate that the low pH snow is being brought in from southwest of 

Montana and not directly related to pollution sources in Montana. During 1992, 58 

sites were selected for pH monitoring using the same methodology as 1980-1984. 

However increased amounts of acid dye in the pH paper did not allow accurate readings in the low ionic strength melted snow solutions so the monitoring was discontinued.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 49 of 58 

USGS Snow Monitoring. In 1993, the USGS Water Resources Division, Colorado Division, under the direction of John Turk and George Ingersoll, initiated snowpack 

chemistry monitoring at 11 sites in Western Montana including: Big Mountain, Apgar 

and Noisy Basin (Glacier NP), Granite Pass and Showdown Ski Area (near Missoula), 

Chief Joseph Pass, Red Mountain (near Butte), Kings Hill, Big Sky, Targee Pass (near 

West Yellowstone) and Daisy Pass (near Cooke City). Three sites in Yellowstone National Park are in the monitoring network: Canyon, Lewis Lake, and Sylvan Lake.

The 1993/1996 sites have low concentrations of metals and "clean" isotope rations of 

sulfate except for Kings Hill and Targee Pass which are slightly elevated. In 1997, Region 1 cooperated with the USGS in measuring six additional sites.

Particulate Matter Monitoring. In August, 1994, the Bitterroot National Forest, in conjunction with Regional and interagency support, began monitoring particulate matter 

less than 10 microns in diameter, PM-10, at Stevensville and West Fork Ranger Stations. High volume samplers and a continuously monitoring TEOM sampler provide 

managers with information on background ambient air quality concentrations as well 

as assessment of Forest Service management effects on air quality. PM-10 concentrations are compared with visibility photographs taken at Sula Peak IMPROVE and 

Stevensville. Sula Peak IMPROVE PM-2.5 data is incorporated into the annual monitoring reports. Annual PM-10 monitoring reports in 1995 and 1996, show nearby 

and long distance upwind wildfires measured 24 hour concentrations up to 81 micrograms per cubic meter of air, which is about half of current human health standards 

of 150 micrograms per cubic meter. Visibility is reduced and public complaints 

about smoke from either wildfire or prescribed fire occur when PM-10 concentrations 

are 30 micrograms per cubic meter and higher. Background ambient PM-10 concentrations at the West Fork, which is remote from community air quality effects, are often less than 5 micrograms per cubic meter. PM-10 is analyzed by Montana Department of Environmental Quality, who put the data into the EPA AIRS database.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 50 of 58 

APPENDIX 10

ANNUAL COST 

TO IMPLEMENT ARM MONITORING
April 1997 Air Resource Management 51 of 58 

APPENDIX 10 ANNUAL COST PER FOREST TO IMPLEMENT ARM MONITOR

Forest FY97 FY98 FY99 FY2000 FY20Bitterroot $19,000-Lost 

Trail PassNADP Site

$19,000-Lost Trail PassNADP Site

$19,000-Lost Trail PassNADP Site

$19,000-Lost Trail PassNADP Site

$19,0Trail NADP 

$6,000 MAGIC/Wand calib of N. Kootenai lk

$1,500-Phase 3 mtg of N. Kootenai lk

$1,500-Phase 3 mtg of N. Kootenai lk

$1,500-Phase 3 mtg of N. Kootenai lk

$1,50mtg oKoote

$22,000 Sula IMPROVE

$22,000 Sula IMPROVE

$22,000 Sula IMPROVE

$22,000 Sula IMPROVE

$22,0IMPR

$2,000 Lichens SBW$1,500 Lichens APW

Kootenai $1,500-Phase 3 

mtg Libby lks

$1,500-Phase 3 mtg Libby lks

$1,500-Phase 3 mtg Libby lks

$1,500-Phase 3 mtg Libby lks

$1,50mtg L

$2,000 Cabinet Mountains Wilderness visib camera

$2,000 Cabinet Mountains Wilderness visib camera

$2,000 Cabinet Mountains Wilderness visib camera

$2,000 Cabinet Mountains Wilderness visib camera

$2,00Moundernecame

$2,000 Lichens CMW

Flathead $2,000 Lichens 

MMW
April 1997 Air Resource Management 52 of 58 

Nez Perce $6,000 

MAGIC/Wand calib of Shasta Lake

$2,000-Phase 3 mtg of Shasta Lake

$3,000-Phase 3 mtg of Shasta Lake

$3,000-Phase 3 mtg of Shasta Lake

$3,00mtg oLake

$2,000 Lichen SBW

Helena

$2,000 Lichens GMW

$1,50SGW

Deerlodge $1,500 Lichens 

APW

Beaverhead $1,500 Lichens 

APW

Gallatin $1,000 Phase 3 

mtg of Twin Island & Step Stone Lakes

$6,000 MAGIC/Wand calib of Twin Island Lake

$1,000 Phase 3 mtg of Twin Island & Step Stone Lakes

$1,000 Phase 3 mtg of Twin Island & Step Stone Lakes

$1,00mtg oland Stone 

APW = Anaconda Pintler Wilderness MMW = Mission Mountains WildernessBMW = Bob Marshall Wilderness SBW = Selway Bitterroot WildernessCMW = Cabinet Mountains Wilderness HCW = Hell’s Canyon WildernesGMW = Gates of the Mountains Wilderness ABW = Busywork Brattish Wilderness
April 1997 Air Resource Management 53 of 58 

APPENDIX 11

GLOSSARY*

Acid Deposition: A complex chemical and atmospheric phenomenon that occurs 

when emissions of sulfur and nitrogen compounds and other substances are transformed by chemical processes in the atmosphere, often far from the original sources, 

and then deposited on earth in either a wet or dry form. The wet forms, popularly 

called "acid rain", can fall as rain, snow, or fog. The dry forms are acidic gases or 

particulates.

Airborne Particulates: Total suspended particulate matter found in the atmosphere 

as solid particles or liquid droplets. Chemical composition of particulates varies 

widely, depending on location and time of year. Airborne particulates include: windblown dust, emissions from industrial processes, smoke from the burning of wood 

and coal, and the exhaust of motor vehicles.

Airshed Coordinator: These are individuals specified as smoke management coordinators for the operation of the Montana and Idaho State Airshed Groups. These individuals may or may not be Forest Service personnel. They have not traditionally been 

the same person as the Forest Air Contacts nor do they have the same duties.

Air Pollutant: Any substance in air which could, if in high enough concentration, 

harm man, other animals, vegetation, or material. Pollutants may include almost 

any natural or artificial composition of matter capable of being airborne. They may 

be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or in combinations of these 

forms. Generally, they fall into two main groups: (1) those emitted directly from 

identifiable sources and (2) those produced in the air by interaction between two or 

more primary pollutants, or by reaction with normal atmospheric constituents, with 

or without photoactivation. Exclusive of pollen, fog, and dust, which are of natural 

origin, about 100 contaminants have been identified and fall into the following categories: solids, sulfur compounds, volatile organic chemicals, nitrogen compounds, 

oxygen compounds, halogen compounds, radioactive compounds, and odors.

Air Quality Standards: The level of pollutants prescribed by regulations that may 

not be exceeded during a specified time in a defined area.

Ambient Air: Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere: open air, surrounding air.

Area Source: Any small source of non-natural air pollution that is released over a 

relatively small area but which cannot be classified as a point source. Such sources 

may include vehicles and other small combustion engines.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 54 of 58 

Attainment Area: An area considered to have air quality as good as or better than 

the national ambient air quality standards as defined in the Clean Air Act. An area 

may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a non-attainment area for others.

AQRVs: (Air Quality Related Values) - A scenic, cultural, physical, biological, ecological, or recreational resource which may be affected by a change in air quality as defined by the land manager for federal lands or as defined by State or Indian governing 

body for non federal lands within their jurisdiction. AQRV’s include those features or 

properties of a Class I Wilderness that made the area worthy of designation as a wilderness and that would or could be adversely affected by air pollution. AQRVs generally relate to visibility, odor, flora, fauna, soil, water, climate, geological features, and 

cultural resources. AQRVs will be specific, however, for each wilderness. AQRVs are 

considered in the context of Class I protection under the Clean Air Act.

Background Level: In air pollution control, the concentration of air pollutants in a 

definite area during a fixed period of time prior to the starting up or on the stoppage 

of a source of emission under control. In toxic substances monitoring, the average 

presence in the environment, originally referring to naturally occurring phenomena.

Best Available Control Measures (BACM): Control measures to be developed by 

EPA which apply to residential wood combustion, fugitive dust, and prescribed and 

silvicultural burning in "serious" PM-10 non-attainment areas. BACM is more stringent than RACM. Final guidance on BACM is still being developed.

Best Available Control Technology (BACT): An emission limitation based on the 

maximum degree of emission reduction which (considering energy, environmental, 

and economic impacts, and other costs) is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques. In no event does 

BACT permit emissions in excess of those allowed under any applicable Clean Air Act 

provisions. Use of the BACT concept is allowable on a case by case basis for major 

new or modified emissions sources in attainment areas and applies to each regulated 

pollutant

Criteria Pollutants: The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act required EPA to set 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain pollutants known to be hazardous 

to human health. EPA has identified and set standards to protect human health and 

welfare for six pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, particulates, sulfur dioxide, lead, 

and nitrogen oxide. The term "criteria pollutants" derives from the requirement that 

EPA must describe the characteristics and potential health and welfare effects of 

these pollutants. It is on the basis of these criteria that standards are set or revised.

DFC: (Desired Future Condition) - DFC’s describe what the future AQRV’s will look 

like if protected so as not to incur a loss of wilderness character. Identification of 

DFC’s is a management decision based upon how much change is acceptable before 

loss of wilderness character occurs.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 55 of 58 

Emission: Pollution discharged into the atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents, 

and surface areas of commercial or industrial facilities; from residential chimneys, 

and from motor vehicle, locomotive, or aircraft exhausts.

Emission Factor: The relationship between the amount of pollution produced and 

the amount of raw material processed. For example, an emission factor for a blast 

furnace making iron would be the number of pounds of particulates per ton of raw 

materials.

Exceedance: Violation of environmental protection standards by exceeding allowable 

limits or concentration levels.

Forest Air Contact: An individual designated at the Forest to coordinate and be a 

contact for the air resource management program. This individual has not traditionally been the same person as the airshed coordinator designated by the Montana and 

Idaho State Airshed Groups nor do they have the same duties.

Greenhouse Effect: The warming of the Earth’s atmosphere caused by a build-up of 

carbon dioxide or other trace gases; it is believed by many scientists that this build 

up allows light from the sun’s rays to heat the Earth but prevents a counterbalancing 

loss of heat.

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Air pollutants which are not covered by ambient air 

quality standards but which, as defined in the Clean Air Act, may reasonably be expected to cause or contribute irreversible illness or death. Such pollutants include 

asbestos, beryllium, mercury, benzene, coke oven emissions, radionuclides, and vinyl 

chloride.

MAGIC/WAND Model: Model of Acidification of Groundwater in Catchments/with 

Aggregated Nitrogen Dynamics. The model consists of soil solution equilibrium equations in which the chemical composition of soil solution is assumed to be governed by 

simultaneous reactions involving sulfate adsorption, cation exchange, dissolution 

and precipitation of aluminum, dissolution of organic carbon, and nitrogen fluxes. 

The model then uses mass balance equations accounting for fluxes of major ions to 

and from the soil, governed by atmospheric inputs, mineral weathering, net uptake in 

biomass, and loss in runoff to simulate surface and water chemistry.

Major Modification: This term is used to define modifications with respect to Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Review under the Clean Air Act 

and refers to modifications to major stationary sources of emissions and provides significant pollutant increase levels below which a modifications not considered major

Major Source: Any source belonging to a list of 28 specified categories that have the 

potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of any pollutant regulated under the 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 56 of 58 

Clean Air Act (CAA) or a source not listed on the 28 categories but has the potential 

to emit 250 tons per year or more of any pollutant regulated under the CAA. A major 

source must apply for and obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit 

prior to construction or modification.

Major Stationary Sources: Term used to determine the applicability of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and new source regulations. In a non-attainment area, any 

stationary pollutant source that has a potential to emit more than 100 tons per year 

is considered a major stationary source. In Prevention of Significant Deterioration areas, the cutoff level may be either 100 or 250 tons, depending upon the type of 

source.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Air quality standards established by EPA that apply to outside air throughout the country. (See criteria pollutants, state implementation plans, emissions trading)

NADP: National Atmospheric Deposition Program. A program initiated in 1978 to 

address the problem of atmospheric deposition and its effects on agriculture, forest, 

rangelands and fresh water streams and lakes.

New Source: Any stationary source which is built or modified after publication of final or proposed regulations that prescribe a standard of performance which is intended to apply to that type of emission source.

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): Uniform national EPA air emission 

and water effluent standards which limit the amount of pollution allowed from new 

sources or from existing sources that have been modified.

Non-Attainment Area: Geographic area which does not meet one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the criteria pollutants designated in the 

Clean Air Act.

Non-Point Source: Pollution sources which are diffuse and do not have a single 

point of origin or are not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet.

Opacity: The amount of light obscured by particulate pollution in the air clear window glass has zero opacity, a brick wall 100 percent opacity. Opacity is used as an 

indicator of changes in performance of particulate matter pollution control system.

Particulates: Fine liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or 

smog, found in air or emissions.

Plume: 1. A visible or measurable discharge of a contaminant from a given point of 

origin, can be visible or thermal in water, or visible in the air as, for example, a plume 

of smoke. 2. The area of measurable and potentially harmful radiation leaking from a 
April 1997 Air Resource Management 57 of 58 

damaged reactor. 3. The distance from a toxic release considered dangerous for 

those exposed to the leaking fumes.

Point Source: A stationery location or fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged or emitted. Also, any single identifiable source of pollution, e.g., a pipe, 

ditch, ship, ore pit, factory smokestack.

Potential to Emit: The maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant 

under its physical and operational design. See Forest Service Handbook 2509.19 for 

more detailed definition.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD): A program in which state and/or 

federal permits are required that are intended to restrict emissions for new or modified sources in places where air quality is already better than required to meet primary and secondary ambient air quality standards.

Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM): Control measures developed by 

EPA which apply to residential wood combustion, fugitive dust, and prescribed and 

silvicultural burning in and around "moderate" PM-10 non-attainment areas. RACM 

is designed to bring an area back into attainment and uses a smoke management 

program which relies on weather forecasts for burn/no burn days.

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): The lowest emissions limit that 

a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that 

is both reasonably available, as well as technologically and economically feasible. 

RACT is usually applied to existing sources in non-attainment areas and in most 

cases is less stringent than new source performance standards.

RVAAP: (Resource Values Affected by Air Pollution) - Features or properties of nonClass I National Forest Land which are or could be changed by air pollution. The 

RVAAPs are usually the same parameters as AQRVs but occur on Class II Wilderness 

Areas (designated after 8/7/77). The primary legal mandates for protecting RVAAPs 

are the Wilderness Act in Class II Wildernesses and NF non-wilderness lands.

Sensitive Receptor: Specific components of an AQRV or RVAAP which may first exhibit man-caused change from air pollution. For example, a sensitive (i.e., poorly 

buffered) lake may be a sensitive receptor for aquatic ecosystems or a specific watershed. Lichens may be a sensitive receptor for the flora or vegetation AQRV because 

lichens can accumulate air pollutants. Zooplankton may be a sensitive receptor for 

the fauna AQRV because zooplankton’s immediate environment is affected by precipitation chemistry.

Standard Visual Range (SVR): The visual range at which a black object can just be 

seen against the horizon. SVR is commonly used as an indicator of visibility.
April 1997 Air Resource Management 58 of 58 

State Implementation Plans (SIP): EPA-approved state plans for the establishment, 

regulation, and enforcement of air pollution standards.

Stationary Source: A fixed, non-moving producer of pollution, mainly powerplants 

and other facilities using industrial combustion processes.