04/24/98

Preliminary Air Quality Related Screening Values for

 Three Class I Areas in North Carolina and Tennessee

Work is currently underway to assist applicants of Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) permits determine if a new source of pollution will have an adverse impact on any

air quality related value in Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, or Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock

Wilderness (Figure 1). Table 1 lists the red line and green line screening values for several

types of pollutants which have the potential to adversely impact the air quality related

Figure 1. Location of the Class I areas for the National Forests in North Carolina.

values. The red line values indicates a total pollution level (new source plus ambient)

where at least one air quality related value has a high likelihood of having an adverse

impact; whereas the green line value indicates a total pollution level where there is a low

likelihood of an adverse impact to the air quality related values. Values that are between

the red line value and green line value are classified as the yellow zone. The yellow zone

is an area where there is uncertainty that one or more air quality related values will have

an adverse impact. The user of the information needs to understand that the values

presented are used by people at the National Forests in North Carolina to assess the risk of

a new source of air pollution. The exceeding of a red line value by current monitored or

estimated values does not mean the Federal Land Manger will issue an adverse impact

determination to the air regulatory authority. Neither does a value between the red and
04/24/98

2

green line values (i.e. the yellow zone) mean that an adverse impact determination will not

be recommended to the air regulatory agency. Other data are often used, which are not

presented here, before issuing an adverse impact determination. For example, the

applicant may want to collect acidic deposition information near the Class I area to

estimate the total deposition of sulfate and nitrates for a particular year. Furthermore, an

applicant could recommend ways to mitigate, or offset the new emissions of one or more

air pollutants.

The sections following Table 1 briefly describe each of the pollutants which have the

potential to have an adverse impact on the air quality related values. Another document

will be released at a future date which will provide greater detail on how the pollutants

impact the resources and how the screening level values were selected.

Table 1. Red line and green line screening values for the Class I areas, and current

monitored or estimated values. 

 Current Values

Pollutant Red Line Green Line Averaging Shining Joyce Kilmer/ 

Name Value Value Unit of Measure Period Linville Rock Slickrock

Ozone > 23.7 <5.9 W126 (ppm-hrs.) April - October 36.1 57.7 41.8

Ozone >50 <6 # hrs. >= 0.10 ppm April - October 5 1 35

Sulfate >=60 <15 kg/ha/yr Annual 50 66 68

Nitrate >=44 <13 kg/ha/yr Annual 26 34 32

Sulfate + Nitrate <25.0 >=25.0 ANC, ueq/L Spring NA 40 ND

Sulfate + Nitrate <0 >0 ANC, ueq/L Episodic NA ND ND

Sulfate + Nitrate <=6.0 >6.0 pH units Spring NA 6.6 5.6

Sulfate + Nitrate <=5.5 >5.5 pH units Episodic NA ND ND

Paticulates and NO2 >=2.0 <2.0 ΔE Hourly NA NA NA

Paticulates and NO2 >=0.05 <0.05 contrast Hourly NA NA NA

PM 2.5 >= 5% < 5% b ext Daily * * *

NA = not applicable

ND = no data available at this time

* Current visibility values are expressed as bext in inverse megameters (Mm-1). See Table 2 or Table 3 on

which values should be used for each Class I area.

Ozone: A high seasonal exposure and frequent occurrence of peak hourly ozone

concentrations (>= 0.10 ppm) are needed to reduce the growth of tree species found in the

southern Appalachians (Lefohn et al. 1997, and SAMAB 1996). Therefore, a dual

parameter screening level value is used to determine if ground level ozone will cause an

adverse impact to the vegetation resources at the Class I areas. An adverse impact is

likely to occur when the W126, a measure of the seasonal exposure (Lefohn and

Runeckles 1987) is greater than 23.7 ppm-hours; and there are more than 50 hours during

the growing season (April through October) when the average hourly ozone concentration

is 0.10 ppm or greater. Currently, there is no EPA approved method to estimate ozone

increases from a single source. The preferred method for addressing ground-level ozone

is to reduce emissions on a regional scale. The air regulatory agencies and applicants will

be informed early in the application process if ozone exposures are believed to be causing
04/24/98

3

an adverse impact to terrestrial resources. Table 1 shows that the W126 values exceed the

red line values for all three wildernesses. The frequency of peak hourly ozone

concentrations are below the red line value at Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness, and

below the green line values at Linville Gorge and Shining Rock Wilderness. These results

do not clearly demonstrate that ozone exposures are having an adverse impact on the

vegetation. Therefore, other data and/or published results will be used to determine if an

adverse impact is occurring to the terrestrial resources at the three wildernesses.

Sulfate: Deposition of sulfates from the atmosphere occur in wet (rainfall), dry, and

cloudwater forms. Increases in sulfates have the potential to have an adverse impact on

soil chemistry, which could lead to adverse impacts to soil and vegetation air quality

related values. Sulfate deposition at the three Class I areas was estimated using the sulfate

modeling results reported in the Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAMAB 1996, Lynch

and others 1996). The numbers reported represent sulfate from only rainfall which

underestimates the total sulfate deposition. Studies conducted at the Great Smoky

Mountains National Park have demonstrated that dry sulfate deposition is equivalent to

sulfate from rainfall. Sulfate from cloudwater is approximately twice the rainfall plus dry

sulfate deposition (Johnson and Lindberg 1992). The total deposition results in Table 1

were obtained by doubling the modeled sulfate results presented in the Southern

Appalachian Assessment (SAMAB 1996). The values presented in Table 1 do not include

cloudwater. The values may underestimate the total deposition at Shining Rock and Joyce

Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness since these areas may be receiving large amounts of sulfate

deposition from cloudwater.

Current sulfate deposition at Linville Gorge Wilderness is estimated to be 50 kg/ha/yr (i.e.

in the yellow zone) which is below the red line of 60 kg/ha/yr. Both Shining Rock

Wilderness and Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness are above the red line value.

Applicants will need to follow Section 5.1.3 of the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality

Modeling guidelines (EPA, 1993) when converting the screening model (Level 1) values

for sulfate deposition. If the screening model values are predicted to be greater than or

equal to 0.05 kg/ha (see Appendix A) then the applicant should use the CalMet and

CalPuff models for subsequent analysis.

Nitrate: Deposition of nitrates from the atmosphere occur in wet (rainfall), dry, and

cloudwater (SAMAB 1996). As with sulfates, an increase in nitrates has the potential to

adversely impact soils, and vegetation air quality related values (Peterjohn and others

1996). The nitrate values in Table 1 were obtained by doubling the wet nitrate estimates

found in the Southern Appalachian Assessment data (SAMAB 1996, and Lynch and

others 1996). All three Class I areas have values which fall within the yellow zone, which

means other information is needed to determine if an adverse impact is likely to occur.

Excessive amounts of nitrates have been found to be present at the Great Smoky

Mountains National Park (Nodvin and others 1995). There is a possibility that nitrogen

saturation could also be occurring at the three Wildernesses. Applicants will need to

follow Section 5.1.3 of the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling guidelines

(EPA, 1993) when converting the screening model (Level 1) values for nitrate deposition.
04/24/98

4

If the screening model values are predicted to be greater than or equal to 0.05 kg/ha (see

Appendix A) then the applicant should use the CalMet and CalPuff models for subsequent

analysis.

Sulfate + Nitrate: The red values for sulfate and nitrate numbers presented in Table 1 are

given as an indicator where soil and vegetation air quality related values could be

adversely impacted. Acidic deposition can also have an adverse impact on water air

quality related values because the acidified rainwater or soil water moves into the stream.

Adverse effects can occur to water quality and aquatic organisms (especially some fish and

aquatic insects) if the acidified soil water is not neutralized. The acid neutralizing capacity

(ANC) is a water chemistry measurement which reflects the ability of a watershed to offset

the acid inputs. Aquatic biotic are at risk of adverse impacts if the spring stream ANC

values are less than 25.0 ueq/l. Furthermore, aquatic biota are at risk if the ANC values

are less than 0 ueq/l following a rain storm (i.e. episodic event). Linville Gorge

Wilderness does not have water as an air quality related value, but water is an air quality

related value at the other two Class I areas. Spring time water chemistry data have been

collected for Shining Rock Wilderness. The lowest ANC value (based upon converting

alkalinity measurements) recorded is 40 ueg/l, which is above the green line value. The

CalMet and CalPuff models should be used if the ANC levels are predicted to decrease

equal to or greater than 0.1 ueq/l.

pH is another important water chemistry measurement used to indicate the status of the

water as an air quality related value. Streams with a pH value of less than or equal to 6.0

in the spring time could have adverse impacts to the stream biota. Adverse impacts can

also occur if the pH is less than or equal to 5.5 following a rain storm. The lowest spring

time pH measurement for Shining Rock Wilderness is 6.6, which is above the green line

value. The red line value for pH has been exceeded at Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness

by having a spring time measurement for pH of 5.6. The CalMet and CalPuff model

should be used if the pH levels are predicted to decrease less than or equal to 0.01 units.

Particulates and NO2: Some facilities which emit particulates, nitrogen dioxide (NO2),

and sometimes hydrogen sulfides (H2SO4) can produce a plume that can be seen in or

outside of the Class I area. The EPA has recommended a method to asses impacts from

coherent plumes from sources less than 50 km from the Class I area. The VISCREEN

(EPA, 1988) and PLUVUE-II (EPA, 1995) models are recommend to conduct plume

blight analysis. These two models calculate the change in color (ΔE) and contrast

between the plume and the viewing background. Sources should perform the analysis

using the existing emissions plus any additional emissions proposed. The model results are

significant if the ΔE value is 2.0 or greater, and/or the contrast value is 0.05 or greater.

PM2.5: New sources emission increases can result in plume blight if they are 50 km or

less from the Class I areas, but all sources have the potential to contribute to regional

haze. The main type of visibility reductions at Class I areas is regional haze (SAA 1996),

and any PSD analysis needs focus on what a new source’s contributions will be to regional

haze. Fine particles (2.5 microns or smaller) are primarily responsible for reducing
04/24/98

5

visibility at the Class I areas. The most important types of fine particles are: sulfates,

organics, nitrates, elemental carbon and soil. In addition, coarse particles (between 2.5

and 10 microns) contribute somewhat to visibility impairment. The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has published a document with recommendations for modeling

impacts on regional haze (EPA 1993), but the following steps should be followed instead

of the guidance given by the EPA (1993):

1. Use the 24-hour modeling results for NOx and SOx concentrations for

one year. Assume all NOx forms ammonium nitrate and all the SOx

forms ammonium sulfate. (Multiply the mass concentration of SO4

-2 by

1.375 to obtain (NH4)2SO4. Likewise, multiply the mass concentration

of NO3

-

 by 1.29 to obtain NH4NO3.)

2. Get the Seasonal Clear-day Aerosol Profile data for all the modeling

receptors for Shining Rock (see Appendix B) and Linville Gorge

Wilderness (see Appendix C) from Table 2. The numbers in Table 2

are taken from an IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected

Visual Environments) monitoring site near Shining Rock Wilderness

and are the best estimates for fine aerosol mass on the eastern side of

the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock

is located on both the sides of the Blue Ridge Mountains in North

Carolina and Tennessee. The values in Table 3 (Great Smoky

Mountains National Park IMPROVE site) need to be used with the

modeling results for receptors 1 through 9; whereas the values in Table

2 need to be used for receptors 10 through 27 (see Appendix D).

Table 2. Seasonal Clear-day Aerosol Profile (background) for Shining Rock

IMPROVE monitoring Site. The values should be used all of the modeling

receptors in Shining Rock and Linville Gorge Wilderness, and modeling receptors

10 through 27 at Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness.

Spring

(μg/m3)

Summer

(μg/m3)

Autumn

(μg/m3)

Winter

(μg/m3)

Extinction

Efficiency

Ammonium Sulfate 1.54 2.00 0.99 0.73 3xf(RH)

Ammonium Nitrate 0.20 0.23 0.12 0.13 3xf(RH)

Soil 0.33 0.71 0.13 0.13 1

Organics 0.62 1.14 0.82 0.63 4

Elemental Carbon 0.19 0.15 0.18 0.16 10

Coarse Mass 3.27 6.10 2.01 3.36 0.6

10th βext 32.0 46.5 27.7 26.1

10th Standard visual range 122 84 141 150
04/24/98

6

Table 3. Seasonal Clear-day Aerosol Profile (background) for Great Smoky

Mountains National Park IMPROVE monitoring Site. The values should be used

modeling receptors 1 through 9 at Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness.

Spring

(μg/m3)

Summer

(μg/m3)

Autumn

(μg/m3)

Winter

(μg/m3)

Extinction

Efficiency

Ammonium Sulfate 2.71 4.46 1.69 1.51 3xf(RH)

Ammonium Nitrate 0.56 0.24 0.30 0.36 3xf(RH)

Soil 0.38 0.77 0.17 0.12 1

Organics 1.57 2.21 1.29 1.21 4

Elemental Carbon 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.25 10

Coarse Mass 5.11 15.45 4.23 3.38 0.6

10th βext 47.0 62.0 40.9 48.8

10th Standard visual range 73 52 91 88

The following months should be used for each of the seasons listed in

Tables 2 and 3:

Spring: March, April, and May

Summer: June, July, and August

Autumn: September, October, and November

Winter: December, January and February

3. For each day, calculate reconstructed light extinction with and without

the new source, using the data in Tables 2 and/or 3. This calculation is

performed assuming an externally mixed aerosol, so that the total

extinction of the aerosols present is equal to the sum of the extinctions

of each of the species. Each species’ concentration is multiplied by a

dry extinction efficiency to determine the amount of extinction it

causes. For hygroscopic species (ammonium sulfate and ammonium

nitrate), this dry extinction must be multiplied by f(RH) to correct for

the effects of relative humidity. The f(RH) curve is in the EPA (1993)

document. For computer algorithms, interpolate from values in Table

B-1 (EPA, 1993).

Note: It is important to calculate f(RH) for each hour of the day being

modeled. These 24 hourly f(RH) values should then be averaged to give a

24-hour average f(RH). Do not use the 24-hour average RH to calculate

the daily f(RH).

4. Calculate the change in βext for each day. For the purpose of definition:

Δβext = (source βext - background βext) / background βext
04/24/98

7

The red line value is exceeded when the background βext change will be greater than or

equal to 5 percent for any day during the year (Table 1). Likewise, the atmospheric

modeling significance value is also the same as the red line value and the CalMet and

CalPuff models should be used if the change in βext is predicted to be greater than or equal

to 5 percent for any day during the year.

The following is for example only:

The modeling results predict the 24-hour average SO4 concentration will

increase by 0.9 μg/m3 on December 10th at one of the receptors at Shining

Rock Wilderness. All of the SO4 increase will be assumed to form

ammonium sulfate. Therefore, the increase in ammonium sulfate is

predicted to be 1.2375 μg/m3. The f(RH) was calculated for each hour on

December 10th and the average of the 24 hourly values was 3. Using these

values the background βext is:

[0.73(3(3))]+[0.13(3(3))]+[0.13(1)]+[0.63(4)]+[0.16(10)]+[3.36(0.6)]

6.57 + 1.17 + 0.13 + 2.52 + 1.6 + 2.02 = 13.88 Mm-1

Adding the increased ammonium sulfate (1.24 μg/m3) to the background

(0.73 μg/m3) would increase the ammonium sulfate to 1.97 μg/m3. The

new extinction would be:

[1.97(3(3))]+[0.13(3(3))]+[0.13(1)]+[0.63(4)]+[0.16(10)]+[3.36(0.6)]

17.73 + 1.17 + 0.13 + 2.52 + 1.6 + 2.02 = 25.17 Mm-1

Therefore, the percent change in βext is:

(25.17 - 13.88) / 13.88 = .81 or 81 percent

A βext increase of 81 percent would exceed the red line value of 5 percent.

If these were the results from a screening model then the applicant should

proceed to use the CalMet and CalPuff model to see if the SOx modeled

value would decrease. Another option would be to use a better control

technology, or seek emissions offsets that would reduce the visibility

impact.
04/24/98

8

Literature Cited

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Workbook for plume visual impact

screening and analysis. EPA-450/4-88-015.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality

Modeling (IWAQM), Phase I Report: Interim recommendations for modeling long range

transport and impacts on visibility. EPA-454/R-930015.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1995. PLUVUE-II (96170).

Johnson , D.; Lindberg, S., eds. 1992. Atmospheric deposition and forest nutrient

cycling. New York: Springer-Verlag. 707 pp.

Lefohn, Allen S.; Jackson , William; Shadwick, Douglas S.; Knudsen, H. Peter. 1997.

Effect of surface ozone exposure on vegetation grown in the southern Appalachian

mountains: Identification of possible areas of concern. Atmospheric Environment 31(11):

1695-1708.

Lynch, J.; Bowersix, V.; Grimm, J. 1996. Trends in precipitation chemistry in the United

States, 1983-94 – An analysis of the effects in 1995 of Phase 1 of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, Title IV. Unites States Geological Survey Open-File-Report 96-

0346.

Nodvin, S.; van Miegroet, H.; Linderg, S. [and others]. 1995. Acidic deposition,

ecosystem processes, and nitrogen saturation in a high elevation southern Appalachian

watershed. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 85(3): 1647-1652.

Peterjohn, W.; Adams, M. B.; Gilliam, F. S. 1996. Symptoms of nitrogen saturation in

two central Appalachian hardwood forest ecosystems. Biogeochemistry 35: 507-522.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern

Appalachian Assessment Assessment Atmospheric Technical Report. Report 3 of 5.

Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 84 pp.
04/24/98

9

Appendix A

How the minimal nitrate and sulfate detection levels were calculated: According to

Jim Lynch (Pennsylvania State University) the minimal detectable levels for sulfate and

nitrate in wet deposition collectors is 0.03 mg/liter. To detect an increase in deposition

(kg/ha) at a specific location depends upon the amount of rainfall. Rainfall modeling was

conducted as a step in order to estimate the annual wet sulfate and nitrate deposition

(Lynch and others 1996). The estimated rainfall for the three Class I areas is 70 inches

(1778 mm). The following equation was used to estimate the minimal detectable level of

an increase in sulfate or nitrate:

D = C * Rain * 0.01

where:

D = estimated deposition in kg/ha

C = the concentration of pollutant, which is 0.03 mg/liter

Rain = the rainfall in millimeters, which is 1778

The estimated deposition level for sulfate and nitrate is 0.5 (rounding the value of

0..5334) based upon using the preceding equation. The National Forest in North Carolina

receives about 5 to 10 PSD applications per year. Therefore, the significant modeling

screening value is being reduced to 0.05 to provide a margin of protection due to the

number of PSD applications received over a 2 year period.
04/24/98

10

Appendix B

Atmospheric Modeling Receptors* for Shining Rock Wilderness

Receptor Number X

 (meters)

Y

 (meters)

Elevation

 (meters)

Vegetation Class

1 331005 3923090 1024 Rich Cove and Slope Forests

2 332535 3921800 1275 Xeric Evergreen Forests

3 330825 3921080 1381 Acidic Cove and Slope Forest

4 334155 3920120 1312 Xeric Evergreen Forests

5 331335 3919880 1826 High-elevation Mixed Hardwood Forests

6 333555 3919610 1484 Montane Oak Forests

7 330525 3918140 1605 Rich Cove and Slope Forests

8 328695 3918050 1164 Rich Cove and Slope Forests

9 330135 3917300 1693 Spruce-fir Forests

10 330195 3916820 1734 High-elevation Mixed Hardwood Forests

11 324135 3916760 1059 Rich Cove and Slope Forests

12 326235 3916280 1548 Montane Oak Forests

13 331575 3916100 1670 Shrub Balds

14 332325 3915860 1578 Spruce-fir Forests

15 330795 3915230 1824 Shrub Balds

16 328425 3915020 1312 Acidic Cove and Slope Forest

17 330075 3915020 1701 Spruce-fir Forests

18 333195 3914990 1610 High-elevation Mixed Hardwood Forests

19 336375 3914720 1449 Xeric Evergreen Forests

20 327075 3914600 1601 Montane Oak Forests

21 330675 3914450 1788 Shrub Balds

22 334485 3914090 1127 Rich Cove and Slope Forests

23 332505 3914060 1336 Rich Cove and Slope Forests

24 328755 3913130 1642 Grasslands

25 330585 3913130 1845 High-elevation Mixed Hardwood Forests

26 327015 3912560 1198 Alluvial Forests

27 330615 3912560 1694 Non-alluvial Wetlands

28 334635 3911750 1202 Acidic Cove and Slope Forest

* X and Y coordinates are UTM zone 17
04/24/98

11

Appendix C

Atmospheric Modeling Receptors* for Linville Gorge Wilderness

Receptor

Number

X

(meters)

Y

(meters)

Elevation

(meters)

Vegetation Class

1 417525 3979490 1075 Acidic Cove and Slope Forest

2 418905 3978811 1273 Xeric Evergreen Forest

3 416325 3977240 1059 Xeric Evergreen Forest

4 419595 3977210 1271 Xeric Evergreen Forest

5 419895 3976280 1124 Rich Cove and Slope Forests

6 416715 3976160 1086 Acidic Cove and Slope Forest

7 418095 3975080 929 Montane Oak Forests

8 417375 3974900 1243 Xeric Evergreen Forest

9 420075 3974480 1211 Rock Outcrops

10 420345 3973490 865 Acidic Cove and Slope Forest

11 417915 3973100 1021 Acidic Cove and Slope Forest

12 419685 3972500 882 Rock Outcrops

13 418605 3971030 719 Montane Oak Forests

14 419955 3970970 1013 Rock Outcrops

15 419265 3969860 789 Rock Outcrops

16 417525 3969620 1070 Rich Cove and Slope Forests

17 420315 3968600 864 Montane Oak Forests

18 420495 3967490 941 Xeric Evergreen Forest

19 417285 3966800 762 Montane Oak Forests

20 416265 3966700 956 Acidic Cove and Slope Forest

21 419205 3966680 688 Rock Outcrops

22 417585 3966260 483 Alluvial Forests

23 418485 3965420 850 Rock Outcrops

24 416175 3964820 800 Xeric Evergreen Forest

25 419607 3963591 481 Xeric Evergreen Forest

* X and Y coordinates are UTM zone 17
04/24/98

12

Appendix D

Atmospheric Modeling Receptors* for Joyce Kilmer/

Slickrock Wilderness

Receptor

Number

X

(meters)

Y

(meters)

Elevation

(meters)

Vegetation Class

1 230715 3928220 397 Xeric Evergreen Forests

2 226455 3928190 682 Montane Oak Forests

3 226605 3926750 847 Montane Oak Forests

4 229845 3926660 536 Alluvial Forests

5 226575 3924860 829 Non-alluvial Forests

6 228945 3924560 669 Rich Cove and Slope Forests

7 225945 3924400 920 Xeric Evergreen Forests

8 230265 3924170 851 Montane Oak Forests

9 225045 3923000 1010 Montane Oak Forests

10 231495 3922220 994 Acidic Cove and Slope Forests

11 229455 3922070 1116 Xeric Evergreen Forests

12 228195 3921350 880 Acidic Cove and Slope Forests

13 232305 3921200 1201 Montane Oak Forests

14 230235 3920720 1257 Shrub Balds

15 226905 3920630 1119 High-elevation Mixed Hardwood Forests

16 231105 3920540 1382 High-elevation Mixed Hardwood Forests

17 228915 3919910 1376 Shrub Balds

18 229815 3919700 1606 High-elevation Mixed Hardwood Forests

19 233505 3919550 1306 Montane Oak Forests

20 229005 3919100 1348 Rich Cove and Slope Forests

21 230595 3918620 1258 Montane Oak Forests

22 227895 3918500 1632 High-elevation Mixed Hardwood Forests

23 227355 3918350 1611 Grasslands

24 232245 3917690 908 Xeric Evergreen Forests

25 233385 3916700 720 Acidic Cove and Slope Forests

26 233295 3916040 829 Rich Cove and Slope Forests

27 232185 3916010 952 Montane Oak Forests

* X and Y coordinates are UTM zone 17