SUSANA MARTINEZ Governor JOHN A. SANCHEZ Lieutenant Governor



### March 7, 2014



### Mr. Ron Curry 

### NEW MEXICO 

### i(ECti, tiJ 

### ENVIRONMENT**DEPARtlMENift~i!iiU** 

## Office of the Secretaij. 

# li.".R I 4

Harold Runnels Building 1190 Saint Francis Dr., Santa Fe, NM 87505

PO Box 5469, Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469
Phone (505) 827-2855 Fax (505) 827-2836

www.nmenv.state.nm.us



### Regional Administrator (6-A) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Dear 

### Mr. Curry: RYAN FLYNN Cabinet Secretary BUTCH TON GATE Deputy Secretary



### On behalf of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), I am pleased to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency the enclosed 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report. This submittal includes the 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report, public notices, received public comments, NMED' s responses to comments, and affidavits of publication. This Progress Report is being submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency 

### in the form of an implementation plan revision that complies with the procedural requirements of 40 CFR 

### § § 51.102 and 51.103, and fulfills all of New Mexico's requirements under40 CFR 

### § 51.309(d)(l0).

The Progress Report public notice was conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 

### § 51.102. No hearing requests were received regarding this matter during a 60-day public comment period. Included with the attached hard copy of the SIP revision is an electronic copy of the submittal provided on disk which I certify to be an exact duplicate of the hard copy in accordance with 40 CFR 

### § 51.1 03.

We appreciate the assistance of EPA Region 6 Planning Group staff in the development of this Progress Report.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

cc: 

### Mr. Guy Donaldson, EPA Region 6 .

, . , .•.. 

### Mr. Michael Vonderheide, Director,.Environmental Prdtection Division 

### Mr. Richard Goodyear, Chief, Air Quality Bureau

:. :.

# PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

FOR REGIONAL HAZE

March 11, 2014

Prepared by staff of the:

Air Quality Bureau Environmental Protection Division New Mexico Environment Department

525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report i 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 S TATE 

### I MPLEMENTATION 

### P LAN 

### R EQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

### 5-Y EAR 

### P ROGRESS 

### R EPORT 

### ........... 2

2.0 NEW MEXICO CLASS I AREAS ............................................................................................ 4

2.1 P ROGRESS 

### T OWARDS 

### R EASONABLE 

### P ROGRESS 

### G OALS 

### (40 CFR § 51.309( D 

### )(10)( I 

### )) .............. 5

3.0 REGIONAL HAZE PROGRESS REPORT .............................................................................. 6

3.1 40 CFR § 51.309( D 

### )(10)( I 

### ) P ROGRESS 

### R EPORT 

### R EQUIREMENTS 

### .............................................. 6 3.2 S TATUS OF 

### I MPLEMENTATION 

### C ONTROL 

### M EASURES 

### : 40 CFR § 51.309( D 

### )(10)( I 

### )(A) ............. 7

Major Control Measures ........................................................................................................ .... 7 BART .......................................................................................................................... ........... 7 New Source Review Program ................................................................................................ 8 Prevention of Significant Dete rioration (PSD) Program ....................................................... 8 Ongoing Implementation of SO 2 

### Milestone and Backst op Trading Program ....................... 8 Agricultural and Forestry Sm oke Management Techniques ................................................. 9 Enforceability of New Mexico’s Measures ............................................................................. 10 3.3 S UMMARY OF 

### E MISSION 

### R EDUCTION 

### A CHIEVED 

### 40 CFR § 51.309( D 

### )(10)( I 

### )(B) ................... 10 3.4 A SSESSMENT OF 

### V ISIBILITY 

### C ONDITIONS 

### : 40 CFR § 51.309( D 

### )(10)( I 

### )(C) ............................. 15

3.4.2 Differences Between Current Visibility C onditions for the Most and Least Impaired Days and Baseline Visibility Conditions ................................................................................ 27 3.4.3 Change in Visibility Impairment for the Mo st Impaired and Least Impaired Days Over the Past 5 Years .............................................................................................................. ......... 31 3.5 A NALYSES OF 

### E MISSIONS 

### : 40 CFR § 51.309( D 

### )(10)( I 

### )(C) ..................................................... 33 3.6 C HANGES TO 

### A NTHROPOGENIC 

### E MISSIONS 

### : 40 CFR § 51.309( D 

### )(10)( I 

### )(E) .......................... 44 3.7 A SSESSMENT OF 

### C URRENT 

### SIP S TRATEGY 

### : 40 CFR § 51.309( D 

### )(10)( I 

### )(F) ........................... 45 3.8 A SSESSMENT OF 

### C URRENT 

### M ONITORING 

### S TRATEGY 

### : 40 CFR § 51.309( D 

### )(10)( I 

### )(G) ........... 46 3.9 ASSESSMENT OF VISIBILITY CONDITIONS 40 CFR 51.309( D 

### )(10)( II 

### ) ....................... 47

4.0 REGIONAL SUMMARY FOR 309 GCVTC CLASS I AREA SITES .................................. 49 Monitoring Data ............................................................................................................... ....... 50

Figures

Figure 2.1. Map Depicting Federa l Class I Areas and Representative IMPROVE Monitors in New Mexico .................................................................................................................... .......... 4 Figure 3.1. Change in Deciview Extinction betw een Baseline Period Average (2000-2004) and the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for the 20% Worst Visibility Days. ............. 11 Figure 3.2. Change in Deciview Extinction betw een Baseline Period Average (2000-2004) and the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for the 20% Best Visibility Days................. 11 Figure 3.3. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinc tion by Pollutant for Baseline Period Average (2000-2004) for 20% Worst Days. .......................................................................................... 12 Figure 3.4. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollutant for the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for 20% Worst Days. ........................................................................... 13New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report ii 

### Figure 3.5. Magnitude of Aerosol Extinction Species That Have Decreased Betwee n the Baseline Average (2000-2004) and the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for the 20% Worst Days. ......................................................................................................................... ............... 14 Figure 3.6. Statewide Point Sour ce Emission Reductions for SO 2 

### , NO 2 

### and PM from 2008-2012 Compared to WRAP’s Projected 2018 Emissi ons for New Mexico. Actual Point Source Emission Data Based on New Mexico’s 2008-2012 Emission Inventories. ........................... 15 Figure 3.7. Average Extinction for Current Prog ress Period (2005-2009) for the Worst (Most Impaired) and Best (Least Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites. ................................................................................................................ ..... 18 Figure 3.8. Average Extinction fo r Baseline and Progress Period Extinction for Worst (Most Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexi co Class I Area IMPROVE Sites. ............................ 29 Figure 3.9. Difference Between Average Extincti on for Current Progress Period (2005-2009) and Baseline Period (2000-2004) for the Worst (Most Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites. ................................................................................................ 29 Figure 3.10. Average Extinction for Baseline a nd Progress Period Extinc tion for Best (Least Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexi co Class I Area IMPROVE Sites. ............................ 30 Figure 3.11. Difference Between Average Extinc tion for Current Progress Period (2005-2009) and Baseline Period (2000-2004) for the Best (Least Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites. ................................................................................... 30 Figure 3.12. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Na vy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction System (NAAPS) map of sulfate surface con centrations for September 9, 2005. ............................... 32 Figure 3.13. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Sulfur Dioxide by Source Category for New Mexico. ............................................................ 36 Figure 3.14. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Oxides of Nitrogen by Source Category for New Mexico. ..................................................... 37 Figure 3.15. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Ammonia by Source Category for New Mexico ..................................................................... 38 Figure 3.16. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Volatile Organic Compounds by Sour ce Category for New Mexico. ..................................... 39 Figure 3.17. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Primary Organic Aerosol by Sour ce Category for New Mexico. ........................................... 40 Figure 3.21. Sum of EGU Emissions of SO 2 

### and NOX reported between 1996 and 2010 for New Mexico ........................................................................................................................ ............. 44 Figure 3.22. Average light extinctio n for the 20% worst days over the 5-year period 2005 through 2009 for all Class I areas in New Mexico. .............................................................................. 45 Figure 3.24. New Mexico’s Federal Class I area IMPROVE monitoring sites ............................. 47 Figure 4.1. Map Depicting Colorado Plateau CIAs and Representative IMPROVE Monitors in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. ........................................................................... 50 Figure 4.2. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollutant for the First Progress Period Average (2005 – 2009) for 20% Worst Days. ......................................................................... 52 Figure 4.3. Regional Average of Aerosol Extincti on by Pollutant for First Progress Period Average (2005 – 2009) for 20% Best Days ............................................................................ 52 Figure 4.4. Chart Depicting Annual Average Amm onium Sulfate Concentrations for the 20% Worst Days as Measured at the Colo rado Plateau CIA IMPROVE Sites. .............................. 58 Figure 4.5. Chart Depicting 3- Year Average Sum of SO 2 

### emissions for New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming and the city of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County as compared to the Section 309 SIP SO 2 

### Milestones. .................................................................................................................. ..... 59New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report iii 

### Tables

Table 2.1 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE S ites Visibility Conditions20% Most and Least Impaired Days ................................................................................................................. .......... 5 Table 3.1 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions005-2009 Progress Period, 20% Most Impaired Days ............................................................................ 17 Table 3.2 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions 2005-2009 Progress Period, 20% Least Impaired Days ............................................................................ 17 Table 3.3 Bandelier National Monument Worst 20% Days: Reasonable Progress Summary ...... 19 Table 3.4 Bandelier National Monument20% Be st Days: Reasonable Progress Summary .......... 19 Table 3.5 Bosque del Apache Wilderness Area20 % Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

.............................................................................................................................. ................... 20 Table 3.6 Bosque del Apache Wilderness Area20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary 20 Table 3.7 Gila Wilderness Area20% Wors t Days: Reasonable Progress Summary ...................... 21 Table 3.8 Gila Wilderness Area20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary ........................ 21 Table 3.9 Carlsbad Caverns National Monum ent20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary ....................................................................................................................... .......... 22 Table 3.10 Carlsbad Caverns National Monument20% Best Days: Reasonab le Progress Summary

.............................................................................................................................. ................... 22 Table 3.11 Salt Creek Wilderness Area 20% Wo rst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary ......... 23 Table 3.12 Salt Creek Wilderness Area 20% Be st Days: Reasonable Progress Summary ........... 23 Table 3.13 San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area 20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary24 Table 3.14 San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area 20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary .. 24 Table 3.15 Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area 20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary ... 25 Table 3.16 Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area 20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary ...... 25 Table 3.17 White Mountain Wilderness Area 20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

.............................................................................................................................. ................... 26 Table 3.18 White Mountain Wilderness Area 20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary .. 26 Table 3.19 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Component 2000-2004 Baseline Period to 2005- 2009 Progress Period 20% Most Impaired Days .......................................................................................................................... ............... 28 Table 3.20 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Component 2000-2004 Baseline Pe riod to 2005-2009 Progress Pe riod 20% Least Impaired Days .......................................................................................................................... ............... 28 Table 3.21 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Site s Change in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2009 Annual Average Trends ........................................................................................ 33 Table 3.22 New Mexico Pollutants, Aero sol Species, and Major Sources .................................... 34 Table 3.23 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category ....................................................................... 36 Table 3.24 Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions by Category ................................................................ 37 Table 3.25 Ammonia Emi ssions by Category ............................................................................... 38 Table 3.26 Volatile Organic Comp ound Emissions by Category .................................................. 39 Table 3.27 Primary Organic Aeroso l Emissions by Category ....................................................... 40 Table 3.28 Elemental Carbon Emissions by Category .................................................................. 41 Table 3.29 Fine Soil Emissions by Category ................................................................................. 42 Table 3.30 Coarse Mass Em issions by Category ........................................................................... 43 Table 4.1 Colorado Plateau Class I Areas a nd Representative IMPROVE Monitors ................... 49New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report iv 

### Table 4.2 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions 2005- 2009 Progress Period, 20% Most Impaired Days ................................................................... 53 Table 4.3 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions 2005- 2009 Progress Period, 20% Least Impaired Days ................................................................... 54 Table 4.4 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2004 Baseline Period to 2005-2009 Pr ogress Period 20% Most Impaired Days

.............................................................................................................................. ................... 55 Table 4.5 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2004 Baseline Period to 2005-2009 Pr ogress Period 20% Least Impaired Days

.............................................................................................................................. ................... 56 Table 4.6 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Change in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2009 Annual Average Trends ........................................................................... 57

Appendices

Appendix A – Western Regional Air Partners hip Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report Appendix B – Western Regional Air Partnership 2011 Regional SO 2 

### Emissions and Milestone Report Appendix C – New Mexico Class I Area Moni toring Data Summary Tables and ChartsNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 1 

### New Mexico Regional Haze Progress Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION Regional haze (RH) is pollution that impairs visib ility over a large region, including national parks, forests, and wilderness areas. Regional haze is caused by sources and activities emitting fine particles and their precursors, often transported over large regions. Particles a ffect visibility through the scattering and absorption of light. Reducing fine particles in the atmosphere is an effective method of improving visibility. In New Mexico, the most impor tant sources of haze-forming emissions are coal-fired power pl ants, oil and gas development, w ildland fires, and windblown dust.

Visibility impairment is tracked us ing a Haze Index in units of decivi ew (dv), which is related to the cumulative sum of visibility impairment from indivi dual aerosol species as measured by monitors in the Interagency Monitoring of Protective Visu al Environments (IMPROVE) network. Emissions which affect visibility include a wide variety of natural (e.g., wild land fires) and anthropogenic, or man-made, sources (e.g., industr ial sources and vehicles).

In Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to th e Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress established a program for protecting visibility in 156 mandatory Federal “Class I” areas. Class I areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness ar eas and national memori al parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international park s that were in existence on A ugust 7, 1977. In the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress added Section 169B and calle d on the U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency (EPA) to issue rules addressing regional haze impairment from manmade air pollution and establishing a comprehensive visibility protection program fo r Class I areas.

The EPA promulgated the RH rule on July 1, 1 999 (64 FR 35713). States ar e required under 40 CFR § 51.308 to submit state implementation plans (SIP s) to the EPA that set out each states’ plan for complying with the RH rule. States must de monstrate reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of a return to na tural visibility conditions by 2064. The rule directs states to graphically show what would be a “uniform rate of progress”, al so known as the “glide path”, toward natural conditions for each Class I area within the State and certain ones outside the State.

Under 40 CFR § 51.309, the rule also provides an op tional approach to nine western states to incorporate emission reduction st rategies developed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC), that were designed primarily to improve visibility in 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, including San Pedro Pa rks Wilderness Area in New Mexico.

On December 31, 2003, the State of New Mexico submitted a visibility SIP to meet the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.309 (309 SIP). The 2003 Se ction 309 SIP and subseq uent revisions to the Section 309 SIP address the first phase of requirements, with an emphasis on stationary source sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) emission reductions and a focus on improving visibility on the Colorado Plateau. In the 2003 submittal, New Mexico committed to addressing the next phase of visibility requirements and additional visibility improvement in New Mexico's remaining eight Class I areas by means of a SIP meeting the requirements in 40 CFR § 51.309(g).

On June 29, 2011, a supplement to New Mexico’s Section 309 SIP was submitted to EPA to satisfy the requirements of Section 309(g). Pursuant to 40 CFR § 51.309(g), the State of New Mexico SIP included a demonstration of expected visibility c onditions for the most impaired (20% worst) and least impaired (20% best) days at the additional mandatory Class I areas; pr ovisions for establishingNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 2 

### reasonable progress goals for New Mexico's eight (8) Class I areas complying with 51.308(d)(1)- (4); long-term strategies that bui ld upon emission reduction strategies developed in the first Section 309 SIP submittal; and provisions to address long- term strategies and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for stationary s ource Particulate Matter (PM) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions pursu ant to 40 CFR § 51.308(e).

On November 27, 2012, EPA published final approval of New Mexico’s 2003 and 2011 SIP submittals with the exception of the BART dete rmination for nitrogen oxides for San Juan Generating Station77 Fed. Reg. 70,693. EPA had previ ously issued a federal implementation plan (FIP) containing a different NOx BART determ ination for San Juan. 76 Fed. Reg. 52,388 (Aug. 22, 2011).

In an attempt to resolve litigation arising from New Mexico’s and EPA’s incompatible San Juan NOx BART determinations, New Mexico, the EPA, and PNM reached a tentative agreement in February 2013 on an alternative plan to addres s pollution control requirements for the San Juan Generating Station under the Clean Air Act’s requirements for regiona l haze and interstate transport for visibility. The agreement calls for a new BART determination based on the retirement of two of the four units at the facility; the installation of selective non-catalytic reduction technology at the remaining two units; and further reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions. On September 5, 2013, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Bo ard unanimously approved a SIP revision incorporating the terms of the te ntative agreement as a revised BART determination (discussed in more detail in Section 3.2). The revised SIP was submitted to EPA on October 8, 2013, for review and possible approval after consider ation of public comment. If a pproved by EPA, the SIP revision will satisfy all of New Mexico’s remaining ob ligations with respect to regional haze BART.

1.1 State Implementation Plan Requiremen ts for the 5-Year Progress Report

Provisions of the RH rule contained in 40 CFR § 51.308(g) and (h) and 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10) require that each state submit a progress report five years after the submittal of their initial RH SIP. The progress report must be in the form of a SIP revision and must include a determination regarding the adequacy of the exis ting regional haze SIP. This report has been prepared to fulfill all applicable requirements pertaining to the five year progress report of the initial regional haze SIP. The State of New Mexico concludes the current S ection 309 and 309(g) RH SIPs are sufficient to address the reasonable progress goals of the state’ s nine (9) Class I areas. Based on the progress made over the five year period reviewed, no revi sions to the New Mexico Regional Haze SIP are needed at this time.

The progress report SIP must include 1) the status of implementation of control measures included in the original regional haze SIP, 2) a summa ry of emission reductions achieved through the implementation of control measures, 3) an assessment of visibility conditions, 4) an analysis of the changes in emissions of visibility impairing polluta nts, 5) an assessment of significant changes in emissions that may have limited or impeded progre ss in improving visibility, 6) an assessment of whether the current SIP elements and strategies ar e sufficient to meet reasonable progress goals and 7) a review of the state’s vi sibility monitoring strategy.

The technical data included in this progress report are from the “Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report” (Appendix A) developed by theNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 3 

### Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) 1 

### in June of 2013 and the WRAP Technical Support System (TSS). The WRAP progress report technical support document has been prepared on behalf of the 15 western state members in the WRAP region to provide the technical basis for use by States to develop the first of their individual reasonab le progress reports for the 116 Federal Class I areas located in the western states. Data are presented in this report on a regional, state, and Class I area specific basis that characterize the difference between 2000-2004 baseline conditions and current conditions, represented here by the most recent su ccessive 5-year average, that is, the 2005-2009 period. In addition, Section 3 includes tables that reflect 5-year averages through 2011. Changes in visibility impairment are characterized using ae rosol measurements from the IMPROVE network, and the differences between emissions inventor y years represent both the baseline and current progress period.

As required by 40 CFR §51.308(i), the regional haze SI P must include procedures for continuing consultation between the States and federal land managers (FLMs) on the implementation of the visibility protection program, in cluding development and review of implementation plan revisions and 5-year progress report s, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in any manda tory Federal Class I area within the State. The State of New Mexico reaffirms its commitment to participate in a Regional Planning Process with Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, M ontana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, the United States Depa rtment of Interior (USDI) Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Park Service (NPS), a nd the United States Depa rtment of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (FS). C onsultation through WRAP also includes consultation with other regional planning organizations, including CENRAP.

Pursuant to the Tribal Authorit y Rule, any Tribe whose lands are within the boundaries of the State of New Mexico has the option to develop a RH Trib al Implementation Plan (TIP) for their lands to assure reasonable progress in the nine (9) Class I areas in New Mexico. Accordingly, no provisions of this periodic report sh all be construed as being a pplicable to Indian Country.

1 The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments, stat e governments and various federal agencies representing the weste rn states that provides technical and policy tools for the we stern states and tribes to comply with the EPA’s RH regulations. Detailed informa tion regarding WRAP support of air quality management issues for west ern states is provided on the WRAP website ( www.wrapair2.org ). Data summary descriptions and tools specific to RHR support are available on the WRAP Technical Support System website ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 4 

### Bandelier NM

Bosque del Apache WA

Gila WA

Carlsbad Caverns N Guadalupe Mountains NP Salt Creek WA San Pedro Parks WA

White Mountain WA

Wheeler Peak WA

Pecos WA BAND1

BOAP1

GICL1

GUMO1 SACR1 SAPE1

WHIT1 WHPE1 

### 2.0 NEW MEXICO CLASS I AREAS New Mexico has nine (9) Class I areas within its borders : Bandelier Wilderness, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad Caverns Nationa l Park, Gila Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Salt Creek Wilderness, Wheeler Peak Wilderness, Wh ite Mountain Wilderness, and San Pedro Parks Wilderness (Figure 2.1). San Pedro Parks Wilderness is the only Class I area in New Mexico that is located on the Colorado Plateau. The Section 309 SIP submitted by the State of New Mexico in December of 2003 addresses only San Pedro Parks W ilderness Area. All of the other Class I areas are addressed under the Section 309(g) SIP submitted by the State of New Mexico in June of 2011 and as revised and submitted in October of 2013.

Figure 2.1. Map Depicting Federal Class I Areas and Representative IMPROVE Monitors in New Mexico



### The Air Quality Bureau (AQB) in the New Mexico Environment Department is responsible for developing the RH progress report. This progress report compares th e current visibility conditions at each of these Class I areas to the 2018 reasonable progress goals to determine if New Mexico is on track with reaching these goals. The progress re port also reviews the long-term strategy to determine if there have been any ch anges that need to be addressed.

In developing the initial RH SIP, AQB also c onsidered that emission sources outside of New Mexico may affect the visibility at New Mexico’s Class I areas, and that emission sources within New Mexico may affect the visi bility at Class I areas in nei ghboring states. Through WRAP, the western states worked together to assess state-by-state contributi ons to visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, including those in New Mexi co and those affected by emissions from New Mexico. The sources identified in the initial RH SI P either impacting New Mexico’s Class I areas or Class I areas outside New Mexico will be reviewed as part of this progress report.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 5 

### In their Regional Haze SIP, Texas estimated natura l conditions for its two Class I areas, including Guadalupe Mountains National Park (GUMO). In 2007, NMED participated in consultation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (T CEQ). In preparation for revising the SIP in 2018, NMED will consult with the TCEQ on the natural conditions analysis for GUMO since this monitor is also used for vi sibility conditions at Carlsbad Caverns National Park.

2.1 Progress Towards Reasonable Progre ss Goals (40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i))

Based on IMPROVE monitoring data, all of New Mexi co’s Class I areas show visibility improvement on the 20% worst and best days. All but two of the Class I areas, San Pedro Parks and Salt Creek wilderness areas, have surpassed the 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal established in the state’s initial Section 309 and 309(g) RH SIPs for the 20% worst days.

The baseline and current visibility conditions as we ll as the reasonable progress goals for 2018 for the 20% worst and 20% best days are displayed in Table 2.1.



### Table 2.1 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Visibility Conditions 20% Most and Least Impaired Days

Class I Area Baseline (2000-2004) (dv) Current (2005-2009) (dv) 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal (dv)

20% Worst Days Bandelier National Monument (BAND1) 

### 12.2 11.8 11.9 Bosque del Apache Wilderness Area (BOAP1) 

### 13.8 13.4 13.59 Gila Wilderness Area (GILA1) 

### 13.1 12.5 12.99 Carlsbad Caverns National Monument (GUMO1) 

### 17.2 15.9 16.93 Salt Creek Wilderness Area (SACR1) 

### 18.0 17.5 17.33 San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area (SAPE1) 

### 10.2 9.9 9.8 Wheeler Park Wilderness Area (WHPE1) 

### 10.4 9.1 10.23 White Mountain Wilderness Area (WHIT1) 

### 13.7 13.2 13.27 20% Best Days Bandelier National Monument (BAND1) 

### 5 4.2 4.89 Bosque del Apache Wilderness Area (BOAP1) 

### 6.3 5.8 6.1 Gila Wilderness Area (GILA1) 

### 3.3 2.7 3.2 Carlsbad Caverns National Monument (GUMO1) 

### 5.9 5.4 6.14 Salt Creek Wilderness Area (SACR1) 

### 7.8 7.3 7.43 San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area (SAPE1) 

### 1.5 1.0 1.2 Wheeler Park Wilderness Area (WHPE1) 

### 1.2 0.9 1.13 White Mountain Wilderness Area (WHIT1) 

### 3.6 3.3 3.42New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 6 

### 3.0 REGIONAL HAZE PROGRESS REPORT

The requirements for the progress report are outlined in 40 CFR § 51.308(g) and 51.309(d)(10)(i). For those states that have Sec tion 309 RH SIPs, the state must submit a report to the EPA in 2013 and 2018 evaluating progress towards the reasonabl e progress goal for each Class I area located within the state and in each Class I area located outside th e state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. The progress report for Section 309 RH SIPs must be in the form of a formal SIP submittal and at a minimum, must contain the following elements:

3.1 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i) Progr ess Report Requirements

(1) A description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the SIP for achieving reasonable progress goals fo r Class I areas both within and outside the state, including the status of mobile source emissions (40 CFR § 51.309(d)(5)(ii)) and progress towa rds renewable energy goals (40 CFR § 51.309(d)(8)(vi)).

(2) A summary of the emission reductions achie ved throughout the state through implementation of the measures described in (1) above.

(3) Assess the following visibility conditions and ch anges, with values for most impaired and least impaired days expressed in terms of 5- year averages of these annual values

(i) The current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days;

(ii) The difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions; and

(iii) The change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5 years.

(4) An analysis tracking the change over the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sour ces and activities with the state.

(5) An assessment of any significant changes in an thropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred over the past 5 years th at have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions a nd improving visibility.

(6) An assessment of whether the current SIP elemen ts and strategies are su fficient to enable the state, or other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from the state, to meet all established reasonable progress goals.

(7) A review of the state’s visibi lity monitoring strategy and any mo difications to the strategy as
necessary.

In the sections to follow, the NMED will addre ss the various periodic review requirements as outlined above.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 7 

### 3.2 Status of Implementation Control Measures: 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A)

40 CFR § 51.308(g)(1) requires “a description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals for Class I areas both within and outside the State.”

This section provides a descripti on of the emission reduction measur es that were included in the State of New Mexico’s Section 309 and 309(g) RH SIPs. A summary is provided below of those emission sources that were identified to impact Class I areas in New Mexico and the status of controls.

As determined in the initial RH SIPs, ammonium sulfate, particulate organic matter, and coarse mass are the largest contributors to visibility impa irment at New Mexico’s Class I areas. Many of the contributing sources to visibility impairment in New Mexico are natural, rather than anthropogenic, in nature, and are not controllable . The primary sources of ammonium sulfate are point sources and on- and off-road mobile source emissions. For particulate organic matter, the primary sources of emissions are from natural and anthropogenic fire. The primary sources of coarse mass emissions in New Mexico are windblown and fugitive dust. For this report, AQB will focus only on those emission sources that are anthropogenic in nature.

New Mexico is currently implementing the long-term strategies adopted into the state’s Section 309 and 309(g) RH SIPs. Since adoption of New Mexico ’s Section 309(g) SIP in June of 2011, the only long-term strategy that is no-l onger being implemented is the St ate Mobile Source Regulation (20.2.88 NMAC - Emission Standards for New Motor Ve hicles). This regulat ion was first adopted in 2007 to apply the California motor vehicle emissions standards, or “Califor nia standards,” within New Mexico beginning with model year 2011. The st art date was later revi sed to 2016. When the Clean Cars regulation was adopted, the California standards were mo re stringent than the federal motor vehicle emissions standards. However, since that time the federal programs have been revised to achieve the same emissions reduction as the Calif ornia standards. As a re sult, the administrative burdens of implementing the Clean Cars regulation now outweigh the potential benefits of having a State program.

New Mexico has been and will continue to be co mmitted to implementing the long-term strategies adopted into the state’s Section 309 and 309(g) RH SIPs. As shown in Table 2.1, New Mexico is on track, if not exceeding, the visibility impairment emission reductions needed to achieve the state’s reasonable progress goals for 2018.

Major Control Measures

BART

As confirmed by EPA in its November 2012 partial approval of New Mexico ’s RH SIP, the San Juan Generating Station is the only facility in New Mexico that is subject to a BART determination. San Juan Generating Station includes four coal-f ired boilers. Unit 1 is 36 0 megawatts (MW), Unit 2 is 350 MW, Unit 3 is 544 MW and Unit 4 is 5 44 MW. In its September 2013 revised SIP, NewMexico determined that BART for NOx for the San Juan Generating Station is selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) on Un its 1 and 4, with a shutdown of Units 2 and 3 by the end of 2017. Installation of SNCR would be completed by 15 months following EPA’s approval of the revised Regional Haze SIP, but not earlier than January 31, 2016. This BART strategy is in accordance withNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 8 

### the tentative agreement (contained in a “Term Sheet”) reached between New Mexico, EPA, and the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), refe rred to hereafter as the “State Alternative.”

Implementation of the State Alternative will re duce NOx emissions from 0.30 lb/MMBtu from four units to no greater than 0.23 lb/MMBtu from Units 1 and 4. Combined with the retirement of Units 2 and 3, this will result in reductions from curre nt emissions of NOx by 62% (from 21,000 tons per year (tpy) to 8,011 tpy); of SO 2 

### by 67% (from 10,500 tpy to 3,843 tpy); and of particulate matter by 50% (from 2,380 to 1,184 tpy). This represents a 35% reduction in statewide emissions of NOx, SO 2 

### and particulate matter.

New Source Review Program

The New Source Review (NSR) Program is a perm it program for the constr uction of new sources and modification of existing sources as es tablished by 20.2.72 NMAC - Construction Permits and 20.2.74 NMAC - Permits - Prevention of Significan t Deterioration. The primary purpose of the NSR Program is to assure compliance with ambient standards set to protect public health, assure that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is utilized to reduce a nd eliminate air pollution emissions, and to prevent deterioration of clea n air areas. New Mexico has been granted the authority by EPA to implement the state’s NSR program and all state regulations are up to date with 40 CFR Part 166.

Prevention of Significant Dete rioration (PSD) Program

New Mexico’s Prevention of Signi ficant Deterioration (PSD) program is protective of visibility impairment from proposed major stationary sources or major modifications to existing facilities. New Mexico has a fully-approve d PSD program and has successfu lly implemented this program since 1982.

Ongoing Implementation of SO 2 

### Milestone and Backstop Trading Program

The SO 2 

### Milestones and Backstop Trading Program we re developed to implement the emissions reduction program for major industrial sources of SO 2 

### described in 40 CFR 51.309(h). The program is implemented through the following documents:

 The New Mexico RH 309 SIP describes the ov erall program, and contains New Mexico's commitment to implement all parts of the program as outlined in the plan. The plan establishes the regional milestones, SO 2 

### emissions tracking requirements, and, if the Western Backstop SO 2 

### Trading Program ("WEB Trading Pr ogram") is triggered, the plan also describes how New Mexico shall determ ine allocations and manage the allowance tracking system that is needed to implement the program.

 20.2.81 NMAC, Western Backstop SO 2 

### Trading Program, contains the requirements that shall apply to major industrial sources of sulf ur dioxide as a backst op regulatory program if the SO 2 

### milestones are exceeded. The rule may never be implemented if the goal to meet the regional SO 2 

### milestones through voluntary means is achieved. If the rule is implemented, it establishes the procedures and compliance requir ements for sources in the Trading Program.

 20.2.73 NMAC requires major industrial sources of SO 2 

### to submit an annual emissions inventory in the pre-trigger phase of the pr ogram to measure compliance with the regionalNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 9 

### SO 2 

### milestones. If the backstop program is triggered, then these requirements will eventually be replaced by more rigorous monitoring requirements in 20.2.81 NMAC.

The 2011 Regional SO 2 

### Emissions and Milestone Report (Appe ndix B) for the participating 309 states, which includes New Me xico, Utah, Wyoming and Albuque rque-Bernalillo County, NM, shows that the 2009-2011 aver age regional emissions mile stone of 200,722 tons of SO 2 

### was met. The average of 2009- 2011 adjusted emissions for the participating 309 states was determined to be 130,935 tons of SO 2


### . Agricultural and Forestry Sm oke Management Techniques

In December of 2003, NMED adopted 20.2.65 NMAC - Smoke Management. The New Mexico Environment Department develope d the state Smoke Management Program (SMP) to protect the health and welfare of New Mexicans from the im pacts of smoke from all sources of fire. In addition, this SMP meets the requirements of the CAA and the RH rule (40 CFR 51.309). The SMP is applicable in all of New Mexico, except fo r tribal lands and Bernalillo County, which are separate air quality jurisdictions. Burners must also comply with all city and county ordinances relating to smoke management and vegetation burning.

A Smoke Management Program Guidance Document was revised in May of 2005, to assist burners in understanding the requirements and aid in the implementation of 20.2.65 NMAC. NMED staff has actively participated in the WRAP Fire Emissi ons Joint Forum (FEJF), formed to address both policy and technical issues concer ning smoke effects that are caused by wildland and agricultural fires on public, tribal, and private lands. The FEJF is guided by the recommendations contained in the GCVTC Final Report and the requirements of the RH rule regarding fire emissions and visibility. The FEJF has developed several pol icies for the WRAP through a stakeholder-based consensus process to assist the WRAP states and trib es in addressing emissions from fire sources. In these policies, the WRAP seeks to provide a consiste nt framework that states and tribes can use to efficiently develop their individual regional haze implementatio n plans, long-term strategies, and periodic progress reports.

The following WRAP policies developed by the FEJF as viable tools for states to meet the requirements of the RH rule were used to guide the development of the New Mexico Smoke Management Program:

The WRAP Policy for Categor izing Fire Emissions was developed to clarify the complex relationship between what is considered a natural source of fire and what is considered a humancaused source, as acknowledged in the RH rule. A methodology to categorize fire emissions as either “natural” or “anthropogenic” is the basis of the Policy; thus providing the foundation for fire’s inclusion in natural background condition values and ultimately, the tracking of reasonable
progress.

The WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke Manag ement Programs for Visibility defines the enhanced smoke management program as smoke ma nagement efforts that specifically address visibility, thereby going beyond th e EPA Interim Policy and the AAQT F Air Quality Policy specific guidance provided for smoke management program s that address public health and nuisance concerns. The Policy identifies for states/tribes in the WRAP region the elements of an enhancedNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 10 

### smoke management program to address visibility e ffects from all types of fire that contribute to visibility impairment in manda tory Federal Class I areas.

The WRAP defines the annual emission goal as a quantifiable value that is used to measure progress each year toward the desired outcome of achieving the minimum emission increase from fire. In the WRAP Policy on Annual Emissions Goals for Fire , the WRAP outlines a process by which states/tribes may establish annual emissi on goals, based on the utilization of currently available emission reduction techniques, to include in their Regional Haze SIPs.

Enforceability of New Mexico’s Measures

40 CFR § 51.309(d)(9) of the RH rule requires states to ensure th at emission limitations and control measures used to meet reasonable progress goals are enforceable.

New Mexico has ensured that all existing emission limitations and control measures for which the State of New Mexico is responsible, used to meet reasonable progress goals, are enforceable either through New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC), or SIP measures previously approved by EPA. Enforceability of future emission limitations and control measures, for which the State of New Mexico is responsible, will be enforceable thr ough permit conditions or SIP measures to be approved in the future by EPA.

3.3 Summary of Emissions Reductions Achieved 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)

40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires “a summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the state through implementation of the measures in paragraph (g)(1).”

This section provides a summary of emissions re duced as a result of implementation measures discussed in Section 3.2. Since the submittal of Ne w Mexico’s Section 309(g) RH SIP revision in June of 2011, the most significant decr ease in emissions has been from SO 2 

### in accordance with the state’s SO 2 

### Milestone and Backstop Trading Program . Although New Mexico has not inventoried emissions reductions for all other visibility impai ring pollutants, the state has seen an overall improvement in visibility at all of New Mexico ’s Class I areas for both the 20% worst and best visibility days between 2000 a nd 2009 (See Figures 3.1 and 3.2).New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 11 Figure 3.1. Change in Deciview Extinction between Baseline Period Average (2000-2004) and the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for the 20% Worst Visibility Days.

Figure 3.2. Change in Deciview Extinction between Baseline Period Average (2000-2004) and the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for the 20% Best Visibility Days.



### The RH rule haze index, as defi ned using deciview units, does not provide information regarding the relative contributions of specific pollutants to overall visibility impair ment. The calculation of visibility impairment is based on the cumulative im pacts of several different species measured at IMPROVE network sites. Analyz ing the behavior of each individual species has importantNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 12 

### implications for control measures, as some specie s originate from largely anthropogenic sources, while others may originate from a mixture of both anthropogenic and natural sources.

Figures 3.3 and 3.4 present regional maps of average aerosol extinction for the most impaired days during the baseline period ( 2000-2004), and the first progre ss period average (2005-2009), respectively, for the IMPROVE mo nitors representing Federal Clas s I areas in the WRAP region. The size of the pie chart is related to the magnit ude of visibility impairme nt, and colors represent the relative contribution of the polluta nts measured by the IMPROVE network.

Figure 3.3. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollu tant for Baseline Period Average (2000-2004) for 20% Worst Days.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 13 Figure 3.4. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollu tant for the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for 20% Worst Days.



### Figure 3.5 presents the individua l species of haze that have decreased between the 2000-2004 baseline period and the 2005-2009 progress period, where sites with corresponding decreases in deciview measurements are high lighted with blue circles.

For New Mexico, Figure 3.5 depicts most of the d ecreases in deciview aver ages were associated with decreases in ammonium nitrate, coarse mass and particulate organic ma tter. The decrease in ammonium nitrate is most likely due to federa l mobile source regulations. For coarse mass and particulate organic matter, the decr ease is likely due to the decreasi ng effect of natural events, such as windblown dust storms and wild fires.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 14 Figure 3.5. Magnitude of Aerosol Extinction Species That Have Decreased Between the Baseline Average (2000-2004) and the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for the 20% Worst Days.


### As Figure 3.6 shows, NO 2 

### , SO 2 

### and PM point source actual em issions have decreased in New Mexico from 2008-2012. This decrease in actual emissions is signific antly greater for NO 2 

### and SO 2 

### than projected by WRAP’s regional modeling fo r New Mexico’s 2018 emissions. New Mexico has successfully reduced point source emissions beyond its regional commitments with WRAP states for this first progress period.

Part of this reduction in emissions was as a resu lt of controls installed at San Juan Generating Station in response to a consent decree between Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), NMED, and Grand Canyon Trust. The consent decree controls were completed in 2009, and reduced emissions of SO 2 

### , NOx, PM and mercury.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 15 Figure 3.6. Statewide Point S ource Emission Reductions for SO 2 , NO 2 and PM from 2008-2012 Compared to WRAP’s Projected 2018 Emissions for New Mexico. Actual Po int Source Emission Data Based on New Mexico’s 2008-2012 Emission Inventories.



### 3.4 Assessment of Visibility Condi tions: 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C)

40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) requires “ for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, the state must assess the following visibility cond itions and changes, with va lues for most impaired and least impaired days expressed in terms of 5-year average s of these annual values

(i) 

### The current visibility conditions for th e most impaired and least impaired days;

(ii) 

### The difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least days and baseline visibility conditions;

(iii) 

### The changes in visibility impairm ent for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5-years.

This section addresses RH rule regulatory requirements for mon itored data as measured by IMPROVE monitors representing Federal Class I areas in New Mexic o. These summaries are supported by regional data presented in more detailed site specific tables a nd charts in Appendix C.

Regional haze progress in Federal Class I areas is tracked using calculations based on speciated aerosol mass as collected by IMPROVE monitors. The RH rule calls for trac king haze in units of deciviews, where the deciview me tric was designed to be linearly associated with human perception of visibility. In a pristine atmosphere, the deciview metric is near zero, a nd a one deciview change is approximately equivalent to a 10% change in cumu lative species extinction. To better understand visibility conditions, summaries here include both the deciview metric, and the apportionment of haze into extinction due to the various measured species in units of inverse megameters (Mm -1 

### ).New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 16 

### 3.4.1 Current Visibility Conditions for the Most and Least Impaired Days

RH rule 2003 guidance specifies that 5-year averages be calculated over successive 5-year periods; i.e., 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2014, etc. 2 

### Current visibility conditions are represented here as the most recent successive 5-year average period available, the 2005-2009 period average, although the most recent IMPROVE monitoring data curren tly available includes 2010 data. The information and data presented in this section are from the “Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report” (Appendix A).

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 present the calculated deciview values for current conditions at each site, along with the percent contribution to extinction from each aerosol species for the 20% worst and best days for each of the Federal Class I area IMPROVE monitors in New Mexico. Figure 3.7 presents 5-year average extinction for the current progress period for both the 20% worst and best days. Note that the percentages in the tabl es consider only the aerosol speci es which contribute to extinction, while the charts also show Rayleigh, or scatte ring due to background gases in the atmosphere.

Specific observations for the current visibility c onditions on the 20% most impaired days are as follows:

 The largest contributors to aerosol extinct ion at New Mexico s ites were ammonium sulfate and particulate organic matter.

 The highest aerosol extinction (17.5 dv) was measured at the SACR1 site, where ammonium sulfate was the larg est contributo r to aerosol extinction, followed by coarse mass. The lowest aerosol extinction (9.1 dv) was measured at the WHPE1 site.

Specific observations for the current visibility conditions on the 20% least impaired days are as follows:

 The aerosol contribution to total extinction on the best days was less than Rayleigh, or the background scattering that would occur in clear air. Average extinction (including Rayleigh) ranged from 0.9 dv (WHP E1) to 7.3 deciview (SACR1).

 For all sites, ammoni um sulfate was the largest contri butor to the non-Rayleigh aerosol component of extinction.

2 EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progr4ess Under the Regional Haze Rule specifies that progress is tracked against the 2000-2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5-y ear periods; i.e., 2005-2009, 2010-2014, etc. (see page 4-2 in the Guidance document).New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 17 

### Table 3.1 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions 2005-2009 Progress Period, 20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciviews (dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extincti on by Species (Excludes Rayleigh) (% of Mm -1 ) and Rank*

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Matter Elemental Carbon Soil Coarse Mass Sea Salt

BAND1 11.8 34% (1) 10% (4) 31% (2) 8% (5) 5% (6) 13% (3) 0% (7)

BOAP1 13.4 30% (1) 14% (4) 22% (2) 10% (5) 5% (6) 19% (3) 1% (7)

GICL1 12.5 27% (2) 3% (6) 42% (1) 10% (4) 5% (5) 12% (3) 0% (7)

GUMO1 15.9 45% (1) 7% (4) 14% (3) 4% (6) 6% (5) 24% (2) 0% (7)

SACR1 17.5 38% (1) 15% (3) 13% (4) 5% (5) 5% (6) 23% (2) 1% (7)

WHIT1 13.2 40% (1) 6% (4) 18% (3) 5% (6) 6% (5) 25% (2) 1% (7)

WHPE1 9.1 36% (1) 8% (5) 27% (2) 9% (4) 7% (6) 12% (3) 0% (7)
*Highest contribution per site is highlighted in bold.



### Table 3.2 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions 2005-2009 Progress Period, 20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciviews (dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extincti on by Species (Excludes Rayleigh) (% of Mm -1 ) and Rank

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Matter Elemental Carbon Soil Coarse Mass Sea Salt

BAND1 4.2 34% (1) 9% (5) 28% (2) 13% (3) 4% (6) 13% (4) 0% (7)

BOAP1 5.8 33% (1) 8% (5) 22% (2) 12% (4) 5% (6) 18% (3) 2% (7)

GICL1 2.7 41% (1) 6% (5) 25% (2) 10% (4) 5% (6) 12% (3) 1% (7)

GUMO1 5.4 37% (1) 11% (4) 18% (3) 8% (5) 5% (6) 21% (2) 0% (7)

SACR1 7.3 31% (1) 12% (4) 18% (3) 8% (5) 5% (6) 25% (2) 1% (7)

WHIT1 3.3 36% (1) 8% (5) 22% (2) 9% (4) 5% (6) 20% (3) 0% (7)

WHPE1 0.9 43% (1) 9% (5) 23% (2) 10% (4) 4% (6) 12% (3) 0% (7)
*Highest contribution per site is highlighted in bold.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 18 Figure 3.7. Average Extinction for Current Progress Period (2005- 2009) for the Worst (Most Impair ed) and Best (Least Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.


### In April of 2013, EPA issued updated gui dance for the 5-year progress reports

. In this revised guidance, EPA suggests that states use rolling five year averages to review visibility progress. Although New Mexico’s 2013 Progress Report is ba sed on the 2003 guidance issued by EPA, to provide the most currently ava ilable IMPROVE data for New Mexico’s Class I areas the following tables (Tables 3.3 through 3.18) have been incl uded. Tables 3.3 through 3.18 show the 20% worst and best visibility trends from 2000- 2004, 2005-2009, 2006-2010, and 2007-2011 for each of New Mexico’s Class I areas. The dv vi sibility trends for each Class I areas show a downward trend through 2011 as compared to the 2000-2004 baseline c onditions. The relative contribution of each pollutant varies in different time periods due to the presence or ab sence of wildfire; in the absence of wildfire, sulfates and nitrates are more dominant on the worst days.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 19 

### Table 3.3 Bandelier National Monument Worst 20% Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 6.9 8.4 7.3 7.0

Nitrate 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4

Organic Carbon 14.2 7.6 6.8 10.9

Elemental

Carbon 3.1 2.1 1.9 2.4

Fine Soil 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Coarse Material 2.9 3.2 3.5 4.1

Sea Salt 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Light Extinction 40.1 33.9 32.3 37.4

Deciview 12.2 11.8 11.3 12.0



### Table 3.4 Bandelier National Monument 20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 2.4 2.1 2.1 1.9

Nitrate 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5

Organic Carbon 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.6

Elemental

Carbon 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6

Fine Soil 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

Coarse Material 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8

Sea Salt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Light Extinction 16.5 15.2 15.0 14.8

Deciview 5.0 4.2 4.0 3.9New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 20 

### Table 3.5 Bosque del Apache Wilderness Area 20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 7.5 8.9 7.6 7.0

Nitrate 3.2 4.2 4.3 4.0
Organic Carbon 8.7 6.5 5.9 6.1

Elemental

Carbon 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.4

Fine Soil 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.8

Coarse Material 6.7 5.5 5.3 7.9

Sea Salt 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Light Extinction 40.9 39.8 37.3 39.3

Deciview 13.8 13.4 12.7 13.1



### Table 3.6 Bosque del Apache Wilderness Area 20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4

Nitrate 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6
Organic Carbon 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.6

Elemental

Carbon 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8

Fine Soil 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4

Coarse Material 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.6

Sea Salt 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Light Extinction 18.9 17.9 17.4 17.4

Deciview 6.3 5.8 5.5 5.5New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 21 

### Table 3.7 Gila Wilderness Area 20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 6.9 8.0 7.5 7.4

Nitrate 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8
Organic Carbon 16.0 12.5 10.4 9.2

Elemental

Carbon 3.2 2.9 2.2 2.1

Fine Soil 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6

Coarse Material 2.8 3.6 3.8 4.0

Sea Salt 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Light Extinction 40.3 38.3 35.5 34.1

Deciview 13.1 12.5 11.6 11.3



### Table 3.8 Gila Wilderness Area 20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6

Nitrate 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Organic Carbon 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.9

Elemental

Carbon 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3

Fine Soil 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Coarse Material 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5

Sea Salt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Light Extinction 14.0 13.2 13.0 12.8

Deciview 3.3 2.7 2.6 2.4New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 22 

### Table 3.9 Carlsbad Caverns National Monument 20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 16.5 18.6 15.8 14.0

Nitrate 3.8 2.9 2.5 2.3
Organic Carbon 6.7 5.9 5.4 6.2

Elemental

Carbon 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.4

Fine Soil 4.4 2.7 2.9 3.7

Coarse Material 16.0 9.9 9.9 11.3

Sea Salt 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Total Light Extinction 57.9 50.6 47.0 48.2

Deciview 17.2 15.9 15.1 15.3



### Table 3.10 Carlsbad Caverns National Monument 20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.7

Nitrate 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.9
Organic Carbon 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2

Elemental

Carbon 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5

Fine Soil 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6

Coarse Material 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.5

Sea Salt 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Light Extinction 18.4 17.4 16.7 16.5

Deciview 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.9New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 23 

### Table 3.11 Salt Creek Wilderness Area 20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 16.7 18.9 15.4 15.1

Nitrate 11.1 7.4 7.1 6.6
Organic Carbon 7.5 6.4 5.6 6.1

Elemental

Carbon 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.8

Fine Soil 3.3 2.3 2.5 3.2

Coarse Material 11.5 11.4 12.8 15.7

Sea Salt 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.4
Total Light Extinction 62.7 59.1 55.7 58.9

Deciview 18.0 17.5 16.9 17.3



### Table 3.12 Salt Creek Wilderness Area 20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.1

Nitrate 2.0 1.3 1.0 1.2
Organic Carbon 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.8

Elemental

Carbon 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7

Fine Soil 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6

Coarse Material 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.9

Sea Salt 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Light Extinction 22.1 20.9 20.0 20.3

Deciview 7.8 7.3 6.8 6.9New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 24 

### Table 3.13 San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area 20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 5.8 6.8 5.8 5.7

Nitrate 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.2
Organic Carbon 7.7 6.3 5.8 8.8

Elemental

Carbon 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.8

Fine Soil 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.6

Coarse Material 2.7 2.5 2.8 3.1

Sea Salt 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Light Extinction 28.9 27.7 26.4 30.3

Deciview 10.2 9.9 9.4 10.1



### Table 3.14 San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area 20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4

Nitrate 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Organic Carbon 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6

Elemental

Carbon 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2

Fine Soil 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2

Coarse Material 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Sea Salt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Light Extinction 11.6 11.1 11.1 11.1

Deciview 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 25 

### Table 3.15 Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area 20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 5.3 6.2 5.7 5.6

Nitrate 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4
Organic Carbon 8.4 4.7 4.4 6.6

Elemental

Carbon 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.8

Fine Soil 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.2

Coarse Material 2.8 2.1 2.2 2.6

Sea Salt 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Light Extinction 30.4 25.2 24.4 27.2

Deciview 10.4 9.1 8.8 9.6



### Table 3.16 Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area 20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3

Nitrate 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Organic Carbon 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6

Elemental

Carbon 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3

Fine Soil 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Coarse Material 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4

Sea Salt 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Light Extinction 11.3 11.0 11.1 11.0

Deciview 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.9New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 26 

### Table 3.17 White Mountain Wilderness Area 20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 10.5 11.9 11.5 12.2

Nitrate 3.0 1.8 1.7 1.7
Organic Carbon 9.0 5.4 4.9 5.8

Elemental

Carbon 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.1

Fine Soil 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.5

Coarse Material 6.7 7.4 9.3 12.0

Sea Salt 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6
Total Light Extinction 42.1 39.0 40.0 45.0

Deciview 13.7 13.2 12.9 13.9



### Table 3.18 White Mountain Wilderness Area 20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

Pollutant 2000-04 Baseline Conditions

(Mm-1) 2005-09 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2006-10 Progress Period (Mm-1) 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1)

Sulfate 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8

Nitrate 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5
Organic Carbon 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.1

Elemental

Carbon 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4

Fine Soil 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Coarse Material 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0

Sea Salt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Light Extinction 14.3 14.0 14.0 14.0

Deciview 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.3New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 27 

### 3.4.2 Differences Between Current Visibility Conditio ns for the Most and Least Impaired Days and Baseline Visibility Conditions

Included here are comparisons between the 5-year average baseline conditions (2000-2004) and the current progress period extinction (2005-2009).

Table 3.19 presents the differences between th e 2000-2004 baseline period average extinction and the 2005-2009 progress period average for each site in New Mexico for the 20% most impaired days, and Table 3.20 presents similar data for the l east impaired days. Averag es that increased are depicted in red text and aver ages that decreased in blue.

Figure 3.8 presents the 5-year average extinction for the baseline and cu rrent progress period averages for the worst days and Figure 3.9 presents the differences in averag es by aerosol species, with increases represented above the zero line and decr eases below the zero line. Figures 3.10 and 3.11 present similar plots for the best days.

For the 20% most impaired days, the 5-year averag e RH rule deciview metric decreased at all New Mexico sites. Notable differences for indivi dual component averages were as follows:

 All sites except BOAP1 measured a decrease in ammonium nitrate. The largest decrease in ammonium nitrate (3.8 Mm-1) was measured at the SACR1 site.

 

### All sites measured a decrease in particulate organic matter.

 An increase in 5-year average ammonium sulfate was measured at all sites, with the largest increases (2.1 Mm -1 

### ) measured at the GUMO1 and SA CR1 sites. This increase is predominately due to the interdependency of pollutants on the 20% worst days. Years with a high influence from wildfires and pa rticulate matter will more heavily dominate the 20% worst days thus seeing higher levels of organic matter, elemental carbon, fine particulate matter and coarse particulat e matter and a lower contribution from ammonium sulfate. Conversely, for those year s with less influence from wildfires and particulate matter there will be a larger cont ribution from ammonium sulfate on the 20% worst days.

For the 20% least impaired days, the 5-year average RH rule deciview metric decreased at all sites. Notable differences for individual component averages on the 20% least impaired days were as follows:

 Ammonium sulfate decreased at most sites, but increased slightly at the WHPE1 site.

 Ammonium nitrate, particul ate organic matter and elemen tal carbon decreased at all
sites.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 28 

### Table 3.19 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Component 2000-2004 Baseline Period to 2005-2009 Progress Period 20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Component (Mm ‐ 1 

### )*

2000

‐ 04
Baseline

Period 2005

‐ 09 Progress

Period Change
in dv* Amm.
Sulfate Amm.
Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea
Salt

BAND1 12.2 11.8

‐ 0.4 +1.5

‐ 0.1 ‐ 6.6 ‐ 1.0 +0.1 +0.3

‐ 0.2

BOAP1 13.8 13.4

‐ 0.4 +1.4 +1.0

‐ 2.2 +0.2

‐ 0.3 ‐ 1.2 0.0

GICL1 13.1 12.5

‐ 0.6 +1.2

‐ 0.1 ‐ 3.5 ‐ 0.2 0.0 +0.8 0.0

GUMO1 17.2 15.9

‐ 1.3 +2.1

‐ 0.9 ‐ 0.8 +0.2

‐ 1.7 ‐ 6.1 0.0

SACR1 18.0 17.5

‐ 0.5 +2.1

‐ 3.8 ‐ 1.1 0.0

‐ 1.0 ‐ 0.1 +0.3

WHIT1 13.7 13.2

‐ 0.5 +1.4

‐ 1.2 ‐ 3.6 ‐ 0.4 ‐ 0.1 +0.8 +0.1

WHPE1 10.4 9.1

‐ 1.3 +0.9

‐ 0.2 ‐ 3.6 ‐ 0.6 ‐ 0.6 ‐ 0.6 ‐ 0.4

*Change is calculated as progress period av erage minus baseline period average. Values in red indicate increases in extinction, values in blue indicate decreases.



### Table 3.20 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Component 2000-2004 Baseline Period to 2005-2009 Progress Period 20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Component (Mm ‐ 1 

### )*
2000

‐ 2004 Baseline

Period 2005

‐ 2009 Progress

Period Change in dv* Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

BAND1 5.0 4.2

‐ 0.8 ‐ 0.3 ‐ 0.2 ‐ 0.4 ‐ 0.1 ‐ 0.1 ‐ 0.2 0.0

BOAP1 6.3 5.8

‐ 0.5 ‐ 0.2 ‐ 0.2 ‐ 0.4 ‐ 0.2 0.0

‐ 0.1 0.0

GICL1 3.3 2.7

‐ 0.6 ‐ 0.1 ‐ 0.1 ‐ 0.5 ‐ 0.2 0.0 +0.1 0.0

GUMO1 5.9 5.4

‐ 0.5 ‐ 0.3 ‐ 0.3 ‐ 0.1 0.0 0.0

‐ 0.3 0.0

SACR1 7.8 7.3

‐ 0.5 0.0

‐ 0.7 ‐ 0.3 ‐ 0.2 ‐ 0.2 +0.2 0.0

WHIT1 3.6 3.3

‐ 0.3 ‐ 0.1 ‐ 0.1 ‐ 0.2 ‐ 0.1 +0.1 +0.1 0.0

WHPE1 1.2 0.9

‐ 0.3 +0.1

‐ 0.1 ‐ 0.1 ‐ 0.1 0.0

‐ 0.1 0.0

*Change is calculated as progress period av erage minus baseline period average. Values in red indicate increases in extinction, values in blue indicate decreases.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 29 Figure 3.8. Average Extinction for Baseline and Progress Period Extinction for Worst (Most Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.

Figure 3.9. Difference Between Average Extinction for Curren t Progress Period (2005-2009) and Baseline Period (2000-2004) for t he Worst (Most Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.

*Chan g e in total extinction in units of deciviews ( dv ) is shown above res p ective bars. *Total extinction in units of deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 30 Figure 3.10. Average Extinction for Baseline and Progress Period Extinction for Best (Least Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.

Figure 3.11. Difference Between Average Extinction for Curre nt Progress Period (2005-2009) and Baseline Period (2000-2004) for the Best (Least Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.

*Change in total extinction in units of deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 31 

### 3.4.3 Change in Visibility Impairment for the Most Impaired and Least Impaired Days Over the Past 5 Years

Included here are changes in vi sibility impairment as charac terized by annual average trend statistics, and some general observations regardin g local and regional events and outliers on a daily and annual basis that affected the current 5- year progress period. The regulatory requirement requires a description of changes over the past 5 year period. Because trend anal ysis is better suited to longer periods of time, trends for the enti re 10 year planning pe riod are presented here.

Trend statistics for the years 2000-2009 for each species at each site in New Mexico are summarized in Table 3.21. 3 

### Only trends for aerosol species trends with p-value statistics less than 0.15 (85% confidence level) are presented in the table here, with increas ing slopes in red and decreasing slopes in blue. 4 

### In some cases, trends may show decreasing tende ncies while the difference between the 5-year averages do not (or vi ce versa). In these cases, the 5-year average for the best and worst days is the important metric fo r RH regulatory purposes, but trend statistics may be of value to understand and address visibi lity impairment issues for planning purposes.

For each site, a more comprehensive list of all tr ends for all species, including the associated pvalues, is provided in Appendix C. Additionally, the Appendix incl udes plots depicting 5-year, annual, monthly and daily average extinction for each site. Some general observations regarding changes in visibility impairment at sites in New Mexico are as follows:

 The largest decrease in 5-year averages was measured for particulate organic matter at the BAND1 site, where a wildfire event in May 2000 influenced the baseline period average. The Cerro Grande Fire began on May 4, 2000, a nd was declared contained on June 6, 2000. The fire burned approximately 48,000 acres.

 For ammonium nitrate, decreases in 5-year aver ages on the worst days were measured at all sites except BOAP1, which was influenced by an unusually high ammonium nitrate event measured in January 2007. It is unclear what cau sed this event; it appears to be an anomaly and has not been repeated. Additionally, all site s measured either insignificant or decreasing annual average ammonium nitrate trends. The la rgest decrease was measured for the SACR1 site, but the year 2007 was incomplete for this site and not included in the 5-year average.

 For ammonium sulfate, increases in the 5-year averages were recorded for the worst days at all sites, but no increasing annual average trends were measured and st atistically significant decreasing annual average trends were measur ed at the BAND1, GUMO1, and SACR1 sites. High 5-year averages for the wors t days at these sites were in fluenced by anomalously high ammonium sulfate measurements in 2005. During September of 2005, a large sulfate transport event occurred over much of the eas tern and mid-western U.S. reaching into New

3 Annual trends were calculated for the ye ars 2000-2009, with a trend defined as the sl ope derived using Theil statistics. Trend s derived from Theil statistics are useful in analyzing changes in air quality data because these statistics can show the overall tendency of measur ements over long periods of time, while minimizing the effects of y ear-to-year fluctuations which are common in air quality data. Theil statistics are a lso used in EPA’s National Air EPA’s National Air Quality Trends Reports ( http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ ) and the IMPROVE program trend reports ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/impr ove/Publications/improve_reports.htm )

4 The significance of the trend is represented with p-values calculated using Mann-Kendall trend statistics. Determining a signi ficance level helps to distinguish random variability in data from a real tendency to increase or decrease over time, where lower p-values indicate hi gher confidence levels in the computed slopes.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 32 

### Mexico and Arizona (Figure 3.12). As shown in Appendix C, most of the increases in
ammonium sulfate that occurr ed in New Mexico in 2005 t ook place during the month of September.

 Two sites, BAND1 and GICL1, showed increasing trends on the worst days for coarse mass, and increases in the 5-year average for coar se mass. Highest coarse mass events were measured during the spring, which is indicative of the high wind events that normally occur during the late winter and sp ring months in New Mexico.

Figure 3.12. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Navy Ae rosol Analysis and Predic tion System (NAAPS) map of sulfate surface concentrat ions for September 9, 2005.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 33 

### Table 3.21 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites

Change in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2009 Annual Average Trends

Site Group Annual Trend* (Mm -1 /year)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Matter Elemental Carbon Soil Coarse Mass Sea Salt

BAND1 20% Best -0.1 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20% Worst -- -- -0.5 -0.1 -- 0.1 0.0

All Days -0.1 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 -- -- --

BOAP1 20% Best -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -- -0.1 -- 20% Worst -- -- -0.6 -- -- -- --

All Days -- -- -0.2 -0.1 -- -- --

GICL1 20% Best -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -- -- 0.0 20% Worst -- -- -1.0 -- -- 0.2 0.0

All Days -- 0.0 -0.3 -0.1 -- 0.0 0.0

GUMO1 20% Best -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 20% Worst -- -0.2 -0.2 -- -- -0.8 --

All Days -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -- -- -0.3 --

SACR1 20% Best -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 -- -- -- 20% Worst -0.5 -0.8 -0.3 -- -- -- 0.0

All Days -0.2 -0.3 -- -- -- -- 0.0

WHIT1 20% Best -- -- 0.0 0.0 -- -- 0.0 20% Worst -- -0.3 -0.6 -0.2 -- -- 0.0

All Days -- -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -- -- --

WHPE1 20% Best -- 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 20% Worst -- -- -0.9 -0.1 -0.1 -- --

All Days -- 0.0 -0.3 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 *(--) Indicates statistically insi gnificant trend (<85% confidence level). Annual averages and complete trend statistics for al l significance levels are included for each site in Appendix I.



### 3.5 Analyses of Emissions: 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C)

40 

### CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) requires “ 

### An analysis tracking the chang e over the pas t 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributin g to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State. Emissions changes should be identified by type of source or activity. The analysis must be based on the most recent updated emissions inventory, with estimates projected forward as necessary and appropriate, to ac count for emissions changes dur ing the applicable 5-year period.”

Included here are summaries depicting differences between two emission inventory years that are used to represent the 5-year baseline and cu rrent progress periods. The baseline period is represented using a 2002 i nventory developed by the WRAP for us e in the initial WRAP state SIPs, and the progress period is represented by a 2008 inve ntory which leverages recent WRAP inventory work for modeling efforts. For reference, Tabl e 3.22 lists the pollutants inventoried, the related aerosol species, some of the ke y sources for each pollutant, and so me notes regarding implications of these pollutants. Differences between these baseline and progress period inventories, and a separate summary of annual emissi ons from electrical generating units (EGUs), are presented in this section.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 34 

### Table 3.22 New Mexico Pollutants, Aerosol Species, and Major Sources
Emitted Pollutant Related Aerosol Key Sources Notes

Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Ammonium Sulfate Point sources;On- and offroad mobile

sources SO 2 emissions are generally asso ciated with anthropogenic sources such as coal-burning power plants, other industrial sources such as refineries and cement plants, and both on- and off-road diesel engines. Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X ) Ammonium Nitrate On- and offroad mobile

sources; Point sources; Area sources NO X emissions are generally asso ciated with anthropogenic sources. Common sources include virtually all combustion activities, especially those involving cars, trucks, power plants, and other industrial processes.

Ammonia (NH 3 ) Amm. Sulfate and Amm. Nitrate Area sources; On-road mobile

sources Gaseous NH 3 has implications in particle formation because it can form particulate ammonium. Ammonium is not directly measured by the IMPROVE prog ram, but affects formation potential of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate. All measured nitrate and sulfate is assumed to be associated with ammonium for IMPROVE reporting purposes. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Particulate Organic Matter (POM) Biogenic emissions; vehicle emissions; area

sources VOCs are gaseous emissions of carbon compounds, which are often converted to POM through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Estimates for biogenic emissions of VOCs have undergone significant updates since 2002, so changes reported here are more reflective of methodology changes than actual changes in emissions (see Section 3.2.1 of Appendix A). Primary Organic Aerosol (POA) POM Wildfires; Area sources POA represents organic aerosols that are emitted directly as particles, as opposed to gases. Wildfires in the west generally dominate POA emissions, and large wildfire events are generally sporadic and highly variable from year-to-year. Elemental Carbon (EC) EC Wildfires;On- and offroad mobile

sources Large EC events are often asso ciated with large POM events during wildfires. Other sources include both on- and off-road diesel engines.

Fine soil Soil Windblown dust; Fugitive dust; Road dust; Area sources Fine soil is reported here as the crustal or soil components of PM 2.5 .

Coarse Mass (PMC) Coarse Mass Windblown dust; Fugitive dust Coarse mass is reported by the IMPROVE network as the difference between PM 10 and PM 2.5 mass measurements. Coarse mass is not separated by species in the same way that PM 2.5 is speciated, but these measurements are generally associated with crustal components. Similar to crustal PM 2.5 , natural windblown dust is often the largest contributor to PMC.



### For these summaries, emissions during the baselin e years are represente d using a 2002 inventory, which was developed with support from the WRAP for use in the orig inal RH SIP strategy development (termed plan02d). Differences between inventories are represen ted as the difference between the 2002 inventory, and a 2008 inventory which leverages r ecent inventory development work performed by the WRAP for the West -wide Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) and the Deterministic & Empi rical Assessment of Sm oke’s Contribution to Ozone (DEASCO 3 

### ) modeling projects (termed WestJum p2008). Note that the comparison ofNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 35 

### differences between inventories doe s not necessarily reflect a change in emissions, as a number of methodology changes and enhancements have occu rred between development of the individual inventories (see Appendix A). Inventories for all ma jor visibility impairing pollutants are presented for major source categories, and categorized as either anthropogenic or natural emissions.

Table 3.23 and Figure 3.13 present the differences between the 2002 and 2008 sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) inventories by source category. Ta bles 3.24 and Figure 3.14 present data for oxides of nitrogen (NO X 

### ), and subsequent tables and figures (Tab les 3.25 through 3.30 and Figures 3.15 through 3.20) present data for ammonia (NH 3 

### ), VOCs, primary organic aerosol (POA), elemental carbon (EC), fine soil and coarse mass. General observations regarding emissions inventory comparisons are listed below.

 

### The largest differences for point sour ce inventories were decreases in SO 2 

### , NO X 

### and VOCs. Note that this is consistent with the summary of annual EGU emissions as included in Figure 3.20, s howing decreases in SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions.

 

### Area source inventories showed decreases in SO 2 

### and VOCs and increases in NO X 

### and
NH 3 

### . These changes may be due to a combination of population changes and differences in methodologies used to estimate these emissions (see Section 3.2.1 of Appendix A).

 

### On-road mobile source inventory comparisons showed decreases in SO 2 

### , NH 3 

### and VOCs, but increases in most other parameters, including NO X


### .

 

### Off-road mobile source invent ories showed decreases in NO X 

### , SO 2 

### , VOCs, and EC, and slight increases in fi ne soil and coarse mass, which was consistent with most contiguous WRAP states. These differences were likely due to a combination of actual changes in
source contributions and me thodology differences (see Se ction 3.2.1 of Appendix A).

 

### Inventory comparison results for area oil and gas showed decreases in NO X 

### and VOCs, but note that inventory methodologies for thes e sources may have evolved substantially between the baseline and 2008 inventor ies (see Section 3.2.1 of Appendix A).

 

### For all parameters, especially POAs, VOCs, and EC, natural fire emission inventory estimates decreased, and anthropogenic fire inventories increased. Note that these differences are not necessarily reflective of changes in mon itored data, as the baseline period is represented by an average of 2000- 2004 fire emissions, and the progress period is represented only by the fire s that occurred in 2008 (see Section 3.2.1 of Appendix A).

 

### Comparisons between VOC inventories showed large decreases in biogenic emissions, which was consistent with other conti guous WRAP states. Es timates for biogenic emissions of VOCs have undergone significan t updates since 2002, so changes reported here are more reflective of methodology changes than actual changes in emissions (see Section 3.2.1 of Appendix A).

 

### Fine soil and coarse mass increased for th e windblown dust invent ory comparisons and the combined fugitive/road dust inventories. Large variability in changes in windblown dust was observed for the con tiguous WRAP states, which was likely due in large part toNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 36 

### enhancements in dust inventory methodology (see Section 3.2.1 of Appendix A), rather than changes in actual emissions.

Table 3.23 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category

Source Category Sulfur Dioxide Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 37,436 24,681 -12,754 Area 5,115 347 -4,768 On-Road Mobile 1,950 498 -1,452 Off-Road Mobile 3,525 167 -3,358 Area Oil and Gas 250 1,076 826 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 78 622 544 Total Anthropogenic 48,354 27,392 -20,962 (-43%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 2,313 154 -2,159 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 2,313 154 -2,159 (-93%) All Sources Total Emissions 50,667 27,545 -23,121 (-46%)

Figure 3.13. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Differe nce between Emissions Invent ory Totals, for Sulfur Dioxide by Source Category fo r New Mexico.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 37 

### Table 3.24 Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions by Category

Source Category Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 100,387 62,502 -37,885 Area 25,130 27,754 2,624 On-Road Mobile 67,835 72,074 4,239 Off-Road Mobile 45,311 8,566 -36,745 Area Oil and Gas 56,210 35,838 -20,372 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 394 4,397 4,004 Total Anthropogenic 295,266 211,132 -84,135 (-28%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 8,570 1,085 -7,485 Biogenic 42,139 15,983 -26,156 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 50,708 17,068 -33,641 (-66%) All Sources Total Emissions 345,974 228,199 -117,775 (-34%)

Figure 3.14. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Differ ence between Emissions Inventory Totals , for Oxides of Nitrogen by Source Category for New Mexico.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 38 

### Table 3.25 Ammonia Emissions by Category

Source Category Ammonia Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 75 274 199 Area 29,959 39,399 9,440 On-Road Mobile 2,132 1,090 -1,042 Off-Road Mobile 26 10 -16 Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 75 3,067 2,992 Total Anthropogenic 32,266 43,840 11,573 (36%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 1,875 754 -1,120 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 1,875 754 -1,120 (-60%) All Sources Total Emissions 34,141 44,594 10,453 (31%)

Figure 3.15. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Differ ence between Emissions Inventory Tota ls, for Ammonia by Source Category for

New Mexico



### .New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 39 

### Table 3.26 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions by Category

Source Category Volatile Organic Compound Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 17,574 9,855 -7,719 Area 49,010 37,395 -11,614 On-Road Mobile 38,768 29,629 -9,138 Off-Road Mobile 13,850 11,383 -2,467 Area Oil and Gas 224,268 174,990 -49,278 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 608 5,540 4,932 Total Anthropogenic 344,077 268,792 -75,284 (-22%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 18,846 1,107 -17,740 Biogenic 1,016,487 468,258 -548,229 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 1,035,333 469,365 -565,968 (-55%) All Sources Total Emissions 1,379,410 734,166 -645,244 (-47%)

Figure 3.16. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Diff erence between Emissions Inventory To tals, for Volatile Or ganic Compounds by Source Category for New Mexico.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 40 

### Table 3.27 Primary Organic Aerosol Emissions by Category

Source Category Primary Organic Aerosol Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 978 277 -701 Area 2,529 2,876 346 On-Road Mobile 653 1,506 852 Off-Road Mobile 563 349 -213 Area Oil and Gas 0 31 31 Fugitive and Road Dust 474 3,819 3,345 Anthropogenic Fire 682 8,821 8,139 Total Anthropogenic 5,879 17,678 11,799 (>100%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 16,272 1,727 -14,545 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 16,272 1,727 -14,545 (-89%) All Sources Total Emissions 22,151 19,406 -2,745 (-12%)

Figure 3.17. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Tota ls, for Primary Organi c Aerosol by Source Category for New Mexico.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 41 

### Table 3.28 Elemental Carbon Emissions by Category

Source Category Elemental Carbon Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 13 71 59 Area 301 945 644 On-Road Mobile 756 2,999 2,243 Off-Road Mobile 1,526 457 -1,070 Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 34 74 40 Anthropogenic Fire 123 1,432 1,309 Total Anthropogenic 2,753 5,979 3,226 (>100%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 3,293 417 -2,876 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 3,293 417 -2,876 (-87%) All Sources Total Emissions 6,046 6,397 351 (6%)

Figure 3.18. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Elemental Carbon by Source Category
for New Mexico.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 42 

### Table 3.29 Fine Soil Emissions by Category

Source Category Fine Soil Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 1,180 535 -645 Area 2,821 1,485 -1,336 On-Road Mobile 429 258 -172 Off-Road Mobile 0 25 25 Area Oil and Gas 0 540 540 Fugitive and Road Dust 8,056 55,506 47,451 Anthropogenic Fire 87 3,239 3,152 Total Anthropogenic 12,573 61,587 49,014 (>100%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 1,223 646 -577 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 16,399 28,151 11,752 Total Natural 17,622 28,798 11,176 (63%) All Sources Total Emissions 30,194 87,702 57,507 (>100%)

Figure 3.19. 2002 and 2008 Emission a nd Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals , for Fine Soil by Source Category for New Mexico.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 43 

### Table 3.30 Coarse Mass Emissions by Category

Source Category Coarse Mass Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 2,286 1,168 -1,117 Area 695 506 -189 On-Road Mobile 403 2,994 2,590 Off-Road Mobile 0 41 41 Area Oil and Gas 0 12 12 Fugitive and Road Dust 62,607 504,915 442,308 Anthropogenic Fire 105 1,691 1,586 Total Anthropogenic 66,096 511,327 445,230 (>100%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 5,400 330 -5,070 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 147,589 253,362 105,773 Total Natural 152,989 253,692 100,703 (66%) All Sources Total Emissions 219,086 765,019 545,933 (>100%)

Figure 3.20. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Differe nce between Emissions Inve ntory Totals, for Coarse Mass by Source Category for New Mexico.



### As described above, differences between the base line and progress period inventories presented here do not necessarily represent changes in actual emissions because numerous updates in inventory methodologies have occurred between the development of the separate inventories. Also, the 2002 baseline and 2008 progress period inve ntories represent only annual snapshots of emissions estimates, which may not be representa tive of the entire 5-year monitoring periods compared. To better account for year-to-year cha nges in emissions, annual emission totals for NewNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 44 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010 

### Annual EGU Emissions
New Mexico 1996

‐ 2010

SO2 (TPY)

NOX (TPY) 

### Mexico, Figure 3.6 above depicts the actual emis sion reductions achieved in New Mexico between 2008-2012 for NO 2 

### , SO 2 

### and PM. To further demonstrate the reductions, the emission changes and annual total for EGUs are also pr esented here. EGU emissions are so me of the more consistently reported emissions, as tracked in EPA’s Air Ma rkets Program Database for permitted Title V facilities in the state ( http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ ). RH implementation plans are required to pay specific attention to certain major stationa ry sources, including EGUs, built between 1962 and 1977.

Figure 3.21 presents a sum of annual NO X 

### and SO 2 

### emissions as reported for New Mexico EGU sources between 1996 and 2010. While thes e types of facilities are target ed for controls in state RH SIPs, it should be noted that many of the controls planned for EGUs in New Mexico had not taken place yet in 2010, while other controls separate from the RH rule may have been implemented. The chart shows periods of decline for both SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions, with a steeper decline in SO 2


### .

Figure 3.21. Sum of EGU Emissions of SO 2 and NOX reported between 1996 and 2010 for New Mexico



### .

3.6 Changes to Anthropogenic Emissions: 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E)

40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) requires “ an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have occurred over the past 5 years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility.”

Figure 3.22 displays the average light extinction for the 20% worst days over the 5-year period 2005 through 2009 for all Class I areas in New Mexico. This figure dem onstrates that on the 20% worst days in the Class I areas in New Mexico, ammoni um sulfate and particulate organic matter are theNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 45 

### major concern for visibility impairment. Stationary point sources are the la rgest contributor of SO 2 

### emissions, accounting for 90% of the SO 2 

### emissions in New Mexico. Ov er 50% of the particulate organic matter emissions are from fire, including natural and anthropogenic. Appendix C includes monitoring data summaries over the 5-year 2006-2009 for the 20% worst and best days for each Class I area in New Mexico.

Figure 3.22. Average light extinction for the 20% worst days ov er the 5-year period 2005 through 2009 for all Class I areas in New Mexico.



### Anthropogenic sources of SO 2 

### include coal-burning power plants a nd other industrial sources, such as smelters, industrial boilers, and oil refineries , and to a lesser exte nt, gasoline and diesel combustion. The primary sources of anthropogeni c particulate organic matter in New Mexico include prescribed forest and agricultural burning, vehicle exhaust, vehicle refueling, solvent evaporation (e.g., paints), food cooking, and various commercial and industrial sources. Both of these pollutants are covered by existin g RH long-term control strategies.

There does not appear to be a ny anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico that would have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or improving vi sibility. As Figure 3.6 above shows, SO 2 

### , NO 2 

### and PM point source emissions ha ve steadily decreased between 2008-2012 and have surpassed the Projected 2018 emission s reductions New Mexico committed to under the WRAP regional planning process.

3.7 Assessment of Current SIP St rategy: 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F)

40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(f) requires “an assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements and strategies are suffici ent to enable the State, or othe r States with mandatory Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from the St ate, to meet all establ ished reasonable progress goals.”New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 46 

### Figure 3.23 displays the reconstr ucted extinction for th e 20% worst days at the Gila Wilderness Area from 2000 through 2010. Similar results are seen at the other Class I areas in New Mexico (Appendix C). This figure demonstrates that on the 20% worst days, visibility continues to improve at New Mexico’s Class I areas.

Figure 3.23. Reconstructed extinction for the 20% worst days at the Gila Wilderness Area from 2000 through 2010

.


### As Table 2.1 shows, the state is showing improving visibility at all New Mexico Class I areas, and is already exceeding the 2018 reasonable progress goals at all but two, BOAP1 and SACR1, of New Mexico’s Class I areas. New Mexico believes that the current control strategies in the state’s Section 309 and 309(g) SIP submittals are sufficient to meet all of the state’s established 2018 reasonable progress goals and will not impede Class I areas outside of New Mexico from meeting their goals.

3.8 Assessment of Current Monitoring Strategy: 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G)

40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G) requires “a review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.”

The primary monitoring network for regional haze, both nationwide and in New Mexico, is the IMPROVE monitoring network. Give n that IMPROVE monitoring da ta from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for the regional haze program, the future regional haze monitoring strategy must necessarily be based on, or di rectly comparable to the current IMPROVE network. The IMPROVE measurements provide the only long-term record av ailable for tracking visi bility improvement or degradation and therefore New Mexico intends to continue reliance on the IMPROVE network for complying with the RH monitori ng requirement in the RH rule.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 47 

### There are currently seven (7) IMPROVE sites in New Mexico and one (1) in Texas that is utilized for Carlsbad Caverns National Park ( 

### see Table 3.31 and Figure 3.24 ). No modifications to the existing visibility monitoring strategy are necessary at this time.



### Table 3.31 New Mexico CIAs and Representative IMPROVE Monitors

Class I Area Representative IMPROVE Site Latitude Longitude Elevation (m)

Bandelier NM BAND1 35.78 -106.27 1988 Bosque del Apache WA BOAP1 33.87 -106.85 1389

Gila WA GICL1 33.22 -108.24 1775 Guadalupe Mountains NP GUMO1* 31.83 -104.81 1672 Carlsbad Caverns NP

Salt Creek WA SACR1 33.46 -104.40 1072
San Pedro Parks WA SAPE1 36.01 -106.84 2935

White Mountain WA WHIT1 33.47 -105.53 2063

Wheeler Peak WA WHPE1 36.59 -105.45 3366 Pecos WA
*IMPROVE Site is located in Texas.

Figure 3.24. New Mexico’s Federal Cl ass I area IMPROVE monitoring sites



### 3.9 Assessment of Visibility Conditions 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii)

40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(ii) requires “ Determination of the adequacy of existing implementation plan. At the same time the Stat e is required to submit any 5- year progress report to EPA inNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 48 

### accordance with paragraph (d)(10)(i) of this section, the State must also take one of the following actions based upon the information pr esented in the progress report:

(1) If the State determines that the existing implementation plan require s no further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve establ ished goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the State must provide to the Administ rator a negative declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time.

(2) If the State determines that the implemen tation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in another State(s) wh ich participated in a regional planning process, the Stat e must provide notific ation to the Administrator and to the other State(s) which participated in th e regional planning process with th e States. The State must also collaborate with the other State(s) through th e regional planning process for the purpose of developing additional strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.

(3) Where the State determines that the implem entation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along with available in formation, to the Administrator.

(4) Where the State determines that the implem entation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources within the State, the State shall revise its implementation plan to address the pl an's deficiencies within one year”

The State of New Mexico has provided the info rmation required under 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i) in this 5-year progress report. Based upon this information, New Mexi co believes that the current Section 309 and 309(g) RH SIPs are adequate to meet the state’s 2018 reasonable progress goals and require no further re vision at this time.

Other states relied on WRAP modeling to show r easonable progress at their Class I areas. With the BART determination of a 2 unit shut-down a nd 2 unit SNCR installation, New Mexico will be exceeding the modeled levels relied on by WRAP for regional haze. Therefore, NM is not impeding other states in meeting their reasonable progre ss goals, and is, in fact , decreasing visibilityimpairing pollutants more than was antic ipated in the WRAP modeling for NOx, SO 2 

### and PM.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 49 

### 4.0 REGIONAL SUMMARY FOR 309 GCVTC CLASS I AREA SITES
Section 309 rules were based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) R ecommendations report, 5 

### specific to visibility impacts at the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Of the nine western st ates originally eligible for Section 309 RH rule implementation, only the states of New Mexi co, Utah, and Wyoming and the city of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County curr ently exercise this option.

The 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau are de picted in Figure 4.1 and listed in Table 4.1. Note that the ZION1 site, which originally repres ented Zion Canyon National Park, has since been replaced with the ZICA1 site. This section pr esents regional progress summaries specific to monitoring and emissions data at these Colorado Plateau sites.

Table 4.1 Colorado Plateau Class I Areas and Representative IMPROVE Monitors

Class I Area Representative IMPROVE Site Latitude Longitude Elevation (m)

Arizona
Grand Canyon NP GRCA2 35.97 -111.98 2267

Mount Baldy WA BALD1 34.06 -109.44 2508

Petrified Forest NP PEFO1 35.08 -109.77 1766

Sycamore Canyon WA SYCA1 35.14 -111.97 2046

Colorado Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP Weminuche WA WEMI1 37.66 -107.80 2750
Flat Tops WA Maroon Bells-Snowmass WA West Elk WA WHRI1 39.15 -106.82 3413

Mesa Verde NP MEVE1 37.20 -108.49 2172

New Mexico

San Pedro Parks WA SAPE1 36.01 -106.84 2935

Utah
Bryce Canyon NP BRCA1 37.62 -112.17 2481
Canyonlands NP Arches NP CANY1 38.46 -109.82 1798

Capitol Reef NP CAPI1 38.30 -111.29 1896

Zion NP ZICA1* 37.20 -113.15 1215
*Replaced the ZION1 monitoring site in 2003.

5 The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Comm ission Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas Report is archived on the WRAP w ebsite at www.wrapair.org/WRAP/reports/GCVTCFinal.PDF

.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 50 Mount Baldy WA Bryce Canyon NP Arches NP

Canyonlands NP Capitol Reef NP

Grand Canyon NP Mesa Verde NP

Petrified Forest NP San Pedro Parks WA

Sycamore Canyon WA Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP

Weminuche WA Flat Tops WA

Maroon Bells-Snowmass WA

West Elk WA

Zion NP

BALD1 BRCA1 CANY1 CAPI1

GRCA2 MEVE1

PEFO1 SAPE1
SYCA1 WEMI1 WHRI1

ZICA1

Figure 4.1. Map Depicting Colorado Plat eau CIAs and Representative IMPROVE Monitors in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.


### Monitoring Data

Figures 4.2 and 4.3 present the 2005-2009 visibility av erages for the 20% worst and best days for the IMPROVE sites representing Class I areas on th e Colorado Plateau. The size of the pie chart is related to the magnitude of visibi lity impairment, and colors repres ent the relative contribution of the pollutants which are measured by the IMPR OVE network. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 present the difference between the 2000-2004 base line period average and the 2005-2009 first pr ogress period average for the 20% worst and best days, respectiv ely, for the Class I area sites in the Colorado Plateau region.

Table 4.4 presents the differences between th e 2000-2004 baseline period average extinction and the 2005-2009 progress period average for each Class I area site in the Colorado Plateau region for the 20% most impaired days, an d Table 4.5 presents similar data for the least impaired days. Averages that increased are depicted in red text and averages that decreased in blue.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 51 

### Trend statistics for the years 2000-2009 for each sp ecies at each Class I ar ea site in the Colorado Plateau region are presented in Table 4.6. As in S ection 3.4.3, only trends for aerosol species trends with p-value statistics less than 0.15 (85% confiden ce level) are presented in the table here, with increasing slopes in red and d ecreasing slopes in blue.

Some general observations for the current visibili ty conditions and the difference between current and baseline conditions are listed below:

 The largest contributors to aerosol extinct ion at the Colorado Plateau sites were particulate organic matter, ammoni um sulfate, and coarse mass.

 For all sites, the 5-year average as measured in the deciview metric decreased for the best days between the baselin e and first progress period.

 For most sites, the 5-year average as meas ured in the deciview metric decreased for the worst days between the baseline and fi rst progress period. Ex ceptions included GRCA2 and BALD1 in Arizona and BRCA1 an d CAPI1 in Utah. Some contributing factors for aerosol measurements that affected increased in 5-year average deciviews are listed below.

o The increase at GRCA2 was due to increas es in ammonium su lfate, elemental carbon, particulate organic matter and soil, partially offset by decreases in ammonium nitrate and coarse mass. Th e particulate organic carbon increase was associated with high measurements due to fire events in June and August of 2009. No statistical ly significant increasing annua l trends were measured for any of the species at the GRCA2 site.

o Extinction remained relatively unchanged in terms of deciviews for the worst days measured at the BALD1 site. In creases in coarse mass, soil, and ammonium sulfate were offset by decr eases in particulat e organic matter, elemental carbon, and ammonium nitr ate. Trend statistics showed an increasing coarse mass trend at the BALD1 and PEFO1 sites in eastern Arizona.

o At the BRCA1 and CAPI1 sites, the la rgest contributor to increases was particulate organic matte r which, similar to GRCA2, was associated with large fires events in July and August, 2009. These increases were offset by
decreases in ammonium nitrate and am monium sulfate. An increasing soil trend was measured for the worst days at the CAPI1 site.

 Increases in 5-year average ammonium sulf ate were measured at many regional sites, although most sites showed decreasing a nnual average ammonium sulfate trends. The 5-year average was influenced by relatively high regional measurements of ammonium sulfate in 2005. Figure 4.4 presents a plot of the annual averages for all Colorado Plateau sites, showing the hi gh values measured in 2005, followed by generally decreasing trends.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 52 Average Aerosol Extinction (Mm-1) Progress Period (2005-2009) 20% Worst Days

Ammoniun Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate

Elemental Carbon

Soil

Coarse Mass

Sea Salt

Insufficient Data Particulate Organic Mass

20 2

50

Average Aerosol Extinction (Mm-1) Progress Period (2005-2009) 20% Best Days

Ammoniun Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate

Elemental Carbon

Soil

Coarse Mass

Sea Salt

Insufficient Data Particulate Organic Mass

5 2

10 Figure 4.2. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollutant for the First Progress Period Average (2005 – 2009) for 20% Worst Days.

Figure 4.3. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollu tant for First Progress Period Average (2005 – 2009) for 20% Best DaysNew Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 53 

### Table 4.2 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions 2005-2009 Progress Period, 20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciviews (dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extincti on by Species (Excludes Rayleigh) (% of Mm -1 ) and Rank*

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Matter Elemental Carbon Soil Coarse Mass Sea Salt

Arizona
GRCA2 12.0 22% (2) 7% (5) 41% (1) 11% (4) 6% (6) 12% (3) 0% (7)

BALD1 11.8 25% (2) 4% (6) 42% (1) 8% (4) 6% (5) 16% (3) 0% (7)

PEFO1 13.0 23% (2) 5% (6) 31% (1) 11% (4) 8% (5) 21% (3) 1% (7)

SYCA1 15.2 15% (4) 4% (6) 29% (1) 9% (5) 15% (3) 28% (2) 0% (7)

Colorado
WEMI1 10.0 27% (2) 5% (6) 36% (1) 10% (4) 7% (5) 15% (3) 0% (7)

WHRI1 8.9 30% (2) 8% (5) 33% (1) 8% (4) 7% (6) 13% (3) 0% (7)

MEVE1 11.3 27% (2) 9% (4) 28% (1) 7% (6) 9% (5) 20% (3) 0% (7)

New Mexico

SAPE1 9.9 34% (1) 6% (6) 32% (2) 8% (4) 7% (5) 13% (3) 0% (7)

Utah
BRCA1 11.9 19% (2) 9% (5) 45% (1) 10% (4) 5% (6) 12% (3) 0% (7)

CANY1 11.0 23% (2) 14% (4) 27% (1) 7% (5) 7% (6) 20% (3) 0% (7)

CAPI1 11.3 24% (2) 12% (4) 32% (1) 8% (5) 7% (6) 17% (3) 0% (7)

ZICA1 12.3 21% (3) 7% (5) 33% (1) 9% (4) 7% (6) 22% (2) 0% (7)
*Highest aerosol species contribution per site is highlighted in bold.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 54 

### Table 4.3 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions 2005-2009 Progress Period, 20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciviews (dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extincti on by Species (Excludes Rayleigh) (% of Mm -1 ) and Rank*

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Matter Elemental Carbon Soil Coarse Mass Sea Salt

Arizona

GRCA2 2.2 45% (1) 13% (4) 15% (2) 9% (5) 4% (6) 14% (3) 1% (7)

BALD1 2.9 35% (1) 7% (5) 26% (2) 13% (4) 5% (6) 13% (3) 1% (7)

PEFO1 4.6 31% (1) 9% (5) 21% (2) 19% (3) 6% (6) 14% (4) 0% (7)

SYCA1 5.1 27% (1) 10% (5) 23% (2) 17% (3) 7% (6) 15% (4) 1% (7)

Colorado

WEMI1 2.4 36% (1) 6% (5) 23% (2) 15% (4) 4% (6) 15% (3) 1% (7)

WHRI1 0.2 46% (1) 10% (5) 14% (3) 15% (2) 5% (6) 11% (4) 0% (7)

MEVE1 3.1 44% (1) 12% (3) 21% (2) 9% (5) 5% (6) 9% (4) 0% (7)

New Mexico

SAPE1 1.0 47% (1) 12% (3) 18% (2) 8% (5) 5% (6) 10% (4) 1% (7)

Utah
BRCA1 11.9 19% (2) 9% (5) 45% (1) 10% (4) 5% (6) 12% (3) 0% (7)

CANY1 11.0 23% (2) 14% (4) 27% (1) 7% (5) 7% (6) 20% (3) 0% (7)

CAPI1 11.3 24% (2) 12% (4) 32% (1) 8% (5) 7% (6) 17% (3) 0% (7)

ZICA1 12.3 21% (3) 7% (5) 33% (1) 9% (4) 7% (6) 22% (2) 0% (7)
*Highest aerosol species contribution per site is highlighted in bold.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 55 

### Table 4.4 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites

Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2004 Baseline Period to 2005-2009 Progress Period 20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Species (Mm -1 )*

2000-04 Baseline Period 2005-09 Progress

Period Change in dv* Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

Arizona

GRCA2 11.7 12.0 +0.3 +0.5 -0.4 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1 -0.3 0.0

BALD1 11.8 11.8 0.0 +0.3 -0.1 -2.1 -0.7 +0.4 +1.3 +0.1

PEFO1 13.2 13.0 -0.2 +0.5 -0.3 -1.4 +0.5 +0.6 -1.0 +0.1

SYCA1 15.3 15.2 -0.1 +0.7 -0.7 -0.5 +0.4 -1.0 +1.4 0.0

Colorado

WEMI1 10.3 10.0 -0.3 +0.1 -0.2 -1.4 -0.2 +0.1 0.0 -0.1

WHRI1 9.6 8.9 -0.7 +0.3 0.0 -2.3 -0.3 +0.1 -0.5 0.0

MEVE1 13.0 11.3 -1.7 -0.2 -0.3 -5.8 -0.7 -0.5 -2.0 0.0

New Mexico

SAPE1 10.2 9.9 -0.3 +1.0 -0.4 -1.4 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.0

Utah

BRCA1 11.6 11.9 +0.3 -0.2 -0.3 +2.5 +0.2 +0.1 -0.9 0.0

CANY1 11.2 11.0 -0.2 -0.3 +0.3 -0.9 -0.1 +0.1 +0.8 0.0

CAPI1 10.9 11.3 +0.4 -0.2 -0.7 +1.8 +0.2 +0.3 +0.7 +0.1

ZICA1 12.5 12.3 -0.2 +0.2 -0.3 -0.8 -0.1 +0.1 0.0 +0.1
*Change is calculated as progress period aver age minus baseline period average. Values in red indicate increases in extinction and values in blue indicate decreases.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 56 

### Table 4.5 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites

Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2004 Baseline Period to 2005-2009 Progress Period 20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Species (Mm -1 )*

2000-04 Baseline Period 2005-09 Progress

Period Change in dv* Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

Arizona

GRCA2 2.2 2.2 0.0 +0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

BALD1 3.0 2.9 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 +0.1 0.0

PEFO1 5.0 4.6 -0.4 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 0.0 +0.1 0.0 0.0

SYCA1 5.6 5.1 -0.5 +0.1 -0.1 -0.6 -0.2 -0.1 +0.1 0.0

Colorado

WEMI1 3.1 2.4 -0.7 -0.1 -0.1 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 -0.1 0.0

WHRI1 0.7 0.2 -0.5 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

MEVE1 4.3 3.1 -1.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.5 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 0.0

New Mexico

SAPE1 1.5 1.0 -0.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Utah

BRCA1 2.8 2.1 -0.7 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2 0.0 -0.1 0.0

CANY1 3.7 2.8 -0.9 -0.3 -0.1 -0.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.0

CAPI1 4.1 2.7 -1.4 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.2 -0.1 -0.4 0.0

ZICA1 5.0 4.3 -0.7 -0.1 -0.2 -0.5 -0.2 0.0 -0.1 0.0 *Change is calculated as progress period average minus base line period average. Values in red indicate increases in extinction and values in blue indicate decreases.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 57 

### Table 4.6 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Change in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2009 Annual Average Trends

Site Group Annual Trend* (Mm -1 /year)

Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt Arizona

GRCA2 20% Best -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- 0.0 20% Worst -- -0.1 -- -- -- -- --

All Days -- 0.0 -- -- -- -- --

BALD1 20% Best -- 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 20% Worst -0.2 -- -- -- 0.1 0.3 0.0

All Days -0.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 0.0

PEFO1 20% Best -- 0.0 -0.1 -- -- -- 0.0 20% Worst -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- 0.0

All Days -- 0.0 -- -- 0.0 0.1 0.0

SYCA1 20% Best -- -- -0.1 -- -- -- 0.0 20% Worst --

-- -- 0.1 -0.3 -- --

All Days -- 0.0

-- -- -0.1 -- -- Colorado

WEMI1 20% Best -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -- -- -- 20% Worst

-- -- -- 0.0

-- -- --

All Days

-- 0.0

-- -0.1

-- -- --

WHRI1 20% Best -- 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -- -- -- 20% Worst

-- -- -- -0.1

-- -- 0.0

All Days

-- -- -0.1 0.0

-- -- 0.0

MEVE1 20% Best -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- 20% Worst

-- -- -- -0.2

-- -- 0.0

All Days -0.1

-- -0.3 -0.1

-- -- 0.0 New Mexico

SAPE1 20% Best -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- -- -- 20% Worst

-- -0.1

-- -- -- -- --

All Days

-- 0.0 -0.1 0.0

-- 0.0 0.0 Utah

BRCA1 20% Best -- 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 20% Worst -0.2

-- 0.5 0.1

-- -- 0.0

All Days -0.1 0.0

-- -- -- -- --

CANY1 20% Best -0.1 -- -0.1 0.0 -- -0.1 0.0 20% Worst -0.1

-- -- -- -- -- 0.0

All Days -0.1 0.0

-- 0.0 0.0

-- 0.0

CAPI1 20% Best -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -- -0.1 -- 20% Worst

-- -0.2

-- -- 0.1

-- 0.0

All Days -0.1 -0.1

-- 0.0

-- -- 0.0

ZICA1 20% Best 0.0 -- -- 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 20% Worst -0.5

-- -- -- -- -- --

All Days -0.2

-- -- -0.1 0.1

-- -- *(--) Indicates statistically insi gnificant trend (<85% confidence level). Annual averages and complete trend statistics for al l significance levels are included for each site in state specific appendices.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 58 Figure 4.4. Chart Depicting Annual Average Ammonium Sulfate C oncentrations for the 20% Wors t Days as Measured at the Colorado Plateau CIA IMPROVE Sites.



### Similar to 308 requirements, Sec tion 309 states are required to a ddress how total state emissions have changed over the past 5 years (51.309(d)(10) (i)(D)). Emission inve ntory summaries using 2002 and 2008 inventories to repr esent changes between the base line and progress periods are described in detail for the entire state in Section 3.5.

In addition to tracking these differe nces in inventories, for the init ial SIPs, Section 309 states were required to identify “clean air corridors” and track emissions inside and outside of these corridors that may affect impairment on the cleanest days. 6 

### In these initial Section 309 SIPs, an area covering major portions of Nevada, southern Utah, eastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho was defined as a “clean air corridor,” which was in tended to represent a region fr om which clean air transport influences many of the clean ai r days at Grand Canyon National Pa rk. Visibility has improved for the best days at all of the Class I area sites on the Colorado Plateau, so emissions specific to the “clean air corridor” counties are not presented separately here.

As part of the Western Backst op Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program , the participating states (and county) identified SO 2 

### emissions milestones, where a mile stone is a maximum level of annual emissions for a given year. WRAP supports the Section 309 states with the submittal of annual regional SO 2 

### and emission milestone reports (Appendi x B) which compare actual emissions estimates to the pre-defined milestones. 7 

### Figure 4.5 presents a plot from the most recent SO 2 

### milestone report, showing the 3-year average of current emissions through 2010, which indicated that actual emissions were below the SO 2 

### milestone. Additionally, SO 2 

### emissions specific to EGU sources are presented in Figure 3.19 on an annual basis showing ch anges in these sources between 1996 and 2010 for New Mexico.

6 Section 51.309(d)(3) states, for treatment of clean-air corridors, “the plan must describe and provide for implementation of c omprehensive emission tracking strategies for clean-air corridors to ensure that the visibility does not degr ade on the least-impaired days at any of the 16 Class I areas.”

7 Annual regional SO 2 emissions and milestone reports ar e located on the WRAP website at http://www.wrapair2 .org/reghaze.aspx

.New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 59 Figure 4.5. Chart Depicting 3-Year Average Sum of SO 2 emissions for New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming and the city of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County as compared to the Section 309 SIP SO 2 Milestones.

### WESTERN REGIONAL AIR PARTERNERSHIP REGIONAL HAZE RULE REASONABLE PROGRESS SUMMARY REPORT

Prepared for:

Tom Moore Western Governors' Association WRAP Air Quality Program Manager tmoore@westgov.org

Prepared by:

June 28 , 2013

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

GLOSSARY OF TERMS v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

2.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 2-1 2.1 Section 308 2-2 2.1.1 Monitoring and Emissions Data Summary Requirements 2-2 2.1.2 SIP Evaluation Requirements 2-3 2.2 Section 309 2-5 2.2.1 Monitoring and Emissions Data Summary Requirements 2-5 2.2.2 SIP Evaluation Requirements 2-5 2.3 2064 Natural Conditions 2-6 2.4 Tribal Considerations 2-7

3.0 DATA SOURCES 3-1 3.1 IMPROV E Monitoring Data 3-1 3.1.1 Data Completeness Requirements 3-4 3.1.2 RHR Progress Period Calculation Considerations 3-5 3.1.2.1 Identification of 20% Worst Days 3-6 3.1.2.2 Discreet 5

- Year Averages vs. Trends 3-8 3.1.2.3 Averaging Considerations for Deciview Calculations 3-9 3.2 Emissions Inventories 3-11 3.2.1 Inventory Descriptions 3-11 3.2.1.1 Contiguous WRAP States 3-13 3.2.1.2 Alaska 3-21 3.2.1.3 Hawa ii 3-21 3.3 The WRAP TSS 3-23 3.3.1 Data Updates 3-23 3.3.2 Cl ass I Area Summary Table 3-24 3.3.3 Monitoring 3-26 3.4 Emissions Summary Tools 3-28

4.0 WRAP REGIONAL SUMMARIES 4-1 4.1 Monitoring Data 4-2 4.1.1 Annual Trends 4-7 4.1.2 Regional Events 4-16 4.2 Emissions Data 4-23 4.2.1 EGU Summary 4-34

5.0 SECTION 309 REGIONAL SUMMARIES 5-1 5.1 Monitoring Data 5-3

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document i

### 5.2 Emissions Data 5-12

6.0 STATE AND CLASS I AREA SUMMARIES 6-1 6.1 Alaska 6-2 6.1.1 Monitoring Data 6-4 6.1.1.1 Current Conditions 6-4 6.1.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-6 6.1.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-11 6.1.2 Emissions Data 6-12 6.1.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-14 6.2 Arizona 6-21 6.2.1 Monitoring Data 6-24 6.2.1.1 SIAN1 Data Substitutions 6-24 6.2.1.2 Current Conditions 6-28 6.2.1.3 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-31 6.2.1.4 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-37 6.2.2 Emissions Data 6-40 6.2.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-42 6.2.2.2 EGU Summary 6-52 6.3 California 6-53 6.3.1 Monito ring Data 6-56 6.3.1.1 Current Conditions 6-56 6.3.1.2 Differences Between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-62 6.3.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-74 6.3.2 Emissions Data 6-78 6.3.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-80 6.3.2.2 EGU Summary 6-90 6.4 Co lorado 6-91 6.4.1 Monitoring Data 6-93 6.4.1.1 Current Conditions 6-93 6.4.1.2 Differences Between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-96 6.4.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-101 6.4.2 Emissions Data 6-103 6.4.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-105 6.4.2.2 EGU Summary 6-115 6.5 Hawaii 6-116 6.5.1 Monitoring Data 6-117 6.5.1.1 Haleakala Baseline Estimate 6-118 6.5.1.2 Current Conditions 6-121 6.5.1.3 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-124 6.5.1.4 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-128 6.5.2 Emissions Data 6-130 6.5.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-132 6.6 Idaho 6-138 6.6.1 Monitoring Data 6-140 6.6.1.1 Current Conditions 6-140 6.6.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-142

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document ii

### 6.6.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-147 6.6.2 Emissions Data 6-148 6.6.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-150 6.6.2.2 EGU Summary 6-160 6.7 Montana 6-161 6.7.1 Monitori ng Data 6-163 6.7.1.1 Current Conditions 6-163 6.7.1.2 Differences Between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-166 6.7.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-171 6.7.2 Emissions Data 6-174 6.7.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-176 6.7.2.2 EGU Summary 6-186 6.8 Ne vada 6-187 6.8.1 Monitoring Data 6-188 6.8.1.1 Current Conditions 6-189 6.8.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-191 6.8.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-195 6.8.2 Emissions Data 6-196 6.8.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-198 6.8.2.2 EGU Summary 6-208 6.9 New Mexico 6-209 6.9.1 Monitoring Data 6-211 6.9.1.1 Current Conditions 6-211 6.9.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-214 6.9.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-219 6.9.2 Emissions Data 6-222 6.9.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-224 6.9.2.2 EGU Summary 6-234 6.10 North Dakota 6-235 6.10.1 Monitoring Data 6-236 6.10.1.1 Current Conditions 6-237 6.10.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-239 6.10.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-243 6.10.2 Emissions Data 6-244 6.10.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-246 6.10.2.2 EGU Summary 6-256 6.11 Oregon 6-257 6.11.1 Monitor ing Data 6-259 6.11.1.1 Current Conditions 6-259 6.11.1.2 Differences Between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-263 6.11.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-268 6.11.2 Emissions Data 6-270 6.11.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-272 6.11.2.2 EGU Summary 6-282 6.12 South Dakota 6-283 6.12.1 Monitoring Data 6-284

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document iii

### 6.12.1.1 Current Conditions 6-285 6.12.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-287 6.12.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-292 6.12.2 Emissions Data 6-293 6.12.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-295 6.12.2.2 EGU Summary 6-305 6.13 Utah 6-306 6.13.1 Monitoring Data 6-307 6.13.1.1 Zion Baseline Estimate 6-308 6.13.1.2 Current Conditions 6-314 6.13.1.3 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-316 6.13.1.4 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-321 6.13.2 Emissions Data 6-322 6.13.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-324 6.13.2.2 EGU Summary 6-334 6.14 Washington 6-335 6.14.1 Mon itoring Data 6-337 6.14.1.1 Current Conditions 6-337 6.14.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-340 6.14.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-345 6.14.2 Emissions Data 6-346 6.14.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-348 6.14.2.2 EGU Summary 6-358 6.15 Wyoming 6-359 6.15.1 Monitoring Data 6-361 6.15.1.1 Current Conditions 6-361 6.15.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions 6-363 6.15.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment 6-368 6.15.2 Emissions Data 6-369 6.15.2.1 Changes in Emissions 6-371 6.15.2.2 EGU Summary 6-381

7.0 REFERENCES 1

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document iv

### GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Aerosols: Suspensions of tiny liquid and/or solid particles in the air.

Ammonium n itrate (NH 4 

### NO 3 

### ): Ammonium nitrate is formed in the atmosphere from reactions involvin g nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 

### ) emissions , which are dominated by anthropogenic

sources . Common sources include virtually all combustion activities, especially those involving cars, trucks, power plants, and other industrial processes.

Ammonium s ulfate ((NH 4 

### ) 2 

### SO 4 

### ): Ammonium sulfate is formed in the atmosphere from reactions involving sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) emissions. Anthropogenic sources include coal

burning power plants and other industrial sources, such as smelters, industrial boilers, and oil refineries , and to a lesser extent, gasoline and diesel combustion

. Anthropogenic: Produced by human activities.

Area s ources: Sources that are treated as being spread over a spatial extent (usually a county or air district) and that are not movable (as compared to non -road mobile and on

- road mobile sources). Because it is not possible to collect the emissions at each point of emission, they are estimated over larger regions. Examples of stationary area sources are residential heating and architectural coatings. Numerous sources, such as dry cleaning facilities, may be treated either as stationary area sources or as point sources.

BART: Best Available Retrofit Technology, a process under the CAA to evaluate the need and, if warranted, install the most effective pollution contr ols on an already existing air pollution source.

Baseline period : The b aseline period, or baseline conditions, are the basis against which improvements in worst day visibility, and lack of degradation for the best day visibility, are judged. For initial RH R implementation plan purposes, the baseline is the average visibility impairment as measured by IMPROVE monitors during the 2000

- 2004 5

- year period.

Biogenic e missions: Biogenic emissions are based on the activity fluxes modeled from b iogenic land use dat a , which characterize s the types of vegetation that exist in particular areas. Emissions are generally derived using modeled estimates of biogenic gas

- phase pollutants from land use information, emissions factors for different plant species, and meteorology data.

Class I area (CIA ): As defined in the Clean Air Act , areas that were in existence as of August 7, 1977: national parks over 6,000 acres, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks over 5,000 acres, and international parks.

Clea n Air Act (CAA): The basic framework for controlling air pollutants in the United States, originally adopted in 1963, and amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990. The CAA was designed to “protect and enhance” air quality. S ection 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA),

e stablished in the 1977 Amendments, set forth a national goal for visibility which is the

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document v

### ‘‘prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Federal Class I areas (CIAs) which impairment results from manmade air pollution.’’

Coarse m ass (CM): Coarse mass refers to the mass of large particles greater than 2.5 and smaller than 10 μm in diameter

.
Colorado Plateau: A high, semi

- arid tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western Colorado.

Current c onditions: For purposes of this report, current conditions represent the most recent successive 5

- year average after the 2000

- 2004 baseline conditions, or the 2005 -2009 period.

Current progress period: For purposes of this report, the current prog ress period, also referred to as the first progress period, represents the most recent successive 5

- year average after the 2000-2004 baseline conditions, or the 2005-2009 period.

Deciview (dv): The deciview metric is used to track regional haze in the RHR. The Haze Index (measured in deciview s) was designed to be linear with respect to human perception of visibility. A one deciview change is approximately equivalent to a 10% change in extinction , whether visibility is good or poor. A one deciview change in visibility is generally considered to be the minimum change the average person can detect.

Dust: Dust emissions may have a variety of sources that could include anthropogenic sources, natural sources, and natural sources that may be influenced by anthropogenic activity. Fugitive dust includes sources such as road dust, agricultural operations, construction and mining operations and windblown dust from vacant lands. W indblown dust includes

more of the natural influences such as wind erosion on natural lands.

Elemental c arbon (EC): Elemental carbon , also known as light absorbing carbon (LAC), is the primary light absorbing compound in the atmosphere. These particles are emitted directly into the air from virtually all combustion activities, but are especially prevalent in diesel exhaust and smoke from wild and prescribed fires

.
Environmental P rotection Agency ( EPA ): The EPA is an agency of the U.S. federal government which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

Extinction (b ext 

### ): Extinctio n is a measure of the fraction of light lost per unit length along a sight path due to scattering and absorption by gases and particles, expressed in inverse Megameters (Mm -1 

### ).

Fine soil: Particulate matter composed of p ollutants from the Earth’s soil that enters the air from dirt roads, fields, and other open spaces as a result of wind, traffic, and other surface mechanical disturbance activities . Fine soil includes soil particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document vi

### Fire: Fire sources may have a mix of natural and anthropogenic influences

. Natural sources include wildland fires, while anthropogenic sources can include ag ricultural and prescribed fires.

First p rogress p eriod: For purposes of this report, the first progress period, also referred to as the current progress period, represents the most recent successive 5

- year average after the 2000-2004 baseline conditions, or the 2005-2009 period.

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC): In 1990, amendments to the Clean Air Ac t established the Commission to advise the EPA on strategies for protecting visual air quality on the Colorado Plateau.

Haze I ndex (HI): The Haze Index (measured in deciviews) is used to track regional haze in the RHR. It was designed to be linear with res pect to human perception of visibility, where a

one deciview change is approximately equivalent to a 10% change in extinction, whether visibility is good or poor. A one deciview change in visibility is generally considered to be the minimum change the aver age person can detect.

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE): A collaborative monitoring program governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from Federal and regional

- state organizations to establish present vis ibility levels and trends, and to identify sources of man- made impairment

Inverse megameters (Mm -1 

### ): A measurement unit used for light extinction, the higher the value, the hazier the air is.

Least impaired days : The least impaired, or best , days refers to the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest amount of visibility impairment.

Light extinction: A measure of how much light is absorbed or scattered as it passes thro ugh a medium, such as the atmosphere. Aerosol light extinction refers to the absorption and scattering by aerosols. Total light extinction refers to the sum of aerosol light extinction, the absorption by gases (such as NO 2 

### ), and the atmospheric light ex tin ction (Rayleigh scattering). Extinction is often expressed as a measure of the fraction of light lost per unit length in units of inverse Megameters (Mm -1 

### ).

Mandatory Federal Class I areas: Certain national parks (over 6,000 acres), wilderness areas (over 5,000 acres), national memorial parks (over 5,000 acres), and international parks that were in existence as of August 1977.

Most impaired days: The most impaired, or worst, days refers to the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the tw enty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest amount of visibility impairment.

Natural background condition: Naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document vii

### Natural conditions : Natural conditions include any naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in te rms of light extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration.

Off -road m obile s ources: Off

- road mobile sources are vehicles and engines that encompass a wide variety of equipment types that either move under their own power or are capable of being moved from site to site. Examples include agricultural equipment such as tractors or combines, aircraft, locomotives and oil field equipment such as mechanical drilling engines.

Off

- shore: Commercial marine emissions comprise a wide variety of vessel types and u ses. Emissions can be include deep draft vessels within shore and near port using port call data, and offshore emissions generated from ship location data.

Oil and g as s ources: Oil and gas sources consist of a number of different types of activities from e ngine sources for drill rigs and compressor engines, to sources such as condensate tanks and fugitive gas emissions. The variety of emissions types for sources specific to oil and gas activity can, in some cases, overlap with mobile, area or point sources, but these can also be extracted and treated separately.

On -road m obile s ources: Vehicular sources that travel on roadways. Emissions from these sources can be com puted either as being spread over a spatial extent or as being assigned to a line location (c alled a link). Emissions are estimated as the product of emissions factors and activity data ( vehicle miles traveled (VMT ) . Examples of on

- road mobile sources include light

- duty gasoline vehicles and heavy

- duty diesel vehicles.

Oxides of nitrogen (NO X 

### ): A mixture of nitrogen dioxide and other nitrogen oxide gases. Nitrogen is the most common gas in the atmosphere. In high temperature and/or high pressure burning (as in an engine), the air's nitrogen is broken down and combined with oxygen, forming unstable or reactive NO X 

### gases. Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 

### ) is yellowish brown, and thus contributes directly to haze. All the NO X 

### gases react in the air to form haze -causing aerosols and smog.

Particulate organic aerosol ( POA ): P articulate organic aerosol represents organic aerosols that are emitted directly as particles, as opposed to gases.

Particulate organic m ass (POM): Particulate Organic Mass is also referred to as Particulate Organic Carbon and Organic Mass Carbon (OMC). Particulate organic mass can be emitted directly as particles, or formed through reactions involving gaseous emissions. Natural sources of organic carbon include wildfires and biogenic emissions. M an

- made sources can include prescribed forest and agricultural burning, vehicle exhaust, vehicle refueling, solvent evaporation (e.g., paints), food cooking, and various commercial and industrial sources.

Point s ources: These are sources that are identified by point locations, typically because they are regulated and their locations are available in regulatory reports. In addition, elevated point sources will have their emissions allocated vertically through the model layers, as opposed to being emitted into only the first model layer. Point sources can be further subdivided into electric generating unit (EGU) sources and non

- EGU sources,

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document viii

### particularly in criteria inventories in which EGUs are a primary source of NO X 

### and SO 2


### . Examples of non

- EGU point sources include chemical manufactu rers and furniture refinishers.

Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD): A program established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 that limits the amount of additional air pollution that is allowed in Class I and Class II areas

. Rayleigh: Light scattering of the natural gases in the atmosphere. At an elevation of 1.8 kilometers, the light extinction from Rayleigh scattering is approximately 10 inverse megameters (Mm -1).

Reasonable progress: Reasonable progress refers to progress in reducing human

- caused haze in Class I areas under the national visibility goal. The Clean Air Act indicates that "reasonable" should consider the cost of reducing air pollution emissions, the time necessary, and the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of reducing.

Reconstructed aerosol extinction: The percent of total atmospheric extinction attributed to each aerosol and gaseous component of the atmosphere.

Regional haze: Regional haze refers to visibi lity impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area.

Regional Haze Rule (RHR): Federal rule that requires states to develop programs to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the nat ional goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

Relative humidity: Partial pressure of water vapor at the atmospheric temperature divided by the vapor pressure of water at that t emperature, expressed as a percentage.

Scattering efficiency: The amount of light scattered relative to the particle’s size.

Sea s alt: Sea salt is a natural aerosol emitted in coastal areas. In practice, chloride ion measurements are used to represent sea salt in IMPROVE measurements, and measurements may sometimes show anthropogenic or crustal influences at inland monitors.

Sulfur d ioxide ( SO 2 

### ): SO 2 

### gas is associated with emissions from processes such as b urning fuels, manufacturing paper, or smelting rock . SO 2 

### is converted in the air to other sulfur oxides (SO X 

### ) or haze- causing aerosols (sulfates).

State Implementation Plans (SIPs): A detailed description of the programs a state will use to carry out its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. State impl ementation plans are collections of the regulations used by a state to reduce air pollution. P lans devised by states and tribes to carry out their responsibiliti es under the Clean Air Act. SIPs and TIP s must be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and include public review.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document ix

### Visibility impairment: Any humanly perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under natural conditions.

Visibility: Refers to the visual qua lity of the view, or scene, in daylight with respect to color

ren dition and contrast definition.

Visual r ange (VR) : Visual range is the greatest distance a large black object can be seen on the horizon, expressed in kilometers (km) or miles (mi).

Volatile organic compound (VOC): A carbon

- containing material that evaporates, such as gasoline, some paints, solvents, dry cleaning fluids, and the like. VOC s contribute to the formation of particulate organic mass

. Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP ): A partnership of state, tribal and federal land management agencies to help coordinate implementation of the GCTVC’s recommendation.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document x

### E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United State s Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA ’s ) 1999 Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 1 

### was designed to improve visibility conditions in the nation’s largest National Parks and Wilderness Areas. The goal of the RHR , as stated in the Clean Air Act (CAA) 1977 Amendments, is the “ prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility .” 2 

### The RHR mandates that states identify and implement pollution control strategies to progress towards a “natural conditions” goal , or conditions without any ma nmade impairment, by the year 2064

. States were required to submit initial RHR i mplementation plans in 2007 which identified goals and strategies for visibility improvement . States are then required to revise implementation plan every 10

- years , and submit progress reports at interim points between implementation plan submittals

. This support document has been prepared for the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)

, on behalf of the 15 western state members in the WRAP region, to provide technical basis for use by the western s tates to develop the first of their RHR progress reports , assessing progress towards goals as defined in their initial SIPs

. The visibility improvement goal, as stated in the RHR, is to ensure that visibility on the worst days improve s towards a natural conditions goal, and that visibility on the best days does not get worse. To measure progress towards natural conditions, the EPA provided the concept of

a linear , or uniform, rate of reasonable progress between the 2000

- 2004 baseline period and a default natural conditions goal year of 2064. 3 

### The RHR specifies that progress is determined for “current conditions”, and RHR guidance released in 2003 specifies that progress be tracked against the 2000

- 2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods ( i.e. 2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. ). 4 

### More recent guidance, released in April, 2013, indicates that progress reports “should includ e the 5

- year average that includes the most recent quality assured public data avail able at the time the state submits its 5

- year progress report for public review ,” 5 

### and suggests assessing changes using a rolling 5

- year period average. Per original 2003 guidance, progress for this support document is reported as changes in monitored betw een baseline conditions and the first successive 5

- year progress period (2005-2009 ) data

. Additionally, for summaries here, annual average trend statistics as measured for each aerosol species during the 2000

- 2009 10

- year period are reported to support assessments of changing conditions.

This report includes regional, state

, and CIA specific summaries that characterize the difference between the baseline conditions and first successive progress period

. Assessments include changes in v isibility impairment as measured using aerosol data collected by the

1 See CFR 40 Part 51 Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule, July 1, 1999, available online at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/visibility/actions.html

. 2 See Section 169a of the 1977 CAA Am endments

. 3 Note that “default” natural conditions as defined by the EPA are subject to revisions, and that States can extend the period of time needed to achieve natural conditions, beyond the nominal 2064 in the RHR, defining and defending new interim re asonable progress rates, and adjusting the 2064 end year as needed (see CFR Section 51.308).
4 See page 4

- 2 in EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

. 5 S ee page 9 in EPA’s April 2013 General Principals for the 5- Year Regional Haze Progress reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Reports)

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document xi

### Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network , and assessments of progress also include t he differences between emissions inventories for years that represent both the baseline and progress periods. Specific regulatory questions addressed in this report include:

• 

### What are the current visibility conditions for the most impaired (worst) and least impaired (best) days?

• 

### What is the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days?

• 

### What is the change in emissions that occurred between the baseline period and the progress period?

The RHR also requires states to evaluate the sufficiency of current implementati on plan elements and strategies to meet reasonable progress goals. Determining the status of emissions reductions and evaluation of state

- selected goals are beyond the scope of this report , and will be addressed separately by individual states . S pecific re gulatory questions that address evaluation requirements include:

• 

### What is the status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan?

• 

### What emissions reductions have been achieved through implementation of these measures?

• 

### What emission s from within or outside of the state have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emission and improving visibility?

• 

### Are current implementation plan elements and strategies sufficient to enable the state or other states with mandatory f ederal CIAs affected by the s tate, to meet all established reasonable progress goals?

Visibility impairment is tracked using a Haze Index (HI) in units of deciview s (dv), which is related to the cumulative sum of visibility impairment from individual aerosol speci es as measured by monitors in the IMPROVE Network . Emissions which affect regional haze include a wide variety of natural (e.g.

, wildland fires) and anthropogenic, or man

- made, sources (e.g., industry sources and vehicles). Per regulatory requirements, dif ferences between emissions inventories representing both the baseline and progress periods are presented here. Baseline emissions in most cases are represented using the 2002 inventory that was originally developed, with support from the WRAP, to represent emissions for the initial implementation plans. Current emissions are represented here by leveraging recent work by the WRAP to develop an updated and comprehensive inventory for the year 2008 for use in modeling projects. Emissions inventor y comparisons in this report were complicated by the fact that a number of changes and enhancements have occurred between development of the baseline and current period inventories, such that some of the differences between inventories are more reflective of changes in inventory methodology, rather tha n changes in actual emissions. Characterizations here focus more on differences in the actual monitored data, which are th ought to be more reflective of

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document xii

### progress than differences between the emission inventories. Some notab le results were as follows:

• 

### A nalysis of monitored data, in terms of comparisons between the 5

- year average deciview metrics, showed improved visibility conditions on the best days at nearly all of the WRAP CIAs . Most sites showed improved conditions on the worst days, but some sites showed a decline i n visibility conditions for the worst days.

• 

### Looking at differences between 5

- year averages for individual measured species

, most sites that did not show improved deciview conditions on the worst days were affe cted by large particulate organic matter measurements related to wildland fire

.

• 

### Ammonium nitrate

, in most cases

, showed the largest decreases in 5

- year averages and the largest decreasing annual trends . This was consistent with mobile source inventory comp arisons which showed large decreases in oxides of nitrogen ( NO X 

### ), which are among the precursors for ammonium nitrate particulate formation. Decreasing emissions were due in large part to federal and state emissions standards that have already been impleme nted for mobile sources.

• 

### In many of the plains states, the 5

- year average of ammonium sulfate increased, but annual average s showed decreas ing trends

. Sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 

### ) emissions , which are precursors for ammonium sulfate particle formation, showed decreases in most cases, especially from EGUs and other point sources . Many of the highest ammonium sulfate measurements spanned large regions . P ossible contributions to measured visibility impairment from international sources were not quantified here

.

• 

### In southern Oregon and northern California , increasing ammonium sulfate trends were evident at s everal coastal sites. State emissions inventor y comparisons did not reflect these increases, but marine vessel emissions were not quantified for summaries here.

• 

### A lso, in northeastern Montana and northwestern North Dakota, increasing ammonium sulfate trends were evident at several sites. State emissions inventor y comparisons did not reflect these increases, but these sites are along the Canadian border, and possible influences from nearby international sources were not quantified here

.

• 

### In Hawaii, dramatic increases in ammonium sulfate were related to natural emissions, with increased volcanic emissions accounting for most of the SO 2 

### emissions inventoried

.

• 

### Coarse mass extinction trends were variable and not statistically significant in most cases, but an area represented by several IMPROVE sites in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico did show increasing coarse mass trends. Emission inventories indicate d that natural windblown dust is the largest contributor to coarse mass measurements in this area, but significant changes in the development of the windblown dust inventories did not allow for definitive comparisons between 2002 and 2008 inventories for these emissions

.

More detailed summaries are provided in this report on a regional, state and CIA specific basis . These summaries are also supported by interactive tools available from the online WRAP

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document xiii

### Technical Support System (TSS). 6 

### Summaries presented here were develo ped cooperatively with representatives from each state in the WRAP region

. Th is report and accompanying data analysis results were developed to support state development of RHR progress reports , the first of which are due in 2013, but should also serve as an important interim step in forming the next round of full implementation plan revisions which come due in 2018.

6 The WRAP TSS, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ , is an online tool developed to support the air quality planning needs of western state and tribes, which has been recently updated with summaries of current IMPROVE monitoring data, and recent emissions to support development of RHR progress reports.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document xiv

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA ’s ) 1999 Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 7 

### was designed to address vis ibility impairment in Class I areas (CIAs), where CIAs include many of the nation’s largest National Parks and Wilderness Areas. The RHR mandates that each CIA progress towards a natural condition s goal, or conditions without any man

- made influences, by the year 2064. Each s tate is required to periodically assess the rate of progress towards visibility improvement goals for each CIA in that state, and for CIAs affected by transport from that state.

The RHR requires states to develop state implementation pl ans (SIP s ) every 10 years which identify strategies designed to meet a series of interim goals over the long term regional haze planning period . The first of these SIP s were due in 2007 and were required to identify a baseline starting point using the average of monitoring data for the 2 000-2004 5- year period, and demonstrate progress towards visibility improvement that is expected to occur by the first interim goal in 2018. In addition to SIPs , the RHR requires each state to assess progress towards interim visibility improvement goals between each 10

- year SIP submittal , w here the first progress report addressing changes between the 2000

- 2004 baseline conditions and current conditions. The individual

, state

- submitted

, progress reports for the western states are due at various times between 2013 and 2017, depending on respective approval dates for each state’s initial implementation plan.

This progress report support document has been prepared by the Western Regional A ir Partnership (WRAP) 8 

### , on behalf of the 15 western state members in the WRAP region, to provide the technical basis for use by States to develop the first of their individual reasonable progress reports for the 116 Federal CIAs located in the western stat es. Data are presented in this report on a regional, state, and CIA specific basis that characterize the difference between 2000- 2004 baseline conditions and current conditions , represented here by the most recent successive 5- year average, or the 2005-200 9 period. C hanges in visibility impairment are characterized using aerosol measurements from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, and the differences between emissions inventor y years represent ing both the baseline and current progress period

. Analysis and summaries provided in this report were developed cooperatively with representatives from each state in the WRAP region, and were designed to provide western states with the technical basis necessary to support th eir evaluation of the current or proposed elements and strategies as outlined in their initial RHR implementation plans. Summaries here are also

7 See CFR 40 Part 51 Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule, July 1, 1999, available online at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/visibility/actions.html

. 8 The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments, state governments and various federal agencies representing the western states that provides technical and policy tools for the western states and tribes to comply with the EPA’s RHR regulations. Detailed information regarding WRAP support of air quality management issues for western states is provided on the WRAP website ( www.wrapair2.org ) and data summary descriptions and tools specific to RHR support are available on the WRAP Technical Support System website ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 1-1

### supported by interactive tools available from the online WRAP Technical Support System (TSS). 9 

### Any questions regarding the content of this report should be addressed to:

Tom Moore, WRAP Air Quality Program Manager Western Governors' Association tmoore@westgov.org 970-491-8837

or

Cassie Archuleta , Primary Author Emily Vanden Hoek, Emissions Data Analyst Air Resource Specialists, Inc. carchuleta@air

- resource.com evandenhoek@air- resource.com 970-484-7941

9 The WRAP TSS, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ , is an online tool developed to support the air quality planning needs of western state s and tribes; it has been recently updated with summaries of current IMPROVE monitoring data, and recent emissions to support deve lopment of RHR progress reports.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 1-2

### 2.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

In regulatory context, S ection 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA), established in the 1977 Amendments, set forth a national goal for visibility which is the ‘‘prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in C lass I area s which impairment results from manmade air pollution. ” 10 

### In 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency’s ( EPA ) promulgated regulations that provided the requirements for states to develop and submit s tate implementation p lans (SIPs) to address regional haze in Federal CIAs (40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 ), where SIPs address each state ’ s strategy to progress towards meeting the long term natural condi tion visibility im pairment goal by the year 2064.

The first of these SIPs were due by December 17, 2007, and were required to address a uniform rate of reasonable progress towards an interim 2018 goal

. Each state is required to submit a revised implementa tion plan by July 31, 2018 and every 10 years thereafter ( 51.308(f )). Additionally, at 5

- year intervals between SIP revisions, states are required to submit p eriodic
progress reports evaluating progress towar ds the reasonable progress goals defined the SIP s . The first progress report is due 5 years from the approval of the initial implementation plan (51.308(g)) , or, for states who submitted a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309, by December 31, 2013

. To support development of Regional Haze Rule ( RHR ) SIPs, the EPA has released several guidance documents, including:

• 

### EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

• 

### EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule

• 

### EPA’s April 2013 General Principals for the 5

- Year Regional Haze Progress reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Reports)

EPA’s September 2003 g uidance specifies that progress is tracked against the 2000 -2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods, i.e. 2005 -2009, 2010- 2014, etc. 11 

### EPA’s more recent guidance, released in April 2013, indicates that progress reports “shou ld includ e the 5

- year average that includes the most recent quality assured public data available at the time the state submits its 5

- year progress report for public review ,” 12 

### and suggests assessing changes using a rolling 5

- year period average. The new EP A guidance was released as this report and analysis were finalized and, p er the original 2003 guidance, progress for this support document is reported as changes in monitored between baseline conditions and the most recent successive 5

- year progress period, or the 2005

- 2009 period

. Figure 2.0

- 1 below presents an idealized glide slope indicating linear progress in successive 5

- year increments for

10 See section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 1977 Amendments.
11 See page 4

- 2 in EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

. 12 S ee page 9 in EPA’s April 2013 General Principals for the 5- Year Regional Haze Progress reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Reports)

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-1

### improvement on the worst days towards a 2064 natural conditions goal. Specific r eferences for RHR Section 308 and 309 regulatory requirements are provided in this section.

Figure 1.0- 1. Idealized RHR Glide Slope Representing Linear Progress from a 2000 -2004 Baseline Average to a 2064 Natural Conditions End Goal. Also Represented Ar e the 2018 Interim Goal and Successive 5- Year Progress Periods.

2.1 SECTION 308

Section 51.308(g) of the RHR contains the requ irements for periodic progress reports. Each s tate is required to submit a report evaluating progress towards the reasonable progr ess goals outline d in it s regional haze state, or in some cases federal, implementation plan (SIP or FIP ). 13 

### These s tate progress reports are required to summarize recent changes in monitoring and emissions data, and evaluate the adequacy of the current SIP to meet interim progress goals. Specific regulatory text related to Section 308 progress report requirements is summarized here.

2.1.1 Monitoring and Emissions Data Summary Requirements

Sections 51.308(g)(3) and 51.308(g)(4) of the RHR contain the monitoring and emissions data summary requirements for RHR progress reports. These requirements are addressed in this report on a regional, state and Class I Area specific basis. M onitoring and emissions summary requirements for progress reports include the following:

• 

### How has visibility changed at the CIAs i n the state in the last 5 years (51.308(g)(3)) ? Specifically listed under this requirement are the following elements:

13 Note that implementation plan references to SIPs in this report are also intended to include any full or partial FIPs.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-2

### - What are the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days (51.308(g)(3)(i))?

- What is the difference between baseline visibility conditions and current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days (51.308(g)(3)(ii))?

- What is the change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5 years (51.308(g)(3)(iii))?

• 

### For pollutants that affect visibility at CIAs , how have total emissions in the state changed over the past 5 years (51.308(g)(4))?

Monitoring data summaries presented in this report include data co llected by the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network

. 14 

### For monitoring data summaries, baseline visibility conditions a re defined as the average deciview values for the 20% most impaired , or worst, and 20% leas t impaired , or best, days averaged over the 2000

- 2004 5

- year period. Current visib ility conditions are represented here per EPA’s 2003 guidance as the most recent successive 5

- year average period available, or the 2005-2009 period. 15



### Per regulatory requir ements, differences between emissions inventories representing both the baseline and progress are presented here. Baseline emissions in most cases are represented using a 2002 inventory that was originally developed, with support from the WRAP, to represen t emissions for the initial implementation plans. Changes in emissions are represented using differences between the baseline inventory, and more recent inventory development work sponsored by the WRAP for the year 2008. 16



### 2.1.2 SIP Evaluation Requirements

The RHR progress report stipulations require individual states to determine if the current visibility monitoring strategy and existing implementation plans are sufficient, or if modifications are necessary. Evaluation of current SIP s is not within the scope of this support document, but monitoring and emissions data summaries presented here have been designed to provide the western states with the technical basis to assist with their evaluation of current or proposed implementation plan elements and strategies. S pecific regulatory questions relating to SIP evaluations are listed below.

• 

### What is the status of implementation of all measures included in each state’s regional haze SIP (51.308(g)(1))?

- Note that, for most states, 2018 projections provided by the WRAP for use in the initial SIPs were conservative estimates that did not include best available retrofit technology ( BART ) controls.

14 Descriptions of IMPROVE Network monitoring data and visibility calculations are provided in Section 3.1 of this report.
15 See page 4

- 2 in EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

. 16 See emission inventory descriptions in Section 3.2 of this report.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-3• 

### What emission reductions have been achieved through implementation of regional haze SIP measurers (51.308(g)(2))?

- Note that e missions data summaries presented in this report include a comparison of emission inventories representing both the baseline and current period , but a determination of what reductions may be r elated to implementation of SIP measures will be made by individual states

.

• 

### Have there been significant changes in emissions over the past 5 years from within or outside the state that have impeded progress in improving visibility at each state ’ s Federal C IAs (51.308(g)(5))?

- As noted previously, e missions data summaries presented in this report include a comparison of emission inventories representing both the baseline and current period , but a determination of whether specific emissions have limited or imp eded progress will be made by individual states

.

• 

### Is the state’s SIP sufficient to enable the state, and other states with CIAs affected by emissions from your state, to meet their reasonable progress goals (51.308(g)(6))?

• 

### Based on these assessments, are an y changes in the state’s visibility monitoring plan necessary (51.308(g)(7))?

• 

### Based on the s tate’s assessment of the adequacy of the existing monitoring plan, the State is also required to take one of the following actions (51.308(h)):

- Submit a declaration that the plan is adequate and further revisions are not necessary ((51.308(h)(1)); or

- If the implementation plan is determined to be inadequate, the s tate must take steps to develop additional strategies to address the plans deficiencies ((51.308(h)(2), (3) and (4)).

The Regional Haze Rule also includes requirements for each state to coordinate and consult with f ederal land m anagers (FLMs) when assessing progress for current visibility conditions and SIP strategies. Specific requirements related to consultation with FLMs include:

• 

### Has the state provided FLMs an opportunity for consultation in person 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on a regional haze SIP revision? (51.308(i)(2))

• 

### Has the state included a description in your SIP revision on how the state addressed FLM comments? (51.308(i)(3))

• 

### Has the state provided procedures for continuing consultation with FLMs in the regional haze SIP revisions and 5-year progress reports? (51.308(i)(4))

Development of this progress report has included regional coordination, offering opportunities for consultation with surrounding states. Also, this project has facilitated some opportunities for feedback from FLMs through summary calls and meetings.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-4

### 2.2 SECTION 309

Under Section 309 of the RHR, 9 western states and tribes within those states had the option of submitting plans to reduce regional haze emissions that impair visibility at 16 CIAs on the Colorado Plateau. Five states, including Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, initially exercised this option by submitting plans to the EPA by December 31, 2003. Oregon elected to cease participation in the program in 2006 and Arizona elected to cease participation in 2010. As used in this document, Section 309 states refer to the states of New Mexic o, Utah

, and Wyoming and the city of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.

Section 309 of the RHR specifically requires participating states to submit progress evaluations in 2013 (51.309(d)(10)), as opposed to the more general requirement of 5

- years from initia l SIP approvals, as referenced in Section 308

. Specific regulatory text related to Section 309 progress report requirements is summarized here.

2.2.1 Monitoring and Emissions Data Summary Requirements

Section 51.309(d)(10) contains the monitoring and emissions data summary requirements for progress reports for Section 309 states. These requirements address the 16 CIAs on the Colorado Plateau (Grand Canyon National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Petrified Forest Nation al Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Arches National Park, Canyonlands Nati onal Park, Capital Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Zion National Park). Specific monitoring and emissions summary requirements are listed below, and are addressed in this progress report support document on a regional, state, and CIA ba sis.

• 

### How has visibility changed at the CIAs i n the state in the last 5 years (51.309(d )(3)) ? Specifically listed under this requirement are the following elements:

- What are the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days (51.309(d)(10)(i)(C))?

- What is the difference between baseline visibility conditions and current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days (51.309(d)(10)(i)(C))?

- What is the change in visibility impairment for the most impaired an d least impaired days over the past 5 years (51.309(d)(10)(i)(C))?

• 

### For pollutants that affect visibility at CIAs , how have total emissions in the state changed over the past 5 years (51.30 9(d)(10)(i)(D))?

2.2.2 SIP Evaluation Requirements

Section 309 of the RH R requires that progress report s include a determin ation of whether the current visibility monitoring strategy and existing implementation plans are sufficient, or if modifications are necessary. Evaluation of current SIPs is not within the scope of this s upport document, but monitoring and emissions data summaries presented here have been designed to help s tates with the ir evaluation of current or proposed implementation plan elements and

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-5

### strategies. S pecific regulatory requirements relating to Section 309 SIP evaluations are listed below.

• 

### What is the status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals (51.309(d)(10)(i)(A))? Note that there are also some specific interim report requirements r eferenced separately in the RHR:

- What is the status of mobile source emissions (51.309(d)(5)(ii))?

- What is the status of progress towards renewable energy goals (51.309(d)(8)(vi))?

• 

### What emission reductions have been achieved through implementation of regional haze SIP measure s (51.30 9(d)(10)(i)(B))?

- Note that emissions data summaries presented in this report include a comparison of emission inventories representing both the baseline and current period, but a determination of what reductions may be rela ted to implementation of SIP measures will be made by individual states.

• 

### Have there been significant changes in emissions over the past 5 years from within or outside the state that have impeded progress in improving visibility at your states Federal CIAs (51.30 9(d)(10)(i)(E) )?

- As noted previously, emissions data summaries presented in this report include a comparison of emission inventories representing both the baseline and current periods , but a determination of whether specific emissions have limited or impeded progress will be made by individual states.

• 

### Is your state’s SIP sufficient to enable your state, and other states with CIAs affected by emissions from your state, to meet their reasonable progress goals (51.309(d)(10)(i)(F)?

- Specifically noted is a requirement to assess whether annual SO 2 

### emissions milestones have been met (51.309(d)(4)(i)). Note that the WRAP has supported work addressing the SO 2 

### mileston e requirements for 309 states. These annual

r egional SO 2 

### e missions and m ilestone reports are l ocated on the WRAP website at http://www.wrapair2.org/reghaze.aspx

.

• 

### Based on the s tate’s assessment of the adequacy of the existing monitoring plan, the state is also required to take one of the following actions (51.30 9(d)(10)(ii)):

- Submit a declaration that the plan is adequate and further revisions are not
necessary (51.309 (d)(10)(ii)(A) ); or

- If the implementation plan is determined to be inadequate, the s tate must take steps to develop additional strategies to address the plans deficiencies ((51.30 9(d)(10)(ii)(B), (C) and (D )).

2.3 2064 NATURAL CONDITIONS

The concept of “natural conditions” in regional haze represents the long term goal of improving visual conditions in our national parks and wilderness areas. EPA provided the

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-6

### concept of a linear, or uniform, rate of reasonable progress between the 2000

- 200 4 baseline period and the nominal natural conditions goal year in 2064. 17 

### With e ach 10

- year SIP revision The States have the opportunity to further refine natural conditions estimates. Separate from this report, the WRAP has prepared summaries of the progression and current status of natural condition estimates, including the original EPA default estimates 18 

### and the revised n atural conditions II estimates. 19 

### Also included in the WRAP report are considerations and recommendations for future natural condition refinements, and some recommended adjustments to regional haze management strategies. 20



### As of 2013, the initial SIPs/FIPs have not been approved for all WRAP states, and as such, not all reasonable progress goals have been defined and/or approved at the time this support document was prepared. Through consultation with state representatives, it was determined that this progress report support document would not address state specific reasonable progress goals or natural conditions. Only summaries of the d iffe rence s between baseline and current progress period aerosol measurements and emissions inventories are provided here as the technical basis for use by s tates to determine if they are on track to meet or exceed the ir individual reasonable progress goal s tow ards natural conditions.

2.4 TRIBAL CONSIDERATION S

Under the Tribal Air Rule, Tribal governments may elect to implement air programs in much the same way as States, including development of Tribal implementation p lans (TIPs)

. Also, a s sovereign nations , Indi an tribe s have the right under the Clean Air Act to have the EPA classify their lands as CIAs , but this does not provide for the inclusion of the Tribal CIAs as Federal CIAs mandated for protection under the RHR.

Even if a T ribe does not seek authority to implement an RHR TIP, it may be desirable for

a T ribe to participate in the regional planning efforts to address visibility and to consult with neighboring s tates as they develop their regional haze SIPs. Tri bes, along with states and federal agencies, are full partners in the WRAP, having equal representation on the WRAP Board as
states. Several T ribal nations in the United States have been classified as CIAs , and IMPROVE visibility monitors are located in 4 tribal CIAs in t he WRAP . B ecause these IMPROVE monitors do not represent federally mandated CIAs , summaries for these monitors are not included in this progress report support document.

17 Note that s tates can extend the period of time needed to achieve natural conditions, beyond the nominal 2064 in the RHR, defining and defending new interim amounts of reasonable progress, and adjusting the 2064 end year as needed (see Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) and 501.308(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the RHR).
18 Default natural conditions estimates are described in EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Estimating Natural Vi sibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule

. 19 See Copeland ’s 2008 Regional Haze Rule Natural Level Estimates Using the Revised IMPROVE Aerosol Reconstructed Light Extinction Algorithm , available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/graylit/ 032_NaturalCondIIpaper/Copeland_etal_Natura lConditionsII_Description.pdf



### . 20 WRAP’s archived repository of natural conditions information, projects and references is available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/aamrf/projects/NCB/index.html

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-7

### 3.0 DATA SOURCES

This report includes summaries of monitoring and emissions data designed to support the first regional haze progress reports for the Western Regional Air Partnership ( WRAP ) member
states. Monitoring data described here includes data collected by the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, with the addition of some data substitution and baseline estimates. Emissions data summaries use inventor ies previously developed by the WRAP to represent base line conditions for the initial Regional Haze Rule ( RHR ) implementation plans , and a more current inventory that leverages emissions estimates that have been recently collected and enhanced to support modeling work currently in progress by the WRAP. Detail ed descriptions and references for these data sources as used in this report are described in this section. Also described here are recent changes to dynamic data summary tools available from the WRAP Technical Support System (TSS) website ( www.vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ), which has been updated to support development of RHR progress reports.

3.1 IMPROVE MONITORING DATA

Visibility is reduced by the absorption and scattering of light by particles and gases in the atmosphere. Light extinction, or the fraction of light lost due to scattering and absorption by gases and particles, can be estimated from measurements of speciated aerosol mass. The IMPROVE Network is a multi

- agency, nation

- wide visibility monitoring network which began in 1988, and expanded significantly in 2000 in support of the EPA’s RHR. Each Federal Class I

area (CIA) is represented by at least one IMPROVE monitor

, as depicted for the WRAP region in Figure 3.1 -1.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-1

### WRAP Federal CIAs and IMPROVE Sites

Federal CIA

IMPROVE Monitor



### Figure 3.1- 1. Map of Federal CIA IMPROVE Monitors in the WRAP Region.

IMPROVE aerosol samplers collect 24

- hour integrated filter samples every third day. Each monitoring location operates four samplers (designated Module A through D) designed to quantify aeroso l species that are related to visibility impairment . The aerosol species collected for regional haze purposes include:

• 

### Ammonium Sulf ate : Ammonium sulfate is formed in the atmosphere from reactions involving sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) emissions. Anthropogenic s ources include coal

burning power plants and other industrial sources, such as smelters, industrial boilers, and oil refineries , and to a lesser extent, gasoline and diesel combustion.

• 

### Ammonium Nitrate: Ammonium nitrate is formed in the atmosphere from rea ctions involving nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 

### ) emissions , which are dominated by anthropogenic

sources . Common sources include virtually all combustion activities, especially those involving cars, trucks, power plants, and other industrial processes.

• 

### Particulate Organic Mass (POM): Particulate organic mass can be emitted directly as particles, or formed through reactions involving gaseous emissions. Natural sources of organic carbon include wildfires and biogenic emissions. M an

- made sources can

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-2

### include prescribed forest and agricultural burning, vehicle exhaust, vehicle refueling, solvent evaporation (e.g., paints), food cooking, and various commercial and industrial sources.

• 

### Elemental Carbon (EC): Elemental carbon is the primary light absorbing compound in the atmosphere. These particles are emitted directly into the air from virtually all combustion activities, but are especially prevalent in diesel exhaust and smoke from wild and prescribed fires.

• 

### Fine Soil : Soil , as reported by the IMPROVE Network, refers to fin e soil (less than 2.5 μm in diameter) that enters the air from dirt roads, fields, and other open spaces as a result of wind, traffic, and other surface mechanical disturbance activities.

• 

### Coarse Mass (CM): Coarse mass refers to large particles (larger tha n 2.5 and smaller than 10 μm in diameter), and generally includes similar sources as fine soil, but can also include coarse fraction ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate at some sites. Speciated coarse mass is not routinely analyzed by the IMPROVE N etwork

.

• 

### Sea Salt: Sea salt is a natural aerosol emitted in coastal areas. In practice, chloride ion measurements are used to represent sea salt in IMPROVE measurements, and
measurements may sometimes show anthropogenic or crustal influences at inland monitors.

The se different particle species scatter and absorb light in the atmosphere with different efficiencies. For example, the elemental carbon fraction of particle pollution is about ten times more efficient at absorbing light than the soil fraction is at scat tering light . Some particle species

, including ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, will absorb water as relative humidity increase s , which effectively increases the size and the light scattering efficiencies of these particle s. In addition to aerosol scattering, light extinction due to natural background gases in a clean atmosphere, or Rayleigh scattering, will contribute to total light extinction. Aerosol extinction from each of these species is additive, so the sum of the individual aerosol extinctio n species , plus Rayleigh scattering, represents total extinction

. The IMPROVE program has developed an algorithm for estimating light extinction from speciated aerosol and relative humidity data. The original algorithm, as cited in RHR guid ance, was revis ed in 2005

. 21 

### IMPROVE data are available from the IMPROVE Network through the Federal Land Manager Database online repository ( 

### http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/ ) 

### and are also reported along with data s ummary charts and tables specifically designed to address RHR planning efforts on the WRAP TSS ( www.vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).
Once extinction has been calculated from speciated aerosol mass, i t can be converted to other metrics that describe visibility impairment. Figure 3.1

- 2 presents a comparison of the most commonly used metrics , which are described below :

21 The revised IMPROVE algorithm is de scribed in detail in Hand’s 2006 Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients - Final Report available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-3• 

### Extinction (b ext 

### ) – Extinction is a measure of the fraction of light lost per unit length along a sight path due to scattering and absorption by gases and particles, expressed in inverse Megameters (Mm -1 

### ).

• 

### Deciview (d v ) – This is the metric used for tracking regional haze in the RHR. The Haze Index (measured in deciview s) was designed to be linear with respect to human perception of visibility. A one deciview change is approximately equivalent to a 10% change in extinction, whether visibility is good or poor. A one decivie w change in visibility is generally considered to be the minimum change the average person can detect.

• 

### Visual Range (VR) – Visual range is the greatest distance a large black object can be seen on the horizon, expressed in kilometers (km) or miles (mi).

Figure 3.1- 2. Comparison of Extinction (Mm -1 

### ), Deciview (dv) and Visual Range (km) units.

3.1.1 Data Completeness Requirements

As described in Section 2 .0 , progress for the RHR is determined using 5

- year average visibility conditions. EPA’s 2003 Guidance fo r Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule 22 

### includes data completeness requirements designed to ensure that calculated averages include sufficient data to represent each daily, annual and 5

- year period. EPA’s 2003 Guidance specifies that the 2000 -20 04 baseline period, and each subsequent 5- year average progress period, meet the following conditions:

• 

### Individual samples must contain all species required for the calculation of light extinction ( amm onium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, POM

, EC , soil, coarse mass, and sea salt)

• 

### Calendar seasons must contain at least 50% of all possible daily samples

• 

### Calendar years must contain at least 75% of all possible daily samples

• 

### Calendar years must not contain more than 10 consecutive missing daily samples

• 

### The 5

- year ba seline and each 5

- year progress period averages must contain at least 3 complete years of data

22 Data completeness requirements are listed in Section 2.2 (step 7) of EPA’s September 2003 Gui dance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-4

### RHR guidance specifies that if a 5

- year period has less than three complete years of data, then estimates should be prepared for the missing data

. 23 

### In the WRAP states, two data completeness issues were addressed to support progress summaries in document:

• 

### Incomplete Progress Period Data : The 2005

- 2009 progress period did not have complete data available for one site in the WRAP. The SIAN1 site, representing the S ierra Ancha Wilderness Area in Arizona, did not meet RHR data completeness criteria for the years 2006, 2007

, and 2008, which did not leave the 3 complete years required for a 5

- year average. Data substitutions for these years were performed in a manner si milar to that previously performed by the WRAP for incomplete 2000 -2004 baseline years at 10 IMPROVE sites in the WRAP. Detailed methods are summarized in the Arizona state monitoring section (Section 6.2 .1 ).

• 

### Monitor Relocation : For two CIAs, Zion National Park in U tah a nd Haleakala National Park in Hawaii, it was determined that the original IMPROVE monitors sited to represent the parks did not adequately represent the CIAs. New sites were installed to better represent the parks, but be cause these sites were installed later, 2000- 2004 baseline data averages are not available for the new locations. The RHR requires that the state establish baseline values using the most representative monitoring data for 2000 -2004. 24 

### Detailed methodologies used to approximate baseline averages for these sites are summarized in the Hawaii and Utah monitoring sections (Sections 6.5 and 6.12 , respectively).

All regional and state summaries presented in this report include the SIAN1 substituted data, and basel ine estimates calculated for the ZICA1 and HACR1 sites.

3.1.2 RHR Progress Period Calculation Considerations

The goal of the RHR is to ensure that visibility on the 20% most impaired, or worst, days continu es to improve, and that visibility on the 20% least im paired, or best, days does not get worse, as measured in units of deciview s, calculated using data measured at IMPROVE monitoring sites. As described previously, p rogress for this re port is measured for discreet 5- year average increments

, beginning with the 2000

- 20 04 baseline average, and proceeding with the most recently available subsequent 5

- year average (2005-2009). 25 

### Some of the more subtle, but important, considerations for RHR calculations using IMPROVE data measurements are described below.

23 Section 2.2 (step 7) of the September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule states “If 3 years with complete data are not available, estimates for baseline of current co nditions should be prepared in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards (EPA/OAQPS).”
24 Section 308(d)(2)(i) of the RHR states, “For mandatory Class I Federal areas without onsite monitoring data for 2000

- 2004, the State must establish baseline values using the most representative available monitoring data for 2000

- 2004, in consultation with the Administrator or his or her designee.”
25 EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule specifies that progress is tracked against the 2000

- 2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods, i.e. 2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. (see page 4

- 2 in the Guidance document).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-5

### 3.1.2.1 Identification of 20% Worst Days

As described in S ection 3.1, visibility impairment is the result of the cumulative effect of several different particle pollutant types. Many of these pollutants have individually consistent seasonal patterns. For example, ammonium nitrate is temperature sensitive, and formation often favored during colder winter months, while ammonium sulfate formation may be favored during warmer summer months. Other pollutants, such as particulate organic mass, may be impacted by large a nd variable episodic events such as wildland fires , which generally occur during the

summer

.

To determine the 5

- year average of the 20% best and worst days, the highest and lowest 20% of days for each complete year are first selected and averaged on an an nual basis, with a 5- year average calculated from these annual averages. The timing for identification of the 20% best and worst days may be significantly influenced by large episodic events (e.g. , wildland fires) which may occur at different time during different years

. As a result, t he identification of

more best or worst days during different seasons of different years may affect the averages for individual species in ways that are independent from actual increases or decreases of individual pollutants from one 5-year period to the next.

As an illustration of the effect of large episodic events on worst day averages, consider daily average aerosol extinction calculated from IMPROVE data at the CHIR1 site in Arizona. Figures 3.1 -3 and 3.1 -4 present daily aerosol extinction measurements for 2002 and 2008 at CHIR1, with the 20% worst days represented by an orange box with an “x” below the day. Similar daily aerosol charts depicting the 20% worst days are included for each Class I area in state specific Appe ndices. For 2002, large wildfire events in June and July contributed to high particulate organic mass ( POM ) measurements, resulting in more worst days selected during this period. In 2008, more of the worst days were selected in August and October.

As an illustration of the seasonal patterns of individual compounds, consider the monthly averages of aerosol extinction calculated from IMPROVE data at the CHIR1 site. Figure 3.1 -5 presents monthly average aerosol pollution for CHIR1 measured during 2002, and Figure 3.1 -6 presents monthly averages in 2008. State specific appendices included with this document present similar monthly average plots for each year at each site. T he seasonal patterns for both years indicated that ammonium sulfate was generally higher between May and July than in October.

Because of the seasonal ammonium sulfate patterns, the identification of more worst days between May and July (e.g. , 2002 at CHIR1 ) will show a higher ammonium sulfate average than a year with mo re worst days in October (e.g. , 2008 at CHIR1 ), even though annual ammonium sulfate levels may not have increased. For this case, Table 3.1

- 1 presents the annual averages of ammonium sulfate for both the 20% worst days and all measured days. For these year s, the annual average of ammonium sulfate extinction for all measured days decreases, while the 20% worst day average actually increased.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-6

### Figure 3.1- 3. Daily Aerosol Extinction measured by the Chiricahua CHIR1 IMPROVE monitor during 2002.

Figure 3.1- 4. Daily Aerosol Extinction measured by the Chiricahua CHIR1 IMPROVE monitor during 2008.

Figure 3.1-5. Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction measured by the CHIR1 IMPROVE monitor in 2002.

Figure 3.1-6. Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction measured by the CHIR1 IMPROVE monitor in 2008.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-7

### Table 3.1-1 CHIR IMPROVE Site Comparison of Ammonium Sulfate Average All Days and 20% Worst Days

Year All Days Amm. Sulfate Average (Mm -1 

### ) 20% Worst Days Amm. Sulfate Average (Mm -1 

### )

2002 5.3 7.8

2008 4.9 9.0

Difference -0.4 Mm -1 

### +2.2 Mm -1



### 3.1.2.2 Discreet 5 -Y ear Averages vs. Trends

The 2003 RHR Guidance prescribes that progress be measured using discreet 5

- year average increments

, 26 

### but states that determining trends for all the individual species that contribute to haze is especially helpful in tracking progress. Individual high or low years can affect the 5- year averages, while trend statistics are more resistant to extreme events and may better represent the effects of emissions controls

. 27 

### For this reason, looking at annual trends in addition to the differences between 5

- year averages can also be instructive in determining the long term behavior of pollutant measurements

.

Generall y, the 10

- year trends are consistent with the 5

- year average differences, but in

some cases annual trends and differences between 5

- year averages may show different characteristics. Trends for annual averages of each species at each site are presented in t his report as calculated using Kendall

- Theil statistics, which are often used in environmental applications because these statistics are resistant to outliers. 28 

### Figure 3.1-7 shows an example of an increase in the 5- year average deciview metric for ammonium sulfate measured on the 20% most impaired days at the Salt Creek Wilderness Area ( SACR 1) IMPROVE site ( 16.7 Mm -1 

### to 1 8.9 Mm -1 

### ), but a decreasing annual deciview trend (-0.5 Mm -1 

### /year). The increase in the 5

- year average was driven by uncharacteristically high average ammonium sulfate measured in 2005

. For all sites included in this report, both 5

- year average differences and trends is reported, and any differing characteristic s are noted and described.

26 As noted previously, EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule specifies that progress is tracked against the 2000

- 2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods, i.e. 2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. (see page 4

- 2 in the Guidance document).
27 Section 4.7 of EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule states that “In the long

- term, tracking trends of species contributions to haze provides information that can be useful in determining whether implemented emissions controls are having the expected effects.”
28 Trend statistics used in this report are also used in EPA’s National Air EPA’s National Air Quality Trends Reports ( http:// www.epa.gov/airtrends/ ) and the IMPROVE program trend reports ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/improve_reports.htm )

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-8

### Figure 3.1-7. Annua l Averages, Period Averages and Trend Statistics for Ammonium Sulfate Measured at the S ACR 1 IMPROVE Site in New Mexico

.

3.1.2.3 Averaging Considerations for Deciview Calculations

The RHR haze index , as defined using deciviews (dv) , does not provide information regarding the relative contributions of individual species to overall visibility. The deciview metric for extinction is logarithmically related to total extinction (b ext 

### ), e.g. dv =10ln(b ext 

### /10), where b ext 

### is the sum of extinction as calculated from individual species mass measurements

. Looking at individual species extinction is necessary for RHR considerations because each species that contribute s to regional haze can have different sources and control op tions. For example, some species (e.g. sulfate and nitrate species) originate from largely anthropogenic sources, while others (e.g. organic species) from a mixture of both anthropogenic and natural

sources. Because of the logarithmic nature of deciviews, it is not possible to separate this metric into individual species, so a representation of total extinction in units of inverse megameters (Mm -1 

### ) is useful.

EPA’s Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule ( EPA 2003) specifies that the 5

- year average deciview value is calculated as an average of annual values, which are in turn calculated as averages of daily values

. 29 

### In most cases, an increase/decrease in the deciview metric corresponds to an increase/decrease in total extinction . In some cases, because the 5

- year deciview value is effectively the average of logarithmic values, the average deciviews may change in a different direction than the average of total extinction . As an

29 Calculation of the 5

- year average deciview metric is described in Section 4.3 of EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-9

### example, consider the following extinction measurements presen ted in Table 3. 1- 1 for a contrived dataset of 2 days for each of 2 periods. The table shows both daily and period average extinction, and corresponding deciview calculations. Note that the average total extinction decreases (70 to 55 Mm -1 

### ), while the average deciview value increases (15.9 to 17.0 dv).

Table 3.1-1 Example Calculation Decreasing b ext 

### Averages With Increasing deciview Averages

Averaging Periods Extinction (Mm -1 ) Deciviews (dv) 10×ln(b ext /10)

Period 1 Day 1 20 6.9 Day 2 120 24.8 Period 1 Average 70 15.9

Period 2 Day 1 50 16.1 Day 2 60 17.9 Period 2 Average 55 17.0 Difference

- 15 Mm - 1 +1.1 dv



### For comparisons between the 2000

- 2004 baseline period and the 2005

- 2009 progress period, decreasing 5

- year average deciview metrics, but increasing extinction for the 20% most impaired

, or worst , days was observed at 9 WRAP Federal CIA sites, and slightly increasing deciview associated with decreasing average extinction was observed at 1 site , as listed in Table 3. 1-2.

Table 3.1-2 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days Total Extinction and D eciview Average Differences

State Site Extinction (Mm -1 ) Deciviews (dv)

Baseline Period (2000

- 2004) Progress Period (2005

- 2009) Difference Baseline Period (2000

- 2004) Progress Period (2005

- 2009) Difference

AZ SYCA1 47.2 47.4 + 0.2 15.3 15.2

- 0.1

CA DOME1 71.7 76.7 +5 .0 19.4 19.2

- 0.2
PINN1 65.1 65.7 + 0.6 18.5 18.4

- 0.1
TRIN1 68.0 91.8 + 23.8 17.3 17.3 0.0

OR CRLA1 47.9 47.7

- 0.2 13.7 13.8 + 0.1
HECA1 69.1 71.9 + 2.8 18.6 18.1

- 0.5

MT GAMO1 31.8 32.9 + 1.1 11.3 11.2

- 0.1
WA WHPA1 37.1 37.9 + 0.8 12.8 12.7

- 0.1

WY BRID1 31.6 31.7 + 0.1 11.1 10.7

- 0.4
YELL2 34.5 36.1 + 1.6 11.8 11.5

- 0.3

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 10

### 3.2 EMISSIONS INVENTORIE S

To demonstrate RHR progress, s tates are required to report how total emissions in the state have changed over the past 5 years (51.308(g)(4)), and to determine if there have been significant changes in emissions from the state or from other state s affecting visibility at each Federal C IA which has impeded progress in improving visibility (51.308(g)(5)). Comparisons between emissions inventories in this report use the inventories that represent both baseline and
current c onditions . Baseline emissions in most cases are represented using t he 2002 inventory that was originally developed, with support from the WRAP, to represent emissions for the initial implementation plans. Current emissions are represented here by leveraging recent work by the WRAP to develop an updated and comprehensive inventory for the year 2008 for use in modeling projects. For non

- contiguous states (Alaska and Hawaii), alternate inventories representing the progress periods were obtained in consultation with the states.

Emissions inventories in this report were compli cated by the fact that a number of changes and enhancements have occurred between development of the baseline and current period inventories, such that many of the differences between inventories are more reflective of changes in inventory methodology, rat her that changes in actual emissions. Differences in emissions are presented for all categories in this report, but summaries focus on aspects of source categories that have been more consistently inventoried over time, while noting any changes in methodol ogies that may affect differences in other categories. Detailed references regarding emissions inventories are presented in this section.

3.2.1 Inventory Descriptions

Emissions related to the different particle species that affect regional haze are varied and complex, including a number of both anthropogenic and natural source possibilities. Emissions estimates vary by source category according to the different characteristics and attributes of each category, and how the emissions are modeled. A number of anthropogenic, or man

- made, sources such as motor vehicles and electric generating units (EGUs) are reported by states and may be subject to controls. Natural emissions, such as fires, biogenic emissions and some categories of dust can have large regional haze impacts, but are not subject to control strategies. Source categories for both anthropogenic and natural sources are listed and described briefly below , followed by information related to inventory development and comparisons for the contiguous states, Alaska, and Hawaii.

• 

### Point Sources: These are sources that are identified by point locations, typically because they are regulated and their locations are available in regulatory reports. In addition, elevated point sources will have their emissions allocated vertically through the model layers, as opposed to being emitted into only the first model layer. Point sources can be further subdivided into EGU sources and non

- EGU sources, particularly in criteria inventories in which EGUs are a primary source of NO X 

### and SO 2 

### . Examples of non

- EGU poi nt sources include chemical manufacturers and furniture refinishers.

• 

### Area Sources: Sources that are treated as being spread over a spatial extent (usually a county or air district) and that are not movable (as compared to non

- road mobile and

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 11

### on- road mobile sources). Because it is not possible to collect the emissions at each point of emission, they are estimated over larger regions. Examples of stationary area sources are residential heating and architectural coatings. Numerous sources, such as dry cleaning facilities, may be treated either as stationary area sources or as point

sources.

• 

### On -Road Mobile Sources: These include v ehicular sources that travel on roa dways. Emissions from these sources can be computed either as being spread over a spatial
extent or as being assigned to a line location (called a link). Emissions are estimated as the product of emis sions factors and activity data, such as vehicle miles traveled (VMT ) . Examples of on

- road mobile sources include light

- duty gasoline vehicles and heavy-du ty diesel vehicles.

• 

### Off -Road Mobile Sources: Off

- road mobile sources are vehicles and engine s that

encom pass a wide variety of equipment types that either move under their own power or are capable of being moved from site to site. Examples include agricultural equipment such as tractors or combines, aircraft , locomotives and oil field equipment such as mechanical drilling engines. Emissions from marine vessels are included here separately as offshore emissions.

• 

### Off -shore: Commercial marine emissions comprise a wide variety of vessel types and uses. Emissions can be estimated for deep draft vessels within shore and near port using port call data, and offshore emissions generated from ship location data.

• 

### Oil and Gas Sources: Oil and gas sources consist of a number of different types of activities from engine sources for drill rigs and compressor engines, to sources such as condensate tanks and fugitive gas emissions. The variety of emissions types for sources specific to oil and gas activity can, in some cases, overlap with mobile, area or point sources, but these can also be extracted and treated separately.

• 

### Biogenic Emissions: Biogenic emissions are based on the activity fluxes modeled from b iogenic land use data, which characterize s the types of veget ation that exist in particular areas. Emissions are generally derived using modeled estimates of biogenic
gas- phase pollutants from land use information, emissions factors for different plant species, and meteorology data.

• 

### Dust: Dust emissions may have a v ariety of sources that could include anthropogenic sources, natural sources, and natural sources that may be influenced by anthropogenic activity. In order to better distinguish between the natural and anthropogenic sources, the WRAP undertook a Definitions of Dust project , with a final report available here: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/dejf/documents/defdust/index.html . For emissions summary purposes, dust is classified here as fugitive dust and windblown dust. Fugitive dust includes sources such as road dust, agricultural operations, construction and mining operations and windblown dust from vacant lands. The w indblown dust category includes more of the natural influences such as wind erosion on natural lands.

• 

### Fire: Fire sources are difficult to predict and control, and may have a mix of natural and anthropogenic influences. Natural sources include wildland fires, while anthropogenic sources can include ag ricultural and prescribed fires. In order to better

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 12

### distinguish between natural and anthropogenic fires, the WRAP has created an operational policy level definition of fire activity as discretely natural or anthropogenic, which included allowing certain types of prescribed fires to be treated as natural. 30



### 3.2.1.1 Contiguous WRAP States

As noted previously, baseline and current period emissions are summarized here using two discreet years, where one year is used to represent baseline emissions, and other is used to represent the cur rent progress period. For contiguous states, the baseline period inventories summarized here for comparison to current conditions is the 2002 inventory that was developed for WRAP states in support of the original SIPs, termed “plan02d ” (or “plan02c” in Ca lifornia). Development of the plan02 inventor ies w ere a cooperative effort sponsored by the WRAP in
coop eration with WRAP states. This effort built upon 2002 emissions reported by states , and included work with contractors and WRAP workgroups, in consultat ion with states, to enhance specific categories (e.g.

, point, area, on - and off

- road mobile, oil and gas, fire, and dust) to better characterize regional haze implications. Detailed d escriptions of inventory development are available from the WRAP Technical Support System website ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx ).

The WRAP has continued to support emissions data tracking and related technical analyses focu sed on understanding current and evolving regional air quality issues in the w es tern states . M ethods for estimating emissions of many of the source categories that affect regional haze have continued to evolve and be refined over time. This is especially true for inventories of natural emissions categories including windblown dust and biogenic emissions, and also for rapidly evolving industries such as oil and gas exploration. To represent current conditions, this progress report support document leverages 2008 emissions data inventories which have been recently developed as part of the WRAP’s West

- wide Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJump AQMS ) and Deterministic and Empirical Assessment of Smoke’s Contribution to Ozone (DEASCO 3 

### ) study, which are de scribed briefly below:

• 

### The WestJumpAQMS project ( http://wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx ) sponsored by the WRAP includes coordination and harmonization with the EPA 2008 National Emissions Inventory (2008 NEI v2). Among other goals, this project is intended to provide technical updates and improvements for multiple air quality issues, including regional haze, ozone, particulate pollution and nitrogen deposition.

• 

### The DEASCO 3 

### study ( http://www.wrapfets.org/deasco3.cfm ) is a project sponsored by the Joint Fire Sciences Program (JFSP) that looks at impact of weather and fires on ozone formation. This project has included the development of a detailed and comprehensive 2008 fire emissions inventory, which will eventually be incorporated into the WestJumpAQMS project.

30 The WRAP Policy for characterizing fire emissions is available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/documents/nbtt/firepolicy.pdf

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 13

### Because these inventories have been refined over time, there is not necessarily continuity between the 2002 and 2008 inventories, which affec ts data comparisons for particular source categories. Detailed references and major methodology differences for the emissions inventories compared here are summarized in Table 3.2

- 1. In addition to comparing baseline and progress period inventories, region al and state summary sections in this report include annual average s tracking changes in regional and state totals for SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions for EGU as tracked in the EPA’s Air Markets Program Database for permitted Title V facilities in the state ( http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ ).

T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Point Sources Most WRAP states used the Plan02d point source inventories, while California used the Plan02c inventory for the ir initial SIP

.

These i nventories were generated using hourly EPA CAMD CEM data for EGUs. Other point were developed in consultati on with states by the ERG contractor.

Note that t he WRAP also generated point source inventories for both actual reported 2002 (Base02b) EGU and all other point source data, and for a 2000

- 2004 average of EGU point sources (Plan02 c and Plan02 d). Plan02 emissions are summarize d in this report because they are consistent with what was reported as baseline conditions for most initial WRAP region SIPs. The WRAP WestJump 2008 inventories were generated using hourly EPA CAMD CEM data for EGUs. Other
po int sources are from the 2008 NEI v2

. Note that p oint source oil and gas inventories were inventoried separately for WestJump08, but included in the point source totals here for comparisons with 2002 inventories. Because point source definitions vary by state , any changes or additions for an individual state will affect comparisons of 2002 and 2008

.

N ote that baseline conditions presented here represent a 5

- year average for EGUs, while progress period conditions are represented with 2008 data.

In additi on to inventory changes for these two years

, y ear

- to

- year variations are also presented separately for Title V Major Sources on a regional and state basis. 33

31 Detailed inventory descriptions for development of the WRAP Base02b, plan02c and plan02d inventories are available on the WRAP TSS website http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx and archived on the original WRAP website http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html

. 32 Detailed inventory descriptions for development of the WRAP WestJump08 inventory are available on the WRAP project page http://wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx

. 33 Annual EGU emissions for each state were obtained from EPA’s Air Markets Program Database for permitted Title V facilities ( http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ ).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 14

### T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Area Sources Most WRAP states used the Plan02d point source inventories, while California used th e Plan02c inventory for their initial SIP.

These inventories were developed by the ERG
contractor in consultation with
states

. The WRAP WestJump 2008 used state reported area source inventories from the 2008 NEI v2

. 34

Note that, beginning in 2008, some source categories such as Class I and II commercial marine vessels, Class III vessels on in

- land waterways and in

- transit locomotive emissions, were defined as area sources (moved from off

road inventory). To reflect these changes, EPA now refers
to t he area source category as the “non

- point” emissions. Note that area oil and gas sources are reported separately in this report

.

Area source estimates represent broad areas, and include calculations which are, in part, based on population estimates and activity data. Because of this, changes in are source definitions and changes in calculation methods (which can be different from state to state and year to year), as well

as changes in inputs such as population can affect differences between these inventories.

One important example of methodology differences is the addition of some sources previously considered “off

road” into the area (also referenced as non

- point) source category.

34 EPA’s 2008 NEI inventory estimates are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2 008inventory.html

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 15

### T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Area Oil and Gas These inventories were developed for specific oil and gas basins using WRAP Phase II emissions methodologies

. 35 Where WRAP Phase II emissions were not available, area source oil and gas emissions as reported by the state were used. Phase II

e missions process estimated for 2002 included :

• Drill Rigs

• Wellhead Compressor

Engines

• CBM Pump Engines

• Heaters

• Pneumatic Devices

• Condensate and oil tanks

• Dehydrators

• Completion Venting These inventories were developed for specific oil and gas basins using WRAP Phase II I emissions methodologies

. Where WRAP Phase III emissions were not available, area source oil and gas emissions as reported by the state were used. Phase II I

e missions process estimated for 2008 included :

These inventories us ed 2008 production data , which was updated with State

- reported data in so me cases. The following additional categories were included in addition to those listed for 2002:

• Lateral compressor engines

• Workover rigs

• Salt

- water disposal engines

• Artificial lift engines

• Vapor recovery units

(VRUs)

• Miscellaneous or exempt

engines

• Fla ring

• Fugitive emissions

• Well blowdowns

• Truck loading

• Amine units (and gas

removal)

• Water tanks Oil and gas development is a rapidly evolving industry, and significant efforts to better characterize emissions have occurred between development of the 2002 and 2008 inventories. In addition to expanded development, some notable emission inventory difference include:

• R egulatory changes specific

to each state may have required more sources to be reported in 2008 than were
repor ted in 2002.

• N ew and/or revised

estimation methodologies

, especially for VOC emissions rates, were used for more source categories in Phase III

.

• P hase III estimates included

surveys which provided detailed information about specific sources (e.g. counts by device type such as low

bleed vs. high

- bleed) among other improvements to activity data. These s ources included small area source equipment typically not inventories by the states. Phase II did not have that information available, since no surveys were made in Phase II.

• Phase III used the high

quality and complete IHS commercial database of O&G production data by well by basin. For Phase II, the state O&G Commission databases , which have been improved quite a bit over time, were used.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 16

### T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

On

- Road Mobile The 2002 inventory for most WRAP state s used the EPA MOBILE6 model as applied by ENVIRON using inputs from states.

California provided emissions separately using the ir EMFAC2002 model. The 2008 on

- road mobile inventory used the EPA MOVES2010 model applied to state inputs in inventory mode

.

The California EMFAC2011 data were downloaded in 2012 from the California ARB website. Differences in models contribute to some differences in emissions reported, but other differences are due to a combination of VMT differences and new controls on vehicles.

Off

- Road Mobile The 2002 inventory for most WRAP states used the draft NONROAD2004 model as applied by E NVIRON using inputs from states.

Californi a provided emissions separately

. The 2008 o ff

- road mobile inventory was obtained from the NE I v2.0 using the NONROAD model estimates within the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM)

. Note that, beginning in 2008, some source categories were removed from the off

- road mobile category to the area/non

- point category. These emissions included Class I and II commercial marine vessels, Class III vessels on in

- land waterways and in

- transit locomotive emissions.

Cali fornia supplied non

- road emissions calculations using a California state

- specific off

road model. The off

- road models include both emission factors and default county

- level population and activity data.

One important methodology change was the re

classification of some sources previously labeled off

- road as

non

- point (area) sources in 2008.

35 Additional P hase II oil and gas inventory descriptions are archived on the original WRAP website http://www.wrapair.org/ forums/ogwg/documents/2007

- 10_Phase_II_O&G_Final)Report(v10

- 07%20rev.s).pdf

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 17

### T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Offshore For the baseline inventories

, o ff

- Shore emissions were treated as a region rather than a source category

. For the 2008 inventories,

s pecific SCCs d o not distinguish between regions (e.g. Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf), so these are presented as

a sum of all offshore emissions. Note that while offshore emissions are available from both datasets, comparisons are not presented in this report. These emiss ions were not comparable, as b aseline emissions were presented as a region, and not explicitly associated with any of the

co astal states for summaries here, and progress period summaries totaled all offshore emissions for the US (e.g. Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf )

Fugitive Dust and Road Dust The WRAP 2002 inventory by ENVIRON began with inputs from states.

For 2002, note that v egetative scavenging factors were applied pre

- processing at the county level , as opposed to grid

- level for 2008 data. These emissions were

e xtracted from state reported area source emissions for 2008 (NEI08v2).

For the NEI08v2 inventories

, the State of California notes that they have changed the way they calcu late and report paved road dust.

For 2008, n ote that v egetative scavenging factors were applied post

- processing at a higher resolution grid cell level

, as compared to 2002 data. Note that fugitive dust and road dust categories were available separately in the WRAP P lan02d inventories, but are combined for s u mmary purposes here. For the 2008 inventory, vegetative scavenging factors were applied to the combined sources; thus these source categories were not easily separated.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 18

### T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Windblown Dust Generated using WRAP Windblown Dust Model and 2002 MM5 meteorology , a t 36km grid cell resolution.

Vegetative scavenging factors

were applied pre

- processing at the county level

. Generated using WRAP Windblown Dust Model and 2008 WRF meteorology , at 4km and 12km grid cell resolution for the WRAP region.

Vegetative scavenging factors applied post

- processing at the grid cell level

. Significant updates to enhance the accuracy of the WRAP Windblown Dust Model will affect comparisons between the 2002 and 2008 inventories. Specific d ifferences between the inventories include :

• Dif ferent meteorological models; MM5 (2002) vs. WRF (2008) met models

• Higher resolution of grid

cells in 2008 , which led to higher average wind speed s in individual cells, and increased windblown dust emissions aggregated at the county level.

• MM5 Layer 1 used 36 meter

height winds vs. WRF average winds across lowest 3 layers spanning ~40 meter height.

• An e rror in 2002 WBD

model was corrected where rainfall in c entimeters was treated as inches. Biogenic The 2002 biogenic inventory used the BEIS3.12 model with BELD3 landuse and 2002 MM5 meteorology data, at 36km grid cell resolution

. The 2008 biogenic inventory used the MEGAN2.10 with 2008 WRF meteorology data, at 4 and 12 km grid cell resolution

. Significant model changes designed to enhance the accuracy of the biogenic emissions estimates will affect comparisons between the 2002 and 2008 inventories. Specific differences between the BEIS3.12 and MEGAN2.10 model outputs include:

• Different meteorol ogical

years and models (2002 MM5 vs. 2008 WRF).

• Higher temporal and spa t ial

variability of land cover and other environmental input factors.

• Improved emissions factors

based on better sources of data (e.g.

, satellites and field studies).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 19

### T able 3.2

- 1 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory

Sector 2002 Baseline Inventory (Plan02 c/ Plan02d ) 31 2008 Progress Period Inventory (WRAP WestJump08) 32 Comments

Fires (Natural and Anthro

pogenic) Baseline estimates used the WRAP Phase III fire inventory , which represent a 2000

- 2004 5

- year average of fire activity. Inventories include d both anthropogenic and natural emissions. 2008 e stimates use DEASCO 3 fire summaries

, which account for fires in 2008, and include separate reporting of anthropogenic and natural fires. 36 Baseline conditions are represented with a 5

- year average of fire, while progress period conditions are represented with 2008 data.

Comparisons between these inventories are complicated by the variable and sporadic nature of wildfires. Also, differen ces between methodologies will affect comparisons of inventories used for 2002 and 2008 estimates.

36 Additional details regarding fire inventory descriptions for development of the DEASCO 3 inventory are available on the WRAP project page at http://www.wrapfets.org/deasco3.cfm

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 20

### 3.2.1.2 Alaska

Current emissions summaries for the contiguous states use inventories developed for modeling purposes, but the States of Alaska (and Hawaii) were not included in the modeling effort, so these current year inventories were not available. Baseline conditions were represented with data originally used to represent baseline emissions in the initial Alaska implementation plan . For current progress period summaries

, inventories were assembled through consultation with the Alaska Department of Environmental Contro l (DEC). Table 3.2

- 2 presents data references for source categories used to represent emissions in Alaska.

Table 3.2-2 Emissions Inventory Descriptions Alaska

Source Categories 2002 Inventory 2008 Inventory

Point WRAP 2002 point source i nventory 37 Provided by Alaska DEC

Area 2002 emissions from the Alaska DEC “Big 3” 38 Criteria Inventories and
2005 emission from the Alaska DEC Rural Inventory 39 2008 WestJump 40

On

- Road and
Off

- Road Mobile
NEI2008v3 41 Aviation WRAP 2002 Aviation Report 42

Commercial Marine Pechan Report 43

Fire WRAP 2003 Phase III Inventory 44 Alaska Interagency Coordination Center (AICC) Incident Support Website 45



### 3.2.1.3 Hawaii

Current emissions summaries for the contiguous states use inventories developed for modeling purposes, but the States of Hawaii (and Alaska) were not included in the modeling

37 The WRAP 2002 point source inventory is available from http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html

. 38 Alaska “Big 3” inventories include Anchorage, Juneau and Fairbanks.
39 Alaska “rural” inventories refers to remaining boroughs and census areas outside of Anchorage, Juneau and Fairbanks. The 2005 Alaska rural inventory is available at http://www.epa.gov/re gion10/pdf/tribal/wrap_alaska_communities_final_report.pdf

. 40 WRAP 2008 WestJump inventories are available on the WRAP project page http:// www.wrapfets.org/deasco3.cfm
41 EPA’s 2008 NEI inventory estimates are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html . Note that only lead (Pb) emissions totals were available from the NEI2008v3 data set, so 2008 emissions are not included from this source for comparison purposes.
42 Avia tion inventories are available from the 2005 WRAP report, Alaska Aviation Emissions Inventory Report
, developed by Sierra Research, available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ef/inventories/akai/

. 43 Commercial marine inventories are available from the 2005 Pechan report, Commercial marine inventories for select Alaskan ports : final report

. 44 The WRAP Phase III fire inventory is available at http://wrapair.org/forums/fejf/tasks/FEJFtask7Phase3

- 4.html

. 45 Alaska wildland fire data are available from the Alaska Interagency Coordination Center (AICC) Incident support website at http://fire.ak.blm.gov/administration/awfcg_committees.php

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 21

### effort, so these current year inventories were not available. Baseline conditions were represented the data that were used to represent baseline emissions in the initial Hawaii implementation plan. For current progress period summaries, alternate inventories were obtained through consultation with Hawaii Department of Health (DOH).

Fo r Hawaii, summaries for the baseline period are represented with a 2005 inventory, and the current progress period is represented with a 2008 inventory. The year 2005 was selected, with EPA approval, as the baseline inventory because it was the most complete inventory available at the time technical work commenced. Categories summarized for Hawaii are listed below:

• 

### Point

• 

### Area

• 

### On -road Mobile

• 

### Off -road Mobile

• 

### Marine

• 

### Fire

• 

### Biogenic

• 

### Volcano

• 

### Sea Spray

• 

### Wind Blown Dust

Data summaries for both 2005 and 2008 presented in this report were obtained from the Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on the Federal Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Program in the State of Hawaii , developed by EPA Region 9

, 46 

### ex cept for

a rea source SO 2 

### inventories, which were provided separately by the Hawaii Department of Health, Clean Air Branch (HIDOCAB). The EPA inventories were largely compiled by ENVIRON under direction from DOH. Hawaii DOH further refined the mobile inventories in conjunction with ICF International to incorporate the latest release of the MOVES model.

46 The May 2012 Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on the Federal Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Program in the State of Hawaii developed by the EPA Region 9 Air Quality Division is available at www.epa.gov/ region 9/air/actions/pdf/hi/hi

- haze

- tsd.pdf

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 22

### 3.3 THE WRAP TSS

The WRAP Technical Support System (TSS) ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ) is a n online, dynamic tool designed to provide a single portal to technical data and analytical results coordinated by the WRAP. The data, results, and methods displayed on the TSS are intended to support the air quality planning needs of western state and tribes, and were designed to be maintained and updated to support the development of RHR SIPs, progress reports, and other

w estern air quality analysis and management needs. The TSS has recently been updated to support the first RHR progress reports, providin g access, visualization, analysis, and retrieval of technical data and regional analytical results that complement the RHR progress analysis provided in this report.

The TSS integrates a number of different information resources and incorporates applicabl e data sets, analysis results, and documentation under one web

- based umbrella. Full documentation, including tutorials and detailed descriptions of TSS tools are available directly from the website. Figure 3.3

- 1 shows the interactive menu options available from the “Haze Planning” section on the TSS, where each of these selection option interfaces with a variety of summary options. This section briefly describes some of these summary options that have been updated to support the development of RHR progress reports for western states.

Figure 3.3- 1. The WRAP TSS Summary Tools Interface.

3.3.1 Data Updates

IMPROVE data were updated through 2011, using IMPROVE data downloaded from the FED 47 

### database, and emissions data were updated with county and state level emi ssion from the W est J umpAQMS 2008 inventory. 48 

### In addition to data updates, some of the averaging conventions were changed on the TSS, which affected some of the data summaries that may have previously been obtained from the TSS for initial SIP development. Specifically, the TSS originally reported data first rounded to 2 decimals, which were then rounded to 1 decimal. In this update, changes were made to round directly from full decimal resolution to 1 decimal.

47 IMPROVE data are available from the IMPROVE Network through the Federal Land Manager Database online repository ( http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/ )
48 See Emissions Inventory descriptions in Section 3.2.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 23

### While this was a small change, it did have the effect of changing the reported deciview average for the 2000

- 2004 progress period at a few sites by no more than 0.1 dv , which is much less than the 1 deciview change which is considered perceptible to the human eye. Figure 3.3

- 1 below presents a list of sites where the 5

- year 2000

- 2004 deciview average has changed since originally published for use in initial SIPs, as reported by the TSS.

Table 3.3-1 Changes in TSS Reported Deciview Averages 2000-2004 Baseline Period

State Class I area(s) Site Group Deciview Average 2000-2004 Baseline Period

Extended Decimal Resolution Previous Rounding Convention Current Rounding Convention

AZ Mount Baldy WA BALD1 Worst 11.847 11.85→11.9 11.8

Mazatzal WA Pine Mountain WA IKBA1 Worst 13.345 13.35→12.5 12.4

CA Lassen Volcanic NP
Thousand Lakes WA Caribou WA LAVO1 Worst 14.146 14.15→14.2 14.1

Marble Mountain WA Yolla

- Bolly

- Middle

- Eel WA TRIN1 Worst 17.349 17.35→17.4 17.3

HI Haleakala NP HALE1 Best 4.547 4.55→4.6 4.5

MT U L Bend WA ULBE1 Best 4.749 4.75→4.8 4.7

NM Guadalupe Mountains NP Carlsbad Caverns NP GUMO1 Best 5.945 5.95→6.0 5.9

UT Bryce Canyon NP BRCA1 Worst 11.649 11.65→11.7 11.6

Arches NP Canyonlands NP CANY1 Best 3.746 3.75→3.8 3.7



### 3.3.2 Class I Area Summary Table

The Class I Area Summary Table calculates metrics to support regional haze analysis by species, total light extinction, and deciview, and presents a tabular display of associated values. To support progress reports, a new selection option, “Table Type: Reasonable Progress”, was added as the default summary option

. Original table summary options developed to support the initial RHR SIPS are available under “Table Type: Baseline to 2018 Projections”.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 24

### The new Reasonable Progress Table presents monitoring data averages for each measured species extinction value, for total extinction and for deciview extinction. Periods represented include the 2000

- 2004 baseline period, the 2005

- 2009 next successive 5

- year period, and the 2006

- 2010 and 2007

- 2011 rolling period averages. Table 3.2

- 2 presents an example Table for Rocky Mountain National Park (the ROMO1 IMPROVE monitor) in Colorado.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 25

### Table 3.3-1 WRAP Technical Support System Product Example of a Class I Area Summary Table

3.3.3 Monitoring

For the “Monitoring” summary option, IMPROVE data were updated through 2011, and options were added to represent current 5

- year averages. From the “Monitoring” options, two types of plots are available; “Time Series” plots and “Glide Slope” plots. For the “Time Series” plots, 5

- year periods were added to the “averaging” option. The tool enables a comparison of either the 2000

- 2004 baseline period and the 2005

- 2009 most recent successive 5

- year period, or the 2000

- 2004 period and the most recently available 2007

- 2011 5

- year period. Options are available to display deciview averages, or any combination of species extinction and mass. Figure 3.3

- 2 presents an example display of 5

- year period averages for the Rocky Mountain National Park ROMO1 site. The “Show Data” link below the display provides the data shown in the display in a table (this functionality is available on all TSS tools).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 26

### Figure 3.3- 2. Example TSS Comparison of 2000-2004 and 2005-2009 period averages for Rocky Mountain National Park in CO.

For the “Glide Slope” plots, options were added to display 5

- year period averages for both “successive” and “rolling” period average. As noted in Section 2.0, EPA’s September 2003 guidance specifies that p rogress is tracked against the 2000

- 2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods, i.e. 2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, et cetera

, 49 

### but EPA’s more recent guidance principals, released in April 2013, suggest that progress be tracked using rolling 5

- year period averages. This support document assessed change using the successive periods, but rolling period averages have been made available through the TSS. Options are available to display either successive or rolling averages, with or without 2064 Natural Conditions estimates, for deciview averages and any combination of species extinction. Figure 3.3

- 3 presents an example of successive 5

- year period averages, plotted along with annual averages, for the Rocky Mountain National Park ROMO1 site, and Figure 3.3

- 4 presents an example of rolling period averages.

49 See page 4

- 2 in EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

. ( http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf )

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 27

### Figure 3.3- 3. Example TSS Plot of 5 -Year Successive Averages, Showing the 2000-2004 Baseline Average and 2005 -2009 Period Averages for Rocky Mountain National Park in CO.

Figure 3.3- 4. Example TSS Plot of 5 -Year Rolling Averages, Showing the 2000-2004 Baseline Average and Rolling Averages Beginning With 2001-2005 through 2007-2011, for Rocky Mountain National Park in CO.

3.4 EMISSIONS SUMMARY TO OLS

For the “Emissions” summary option, the WestJumpAQMS 2008 emissions dataset was added . For display purposes, source categories were aligned with those used in the baseline planning period and display options were added for the 2008 data, including side -by- side comparisons of 2008 an d 2002 data under the “Emissions Review Tool” link. O nly state level summaries have been presented in this report, but county level summaries are available through the TSS. Figure 3.3

- 5 presents an example of a side -by- side comparison of 2002 and 2008 emis sions for counties in Arizona. Note that these summaries are not available from the TSS for Alaska and Hawaii.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 28

### Figure 3.3- 4. Example TSS Plot Showing Side-by-Side Comparisons of 2002 and 2008 Emission Inventories for Counties in Arizona.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3- 29

### 4.0 WRAP REGIONAL SUMMARIES

As described in Section 2.0, each state is required to submit a report evaluating progress toward the reasonable progress goal , pursuant to Regional Haze Rule ( RHR ) 40 CFR 51. 308(g). Because haze is a regional issue, summaries of monitoring and emissions data are presented here on a regional scale. These summaries are intended to support the individual State and Class I area data summaries which are presented in Section 6.0. Some general observations from these regional summaries are listed below, and described in more detail in the following sections.

• 

### The 5

- year deciview metric for the worst days decreased between the 2000 -2004 baseline period and the 2005

- 2009 progress period at most sites, but increase d at

severa l sites. P articulate organic mass concentration w as the largest contributing factor to increase s in the 5

- year deciview metric. The increases in particulate organic
mass measurements were correlated with regions where large wildfire events occurred during the 2005-2009 progress period.

• 

### The 5

- year deciview metric for the best days decreased between the 2000 -2004 baseline period and the 2005

- 2009 progress period did not get worse, and actually improved, at all but a few sites in Washington, Oregon

, and Alaska , where small increases were measured

.

• 

### For ammonium nitrate, decreases in the 5

- year average for the worst days, and decreasing annual trends

, were measured at nearly all site s, with the l argest decreases in northern Oregon and s outhern California. Emissions inventories indicate that oxides of nitrogen (NO X 

### ) are mostly due to on

- road mobile, o ff

- road mobile , and point source emissions

. Decreasing ammonium nitrate measurements w ere consistent with c omparisons between baseline and progress period inven tories , and tracking of annual averages electric generating units ( EGU ) emissions , which showed decreasing inventory totals for NO X 

### in most Western Regional Air Partnership ( WRAP ) states.

• 

### A number of sites measured increas es in 5

- year average ammoniu m sulf ate for the worst days , but most sites showed decreasing ammonium sulfate trends. For the 5- year average, most sites , including all sites in Utah, Colorado, Arizona , and New Mexico, were affected by anomalously high ammonium sulfate annual averages in 2005 . Emissions inventories indicate that sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 

### ) emissions in the
western states are dominated by point sources, and c omparisons between baseline and progress period inventories , and tracking of annual averages EGU emissions , show decreasing SO 2 

### emissions for most WRAP states

.

• 

### While m ost sites measured decreasing ammonium sulfate trends, increasing trends were measured in Alaska and Hawaii, at a few coastal sites in northwestern California and southwestern Oregon, and at a few sites along the Canadian border in northeastern Montana and northwestern North Dakota. Emissions inventories show that increases in Hawaii are largely due to volcanic emissions of SO 2


### . Increases at other WRAP sites do not appear to be reflected in the emissions inventory tot als . The increases at the coastal sites may be affected by offshore emissions, which are not presented here on a state level. Increases along the Canadian border may be due to international emissions.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-1• 

### For fine soil and coarse mass

, measured concentrations were highest in the southern WRAP region. Soil and coarse mass extinction trends were variable and not statistically significant in most cases, but an area represented by several Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) sites in ea stern Arizona and western New Mexico did show increasing coarse mass trends. Emission inventories indicated that natural windblown dust is the largest contributor to coarse mass measurements in this area, but significant changes in the development of the

w indblown dust inventories did not allow for definitive comparisons between 2002 and 2008 inventories for these emissions.

4.1 MONITORING DATA

The goal of the RHR is to ensure that visibility on the 20% most impaired, or worst, days continu es to improve, and that visibility on the 20% least impaired, or best, days does not get worse, as measured in units of deciviews (dv) calculated from data measured at IMPROVE monitoring sites. For purposes here, p rogress is measured in 5

- year average increments beginnin g with the 2000 -20 04 baseline average, and proceeding with each subsequent 5

- year average (e.g. 2005 -20 09, 2010 -20 14, etc.)

. 50 

### This section addresses changes as measured between the baseline period and the most recent successive progress period available, o r the 2005-2009 first progress period.

Figures 4.1- 1 and 4.1- 2 present the difference between the 2000

- 2004 average baseline period and the 2005

- 2009 first progress period in deciviews for the 20% worst and 20% best days, respectively, for Federal Class I area (CIA) IMPROVE sites in the WRAP region. The maps indicate that 5

- year average extinction on the 20% worst days decreased at most sites, but showed some increases at several sites. The map for the 20% best days indicates that best days did not get wor se , and actually improved, at all but a few sites in Washington, Oregon , and Alaska, where increases were small (~ 0.1 dv).

50 EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule specifies that progress is tracked against the 2000

- 2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods, i.e. 2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. (see page 4

- 2 in the Guidance document).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-2

### Figure 4.1- 1. Change in Deciview Extinction between Baseline Period Average (2000 -2004) and the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for the 20% Worst Visibility Days

.

Figure 4.1- 2. Change in Deciview Extinction between Baseline Period Average (2000 -2004) and the First Progress Period Average (2005

- 2009) for the 20% Best Visibility Days.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-3

### The RHR haze index , as defined using deciview units, do es not provide information regarding the relative contributions of specific pollutants to overall visibility impairment. As described in Section 3.1, calculation of visibility impairment is based on the cumulative impac ts of several different species measured as measured at IMPROVE Network sites. Analyzing the behavior of each individual species has important implications for control measures, as some species originate from largely anthropogenic sources, while others may originate from a mixture of both anthropogenic and natural sources.

Figures 4.1- 3 and 4.1- 4 present regional map s of average aerosol extinction for the most impaired days during baseline period (2000

- 2004), and the first progress period average (2005-2009) , respectively, for the IMPROVE monitors represent ing Federal CIAs in the WRAP region. The size of the pie chart is related to the magnitude of visibility impairment, and colors represent the relative contribution of the pollutants measured by the IMPRO VE Network

. The maps indicate that particulate organic matter, which is often related to wildfire activity, is a large factor in visibility reduction in the west. Visibility impairment in western CIAs that are directly adjacent to more populated areas in the West is influenced more by ammonium nitrate

, which is commonly associated with combustion activities, especially vehicles and industrial activities

. Ammonium sulfate represents most of the visibility impairment at the Hawaii sites, and up to one third of the impairment in the contiguous United States. The largest contributor to ammonium sulfate concentrations in the contiguous U nited States and Alaska is generally industrial activities such as coal burning power plants, while natural volcanic activity

c ontributes to the high measured ammonium sulfate at Hawaii sites.

Figure 4.1- 3. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollutant for Baseline Period Average ( 200 0-2004) for 20% Worst Days.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-4

### Figure 4.1-4. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollutant for the First Progress Period Average (2005- 200 9) for 20% Worst Days.

The changes in deciview between the 2000

- 2004 baseline and 2005

- 2009 progress period averages, as depicted in Figure 4.1

- 1, is the combined effect of increases in some spe cies and decreases in other species. To identify individual species behavior, the increasing and decreasing species are presented separately in Figures 4.1

- 5 and 4.1

- 6. Figure 4.1

- 5 presents the individual species of haze that have decreased between the 20 00- 2004 baseline period and the 2005 -2009 progress period, where sites with corresponding decreases in deciview measurements are highlighted with blue circles. Figure 4.1

- 6 presents the individual species of haze that have increased, with corresponding dec iview increases highlighted with purple circles.

As depicted in Figure 4.1

- 5, most of the decreases in deciviews averages values were associated with decreasing ammonium nitrate and particulate organic mass. Decreases in California, eastern Oregon, and Idaho were largely due to ammonium nitrate reductions, while decreases in northern Washington and Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona were largely due to decreasing particulate organic mass. Some ammonium sulfate reductions were also measured in weste rn Washington and northwestern Oregon. As depicted in Figure 4.1

- 6, most of the increases in deciview values were associated with increasing particulate organic mass in California, Idaho, Montana, and Utah. Ammonium sulfate increases also occurred in Alask a, Hawaii, and at a few of the sites in the contiguous states.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-5

### Figure 4.1- 5. Magnitude of Aerosol Extinction Species That Have Decreased B etween the Baseline Average (2000

- 2004) and the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for the 20% Worst Days.

Figure 4.1- 6. Magnitude of Aerosol Extinction Species That Have Increased B etween the Baseline Average (2000

- 2004) and the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for the 20% Worst Days.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-6

### 4.1.1 Annual Trends

In addition to looking at the 5

- year averages deciview metric that is specified in regulatory text, it is useful to examine annual trends for each particle species. In the long term, annual trend statistics are useful in analyzing changes in air quality da ta because these statistics can show the overall tendency of measurements over long periods of time, while minimizing the effects of year

- to -year fluctuations which are common in air quality dat a.

Annual trends were calculated for the years 2000

- 2009, wit h a trend defined as the slope derived using Theil statistics , which is a nonparametric regression technique that is commonly applied to environmental data to determine statistically significant trends

. 51 

### The significance of the trend is represented with p

- values calculated using Mann

- Kendall trend statistics. Determining a significance level helps to distinguish random variability in data from a real tendency to increase or decrease over time, where lower p

- values indicate higher confidence levels in the computed slopes. Regional trends are presented here for aero sol species trends with p-value statistics less than 0.15 (85% confidence level). T rends for all significance levels at all sites are also included in state specific appendices provided with this re port

. Figures 4.1- 7 present s trends in ammonium sulfate measurements for the period 2000

- 2009 for the 20% most impaired or worst days at each IMPROVE Federal CIA site that had at least five years of complete data

, and Figure 4.1

- 7 presents trends for all sampled days. Figures 4.1- 9 through 4.1- 20 present similar maps of ammonium nitrate, particulate organic mass, elemental carbon, soil, coarse mass

, and sea salt trends. At the time this report was prepared, d ata were available through 2010

, 52 

### but trends pre sented here include only data collected between 2000- 2009 to better reflect the changes between the 2000

- 2004 baseline and 2005

- 2009 progress periods.

The RHR haze index specifically refers to the 20% most impaired and least impaired days, but trends are also presented here for the annual average of all sampled days. The 20% most impaired and least impaired days can represent different times of the year, especially when l arge events such as wildfires influence the worst day identification

. 53 

### Because the annual
average represents the entire year

, these averages may better represent overall aerosol species trends than trends for just the 20% worst days . Consistency between wo rst day and all day trends adds confidence to the characterization of the trend, and differences may suggest a seasonality affect. Specific trend observations by species are listed below:

• 

### Figures 4.1 -7 and 4.1 -8 indicate decreasing ammonium sulfate trends for most sites, but increasing trends were measured in Alaska and Hawaii, at a few coastal sites in northwestern California and southwestern Oregon, and at a few sites along the Canadian border in northeastern Montana and northwestern North Dakota.

51 Theil statistics are also used in EPA’s Nationa l Air EPA’s National Air Quality Trends Reports ( http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ ) and the IMPROVE program trend reports ( ht tp://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/improve_reports.htm )
52 The 2010 IMPROVE data were not included in trend analysis, but 2010 annual averages are included for reference in states specific appendices.
53 Seasonality effects of the identificat ion of worst days are discussed further in Section 3.1.2.1.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-7• 

### Figures 4.1-9 and 4.1- 10 indicate decreasing ammonium nitrate trends at nearly all sites. Slight ly increas ing trends were measured at the DENA1 site in Alaska.

• 

### Figures 4.1- 11 and 4.1- 12 indicate that most particulate organic mass trends are either decreasing or insignificant

.

• 

### Figures 4.1- 13 and 4.1- 14 indicate that elemental carbon is also generally trending down.

• 

### Figures 4.1-15 and 4.1- 16 indicate that trends in soil are mostly insignificant

.

• 

### Figures 4.1- 17 and 4.1- 18 indicate that trends for c oarse m ass were mostly decreasing, but increasing trends were apparent for a region in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico.

• 

### Figures 4.1- 19 and 4.1- 20 indicate that s ea salt trends are mostly insignificant, with the largest significantly increasing trends measured on the pacific coast for the worst days.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-8

### Figure 4.1-7. 10- Year Annual Average Ammonium Sulfat e Extinction Trends for 20% Worst Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region.

Figure 4.1-8. 10- Year Annual Averag e Ammonium Sulfate Extinction Trends for All Measured Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-9

### Figure 4.1-9. 10- Year Annual Average Ammonium Nitrate Extinction Trends for 20% Worst Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region.

Figure 4.1- 10 . 10- Year Annual Average Ammonium Nitrate Extinction Trends for All Measured Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 10

### Figure 4.1- 11 . 10- Year Annual Average Particulate Organic Matter Extinction Trends for 20% Worst Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRA P Region.

Figure 4.1- 12 . 10- Year Annual Average Particulate Organic Matter Extinction Trends for All Measured Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 11

### Figure 4.1- 13 . 10- Year Annual Average Light Absorbing Carbon Extinction Trends for 20% Worst Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region.

Figure 4.1- 14 . 10- Year Annual Average Light Absorbing Carbon Extinction Trends for All Measured Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 12

### Figure 4.1- 15 . 10- Year Annual Average Soil Extinction Trends for 20% Worst Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region.

Figure 4.1- 16 . 10- Year Annual Average Soil Extinction Trends for All Measured Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 13

### Figure 4.1- 17 . 10- Year Annual Average Coarse Mass Extinction Trends for 20% Worst Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region.

Figure 4.1- 18 . 10- Year Annual Average Coarse Mass Extinction Trends for All Measured Days
at CIA IMPROVE Site s in the WRAP Region.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 14

### Figure 4.1- 19 . 10- Year Annual Average Sea Salt Extinction Trends for 20% Worst Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region.

Figure 4.1- 20 . 10- Year Annual Average Sea Salt Extinction Trends for All Measured Days at CIA IMPROVE S ites in the WRAP Region.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 15

### 4.1.2 Regional Events

The previous section presented aerosol trends, which are useful in analyzing changes in air quality data over long periods of time, but minimize the effects of large events that can a ffect the 5

- year average metric s. Large regional episodic events can include windstorms which can transport dust from some of the desert regions in the WRAP, and even from intercontinental dust

sources , as documented for several cases of Asian and African dust impacts on the Unite d States. Other examples of large episodic regional events can include wildfires, which impact most of the western states, and volcanic emissions, which have large impacts in Hawaii. This section includes some examples showing the impact of large regional events on specific aerosol species as measured during the 2005

- 2009 progress period. Some effects of large events on the 5

- year RHR haze indexe s are discussed in for each WRAP state in Section 6.0.

Figure 4.1 -21 presents an example of particulate organic mass measurements on August 4, 2007. High measurements spanned most of the state of Montana, and also some sites in Idaho, North Dakota

, and Wyoming. Figure 4.1 -22 presents a map from the WRAP Fire Emissions Tracking System (FETS) online tool

, 54 

### showing fir e detectio ns between August 2 and 4, which indicates that there were a number of detections western Montana and Idaho. Largest fires in the area at the time included a fir e in the Salish Mountains north of Hot Springs in Montana that began on July 31, and the Chippy Creek Fire which burned almost 100,000 acres in northwest Montana.

Figure 4.1 -23 presents an example of particulate organic mass measurements on June 26, 200 8, where h igh measurements spanned most of the state of California . Figure 4.1 -24 prese nts a map from the WRAP FE TS online tool showing fire detections on June 26, with numerous detections all along the Cascades, many of which were attributed to lightning strikes in the region.

Figures 4.1 -25 and 4.1 -26 present fine soil and coarse mass, respectively, as measured on May 15, 2005. For this event, high measurements spanned most of the west coast, which is consistent with what might be expected for international transport of dust from Asia. Further analysis of the chemical composition of the me asured fine soil, including correlation with

m anganese (Mg) levels, would help elucidate whether this was an actual Asian Dust event. Figures 4.1 -27 and 4.1 -28 present fine soil and coarse mass as measured on June 29 , 200 8, represent ing a more typical dust event in the west, with high measurements spanning most of Arizona.

Figure 4.1 -29 presents an a bnormally high sea salt event that was measured on December 14, 2008 at several sites across the northern Great Plains , including sites in Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and neighboring states as far south as Kansas. This event was discussed at the 2009 IMPROVE Steering C ommittee meeting, where it was noted that airmass characteristics and back

- trajectories point ed to the Canadian arctic as the likely source of the material observed

. 55

54 The WRAP FETS is available online at http://www.wrapfets.org/

. 55 IMPROVE Steering committee meeting minutes are available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Activities/activities.htm

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 16

### Note that s ea salt measurements are based on IMPROVE chloride measurements, which can also be associated with compounds not found in seawater. Figure 4.1

- 30 presents a more typical sea salt event, with higher mea surements spanning the western coast.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 17

### Figure 4.1-21. Particulate Organic Mass Event Measured on August 4, 2007, Affecting M ost Montana IMPROVE Sites.

Figure 4.1-22. Map From the WRAP FETS Showing Fire Detections for the Period August 2 through August 4, 2007.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 18

### Figure 4.1-23. Particulate Organic Mass Event Measured on June 26, 2008, Affecting Most California IMPROVE Sites.

Figure 4.1-24. Map From the WRAP FETS Showing Fire Detections on June 26, 2007.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 19

### Figure 4.1-25. Soil Event Measured on March 14, 2005, Affecting Coastal IMPROVE Sites.

Figure 4.1-26. Coarse Mass Event Measured on March 14, 2005, Affecting Coastal IMPROVE Sites.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 20

### Figure 4.1-27. Soil Event Measured on June 29, 2008, Affecting Most Arizona IMPROVE Sites.

Figure 4.1-28. Coarse Mass Event Measured on June 29, 2008, Affecting Most Arizona IM PROVE Sites.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 21

### Figure 4.1- 29 Sea Salt Event Measured on December 14, 2008, Affecting Inland IMPROVE Sites.

Figure 4.1- 30

. Sea Salt Event Measured on May 30, 2008, Affecting Coastal IMPROVE Sites.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 22

### 4.2 EMISSIONS DATA

Included here are summaries depicting differences between an annual emission inventor y representing the baseline period and an annual inventory representing the current progress period for the contiguous WRAP states

. 56 

### For these summaries, emissions during the baseline years are represented using a 2002 inventory (termed plan02) which was developed with support from the WRAP for use in the original RHR SIP strategy development

. Differences between inventories are represented as the difference between the 2002 inventory, and a 2008 inventory which leverages more recent inventory development work performed by the WRAP for the WestJumpAQMS a nd Deterministic and Empirical Assessment of Smoke’s Contribution to Ozone ( DEASCO 3 

### ) mode ling projects (termed WestJump2008). Note that the comparisons of differences between inventories does not necessarily reflect a change in emissions, as a number of methodology changes and enhancements have occurred between development of the individual in ventories, as referenced in Section 3.2.1.

Growth in population has implications for the planning needs of states. Population does not directly translate into increased emissions, but population growth can affect energy use, vehicle miles traveled ( VMT ), and other factors that affect the emissions of visibility related species. Figure 4.2

- 1 presents a map comparing 2002 and 2010 census populations by county for the WRAP states. 57 

### Population differences are not directly related to regulatory requirements, but are provided here as reference for state planning purposes. Note that the largest population increases were observed in southern California and southern Arizona, and the large st decreases were reported for Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.

56 Emissions inventories used to represent Alaska and Hawaii were developed differently, so discussions for the se states are not includ ed here but are included in state specific summaries in Section 6.0.
57 The US census is conducted every 10

- years. Population data for the years 2000 and 2010 were obtained from http://www.census.go v/main/www/access.html

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 23

### Figure 4.2- 1. Difference Between 2000 and 2010 Census Population for the WRAP Region.

For regulatory purposes, State

- wide inventories totals and differences for all major visibility impairing pollutants from both natural and anthropogenic source categories are presented here, and inventory totals from a county level basis are available on the WRAP Technical Support System website (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/)

. 58 

### Figure 4.2-2 presents both the 2002 and 2008 sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 

### ) emission totals by source category for the contiguous and Figure 4.2-3 presents the difference s for SO 2 

### for each category by state . Figures 4.2-4 and 4.2 -5 present similar charts for oxides of nitrogen ( NO X 

### ) , and subsequent figures (Figure s 4.2 -6 through 4.2 -17 ) present ammonia, volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

, primary organic aerosol (POA) , elemental carbon (EC)

, fine soil, and coarse particulate matter. These emissions inventory totals, including differences between inventories, are discussed for each State individually in Section 6.0. Some general regional observations are listed below.

• 

### Inventories show that SO 2 

### emissions are largely due to point sources. These emissions saw decreases in most source categories for most states, with the largest decreases reported for point sources. Reductions are likely due to the implementation

58 The WRAP TSS is described in Section 3.3.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 24

### of control strategies such as SO 2 

### scrubbers installed at point sources and required use of low sulfur diesel fuel.

• 

### Invent ories show that NO X 

### emissions are mainly due to on

- road mobile, off -road mobile, and point sources. Inventories showed decreases in these categories for most
states

. Reductions may be to implementation of stricter emissions limits for NO X 

### related to combus tion sources such as utility boilers and automobile engines.

• 

### Inventories show that concentrations of VOCs are mainly due to biogenic emissions. Inventory totals comparing 2002 and 2008 emissions show large decreases in 2008

, but this is likely due to enhancements in biogenic inventory methodology, as referenced in Section 3.2.1 , rather than decreases of this magnitude in actual emissions.

• 

### Inventories show that VOC, POA and EC emissions include large contributions from fire sources. Comparisons between fire inventories is not definitive as the current year inventory represent only the year 2008, a s opposed to the entire 2005- 2009 progress period represented in monitored data

. In 2008, large fire events occurred in California, so fire emissions inventory total s increased in California, but decrease d for other WRAP states.

• 

### For fine soil and coarse mass, e missions inventories indicate that windblown and fugitive dust are the largest contributors to the se haze species , with some contribution to fine soil from area and fire sourc es. Changes in fugitive dust and area source inventories were variable between states, and may be related to changes in population. Estimates for windblown dust inventory totals for most states in 2008 were lower than the baseline inventorie s, but significant methodology changes occurred with the development of the new WRAP windblown dust model

, as referenced in Section 3.2.1 , so differences reported here are not necessarily indicative of changes in actual source emissions between 2002 and 2008.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 25

### Figure 4.2-2. Comparison for 2002 and 2008 Sulfur Dioxide Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

Figure 4.2-3. Difference s between 2008 and 2002 Sulfur Dioxide Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 26

### Figure 4.2-4. Comparison for 2002 and 2008 Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

Figure 4.2-5. Differences between 2008 and 2002 Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 27WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-28 

### Figure 4.2-6. Comparison for 2002 and 2008 Amm onia Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP Stat es (2008 minus 2002).

Figure 4.2-7. Differences between 2008 and 2002 Ammonia Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP Stat es (2008 minus 2002).

### Figure 4.2-8. Comparison for 2002 and 2008 Volatile Organic Compound Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

Figure 4.2-9. Differences between 2008 and 2002 Volatile Organic Compound Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 29

### Figure 4.2- 10

. Comparison for 2002 and 2008 Particulate Organic Aerosol Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous W RAP States (2008 minus 2002).

Figure 4.2-11. Differences between 2008 and 2002 Particulate Organic Aerosol Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 30

### Figure 4.2-12. Comparison for 2002 and 2008 Elemental Carbon Emissio n Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

Figure 4.2-13. Differences between 2008 and 2002 Elemental Carbon Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 31

### Figure 4.2-14. Comparison for 2002 and 2008 Fine Soil Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

Figure 4.2-15. Differences between 2008 and 2002 Fine Soil Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 32

### Figure 4.2-16. Comparison for 2002 and 2008 Coarse Mass Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

Figure 4.2-17. Differences between 2008 and 2002 Coarse Mass Emission Inventory Totals for the Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002).

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-33

### 4.2.1 EGU Summary

As described in previous sections, differences between the baseline and progress period inventories presented here do not necessarily represent changes in actual emissions as numerous updates in inventory methodologies have oc curred between the development of the separate inventories. Also, the 2002 baseline and 2008 progress period inventories represent only annual snapshots of emissions estimates , which may not be representative of entire 5

- year monitoring periods compared. To better account for year

- to

- year changes in emissions, annual emission totals for electrical generating units (EGU) are presented here for the contiguous states, and for each state individually in Section 6.0

. EGU emissions are some of the more consistently reported emissions , as tracked in EPA’s Air Markets Program Database for permitted Title V facilities in the state ( http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ ) . RHR implementation plans are required to pay specific
att ention to certain major stationary sources, including EGUs, built between 1962 and 1977.

Figu re 4.2-18 presents a sum of annual NO X 

### and SO 2 

### emissions as reported for all EGU sources in the contiguous WRAP states between 1996 and 2010. While these types of facilities are targeted for controls in state regional haze SIPs, it should be noted that many of the controls planned for EGUs in the WRAP states had not taken place yet in 2010, while other controls separate from the RHR may have been implemented. The c hart shows steady declines for both SO 2 

### and NO X


### .

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010 

### Annual EGU Emissions WRAP Region 1996

- 2010

SO2 (tpy)
NOX (tpy)



### Figure 6.2-18. Sum of EGU Emissions of SO 2 

### and NOx Reported between 1996 and 2010 for the WRAP Region.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4- 34

### 5.0 SECTION 309 REGIONAL SUMMARIES

As described in Section 2.2, s ome states in the Western Regional Air Partnership ( WRAP ) qualify for Section 309 r equirements for submittal of Regional Haze Rule ( RHR ) progress reports, but have the option of compliance with Section 308 regulations. Section 309 rules were based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) Recommendations report

, 59 

### specific to visibility impacts at the 16 Class I areas ( CIAs ) on the Colorado Plateau. Of the ni ne western states originally eligible for Section 309 RHR implementation , only the s tates of New Mexico, Utah

, and Wyoming and the city of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County currently exercise this option.

The 16 CIAs on the Colorado Plateau are depicted in Figure 5.0- 1 and listed in Table 5.0- 1. Note that the ZION1 site, which originally represented Zion Canyon National Park, has since been replaced with the ZICA1 site, as described in Section 6.13.1.1. This section presents regional progress summaries specific to monitoring and emissions data at th ese Colorado Plateau sites. Additionally, regional summaries for the entire WRAP region are presented in Section 4.0, and state and site specific summaries are presented in Section 6 .0.

59 The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas Report is archived on the WRAP website at www.wrapair.org/WRAP/ reports /GCVTCFinal.PDF

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5-1

### Table 5.0-1 Colorado Plateau CIAs and Representative IMPROVE Monitors

Class I A rea Representative IMPROVE Site Latitude Longitude Elevation (m)

Arizona
Grand Canyon NP GRCA2 35.97

- 111.98 2267

Mount Baldy WA BALD1 34.06

- 109.44 2508

Petrified Forest NP PEFO1 35.08

- 109.77 1766

Sycamore Canyon WA SYCA1 35.14

- 111.97 2046

Colorado Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP Weminuche WA WEMI1 37.66

- 107.80 2750
Flat Tops WA Maroon Bells

- Snowmass WA West Elk WA WHRI1 39.15

- 106.82 3413

Mesa Verde NP MEVE1 37.20

- 108.49 2172

New Mexico

San Pedro Parks WA SAPE1 36.01

- 106.84 2935

Utah
Bryce Canyon NP BRCA1 37.62

- 112.17 2481 Canyonlands NP Arches NP CANY1 38.46

- 109.82 1798

Capitol Reef NP CAPI1 38.30

- 111.29 1896

Zion NP ZICA1 * 37.20

- 113.15 1215 *Replaced the ZION1 monitoring site in 2003

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5-2**Mount Baldy WA Bryce Canyon NP**  **Arches NP**

**Canyonlands NP Capitol Reef NP** 

**Grand Canyon NP Mesa Verde NP** 

**Petrified Forest NP San Pedro Parks WA** 

**Sycamore Canyon WA Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP** 

**Weminuche WA Flat Tops WA** 

**Maroon Bells-Snowmass WA**

**West Elk WA**

**Zion NP**

BALD1 BRCA1 CANY1 CAPI1

GRCA2 MEVE1

PEFO1 SAPE1
SYCA1 WEMI1 WHRI1

ZICA1



### Figure 5.0- 1. Map Depicting Colorado Plateau CIAs and Representative IMPROVE Monitors in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.

5.1 MONITORING DATA

As described previously, the goal of the RHR is to ensure that visibility on the 20% most impaired, or worst, days continu es to improve at each Federal CIA, and that visibility on the 20% least impaired, or best, days does not get worse

. Progress is determined by comparing current monitored conditions to the baseline average, beginning with the 2000 -20 04 baseline, and proceeding with each subsequent 5

- year average (e.g. 2005 -20 09, 2010 -20 14, etc.) 60 

### , as measured at representative IMPROVE monitoring sites

.

60 See page 4

- 2 in EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5-3

### Figures 5.1-1 and 5.1

- 2 present the 2005

- 2009 vi sibility averages for the most impaired (20% worst) and least impaired (20% best) days , respectively, for the IMPROVE sites representing CIAs on the Colorado Plateau. The size of the pie chart is related to the magnitude of visibility impairment, and color s represent the relative contribution of the pollutants which are measured by the IMPROVE Network

.

T ables 5.1

- 1 and 5.1

- 2 present the calculated deciview values for current conditions at each site, along with the percent contribution to extinction from ea ch aerosol species for the worst and best days, respectively, for each site. Tables 5.1

- 3 and 5.1 -4 present the difference between the 2000

- 2004 baseline period average and the 2005

- 2009 first progress period average for the 20% worst and 20% best days, respectively, for the CIA sites in the Colorado Plateau region. Also, trend statistics for the years 2000 -2009 for each species at each site are summarized in Table 5.1 -5. 61 

### Only trends for aerosol species trends with p

- value statistics less than 0.15 (85% confidence level) are presented in the table here , with increasing slopes in red and decreasing slopes in blue. 62 

### Some general observations for the current visibility conditions, and the difference between current and baseline conditions listed below :

• 

### The largest contributors to aerosol extinction at the Colorado Plateau sites w ere particulate organic mass , ammonium sulfate, and coarse mass.

• 

### For all sites, the 5

- year average as measured in deciview metric decreased for the best days decreased between the baseline and first progress period.

• 

### For most sites, the 5

- year average as measured in deciview metric decreased for the
worst days between the baseline and first progress per iod. Exceptions included GRCA2 and BALD1 in Arizona and BRCA1 and CAPI1 in Utah. Some contributing factors for aerosol measurements that affected increased in 5

- year average deciviews are listed below.

- The increase at GRCA2 was due to increases in ammonium sulfate, elemental carbon, particulate organic mass and soil, partially offset by decreases in ammonium nitrate and coarse mass. The particulate organic carbon increase was associated with high measurements due to fire event s in June and August of 2009

. N o statistically significant increasing annual trends were measured for any of the species at the GRCA2 site.

- Extinction remained relatively unchanged in terms of deciviews for the worst days measured at the BALD1 site. Increases in coarse mass, soil

, and a mmonium sulfate were offset by decreases in particulate organic mass, elemental carbon

,

61 Annual trends were calculated for the years 2000

- 2009, with a trend defined as the slope derived using Theil statistics. Trends derived from Theil statistics are useful in analyzing changes in air quality data because these statistics can show the overall tendency of measurements over long periods o f time, while minimizing the effects of
year

- to

- year fluctuations which are common in air quality data. Theil statistics are also used in EPA’s National Air EPA’s National Air Quality Trends Reports ( http://www .epa.gov/airtrends/ ) and the IMPROVE program trend reports ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/improve_reports.htm )
62 The significance of the trend i s represented with p

- values calculated using Mann

- Kendall trend statistics. Determining a significance level helps to distinguish random variability in data from a real tendency to increase or decrease over time, where lower p

- values indicate higher confid ence levels in the computed slopes.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5-4

### and ammonium nitrate. Trend statistics showed an increasing coarse mass trend at the BALD1 and PEFO1 sites in e astern Arizona

.

- At the BRCA1 and CAPI1 sites, the largest contributor to increases was particulate organic mass which , similar to GRCA2, was associated with large fires events in July and August 2009 . These increases were offset by decreases in ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate. An increasing soil trend was measured for the worst days at the CAPI1 site.

• 

### Increases in 5

- year average ammonium sulfate were measured at many regional sites, although most sites showed decreasing annual average ammonium sulfate trends. The 5- year average was influenced by relatively high regional measurements of ammonium sulfate in 2005. Figure 5.1.3 presents a plot of the annual average s for all Colorado Plateau sites, showing the high values measured in 2005, followed by generally decreasing trends.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5-5Average Aerosol Extinction (Mm-1) Progress Period (2005-2009) 20% Worst Days

Ammoniun Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate

Elemental Carbon

Soil

Coarse Mass

Sea Salt

Insufficient Data Particulate Organic Mass

20 2

50



### Figure 5.1-1. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollutant for the First Progress Period Average (2005- 200 9) for 20% Worst Days.

Average Aerosol Extinction (Mm-1) Progress Period (2005-2009) 20% Best Days

Ammoniun Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate

Elemental Carbon

Soil

Coarse Mass

Sea Salt

Insufficient Data Particulate Organic Mass

5 2

10



### Figure 5.1-2. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollutant for First Progress Period Average ( 200 5-2009) for 20% Best Days.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5-6

### Table 5.1-1 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions 2005-2009 Progress Period, 20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciviews (dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extinction by Species (Excludes Rayleigh) (% of Mm -1 ) and Rank *

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic

Mass Elemental Carbon Soil Coarse Mass Sea Salt

Arizona

GRCA2 12.0 22% (2) 7% (5) 41% (1) 11% (4) 6% (6) 12% (3) 0% (7)

BALD1 11.8 25% (2) 4% (6) 42% (1) 8% (4) 6% (5) 16% (3) 0% (7)

PEFO1 13.0 23% (2) 5% (6) 31% (1) 11% (4) 8% (5) 21% (3) 1% (7)

SYCA1 15.2 15% (4) 4% (6) 29% (1) 9% (5) 15% (3) 28% (2) 0% (7)

Colorado

WEMI1 10.0 27% (2) 5% (6) 36% (1) 10% (4) 7% (5) 15% (3) 0% (7)

WHRI1 8.9 30% (2) 8% (5) 33% (1) 8% (4) 7% (6) 13% (3) 0% (7)

MEVE1 11.3 27% (2) 9% (4) 28% (1) 7% (6) 9% (5) 20% (3) 0% (7)

New Mexico

SAPE1 9.9 34% (1) 6% (6) 32% (2) 8% (4) 7% (5) 13% (3) 0% (7)

Utah

BRCA1 11.9 19% (2) 9% (5) 45% (1) 10% (4) 5% (6) 12% (3) 0% (7)

CANY1 11.0 23% (2) 14% (4) 27% (1) 7% (5) 7% (6) 20% (3) 0% (7)

CAPI1 11.3 24% (2) 12% (4) 32% (1) 8% (5) 7% (6) 17% (3) 0% (7)

ZICA1 12.3 21% (3) 7% (5) 33% (1) 9% (4) 7% (6) 22% (2) 0% (7)

* Highest aerosol species contribution per site is highlighted in bold.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5-7

### Table 5.1-2 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions 2005-2009 Progress Period, 20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciviews (dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extinction by Species (Excludes Rayleigh) (% of Mm -1 ) and Rank *

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic

Mass Elemental Carbon Soil Coarse Mass Sea Salt

Arizona

GRCA2 2.2 45% (1) 13% (4) 15% (2) 9% (5) 4% (6) 14% (3) 1% (7)

BALD1 2.9 35% (1) 7% (5) 26% (2) 13% (4) 5% (6) 13% (3) 1% (7)

PEFO1 4.6 31% (1) 9% (5) 21% (2) 19% (3) 6% (6) 14% (4) 0% (7)

SYCA1 5.1 27% (1) 10% (5) 23% (2) 17% (3) 7% (6) 15% (4) 1% (7)

Colorado

WEMI1 2.4 36% (1) 6% (5) 23% (2) 15% (4) 4% (6) 15% (3) 1% (7)

WHRI1 0.2 46% (1) 10% (5) 14% (3) 15% (2) 5% (6) 11% (4) 0% (7)

MEVE1 3.1 44% (1) 12% (3) 21% (2) 9% (5) 5% (6) 9% (4) 0% (7)

New Mexico

SAPE1 1.0 47% (1) 12% (3) 18% (2) 8% (5) 5% (6) 10% (4) 1% (7)

Utah

BRCA1 11.9 19% (2) 9% (5) 45% (1) 10% (4) 5% (6) 12% (3) 0% (7)

CANY1 11.0 23% (2) 14% (4) 27% (1) 7% (5) 7% (6) 20% (3) 0% (7)

CAPI1 11.3 24% (2) 12% (4) 32% (1) 8% (5) 7% (6) 17% (3) 0% (7)

ZICA1 12.3 21% (3) 7% (5) 33% (1) 9% (4) 7% (6) 22% (2) 0% (7)

* Highest aerosol species contribution per site is highlighted in bold.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5-8

### Table 5.1-3 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites

Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2004 Baseline Period to 2005-2009 Progress Period 20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Species (Mm - 1 )*

2000

- 04 Baseline Period 2005

- 09 Progress

Period Change in dv* Amm

. Sulfate Amm

. Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

Arizona

GRCA2 11.7 12.0 +0.3 +0.5

- 0.4 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1

- 0.3 0.0

BALD1 11.8 11.8 0.0 +0.3

- 0.1

- 2.1

- 0.7 +0.4 +1.3 +0.1

PEFO1 13.2 13.0

- 0.2 +0.5

- 0.3

- 1.4 +0.5 +0.6

- 1.0 +0.1

SYCA1 15.3 15.2

- 0.1 +0.7

- 0.7

- 0.5 +0.4

- 1.0 +1.4 0.0

Colorado

WEMI1 10.3 10.0

- 0.3 +0.1

- 0.2

- 1.4

- 0.2 +0.1 0.0

- 0.1

WHRI1 9.6 8.9

- 0.7 +0.3 0.0

- 2.3

- 0.3 +0.1

- 0.5 0.0

MEVE1 13.0 11.3

- 1.7

- 0.2

- 0.3

- 5.8

- 0.7

- 0.5

- 2.0 0.0

New Mexico

SAPE1 10.2 9.9

- 0.3 +1.0

- 0.4

- 1.4

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.2 0.0

Utah

BRCA1 11.6 11.9 +0.3

- 0.2

- 0.3 +2.5 +0.2 +0.1

- 0.9 0.0

CANY1 11.2 11.0

- 0.2

- 0.3 +0.3

- 0.9

- 0.1 +0.1 +0.8 0.0

CAPI1 10.9 11.3 +0.4

- 0.2

- 0.7 +1.8 +0.2 +0.3 +0.7 +0.1

ZICA1 12.5 12.3

- 0.2 +0.2

- 0.3

- 0.8

- 0.1 +0.1 0.0 +0.1 *Change is calculated as progress period average minus baseline period average. Values in red indicate i ncreases in extinction and values in blue indicate decre ases.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5-9

### Table 5.1-4 Colorado Plateau Class I Area IMPROVE Sites

Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2004 Baseline Period to 2005-2009 Progress Period 20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Species (Mm - 1 )*

2000

- 04 Baseline Period 2005

- 09 Progress

Period Change in dv* Amm

. Sulfate Amm

. Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

Arizona

GRCA2 2.2 2.2 0.0 +0.1 0.0

- 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

BALD1 3.0 2.9

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.1 0.0 0.0 +0.1 0.0

PEFO1 5.0 4.6

- 0.4

- 0.1

- 0.2

- 0.4 0.0 +0.1 0.0 0.0

SYCA1 5.6 5.1

- 0.5 +0.1

- 0.1

- 0.6

- 0.2

- 0.1 +0.1 0.0

Colorado

WEMI1 3.1 2.4

- 0.7

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.4

- 0.2 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

WHRI1 0.7 0.2

- 0.5 0.0

- 0.1

- 0.3

- 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

MEVE1 4.3 3.1

- 1.2

- 0.3

- 0.3

- 0.5

- 0.2

- 0.2

- 0.3 0.0

New Mexico

SAPE1 1.5 1.0

- 0.5

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.2

- 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Utah

BRCA1 2.8 2.1

- 0.7

- 0.1

- 0.2

- 0.3

- 0.2 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

CANY1 3.7 2.8

- 0.9

- 0.3

- 0.1

- 0.5

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.2 0.0

CAPI1 4.1 2.7

- 1.4

- 0.3

- 0.4

- 0.5

- 0.2

- 0.1

- 0.4 0.0

ZICA1 5.0 4.3

- 0.7

- 0.1

- 0.2

- 0.5

- 0.2 0.0

- 0.1 0.0 *Change is calculated as progress period average minus baseline period average. Values in red indicate i ncreases in extinction and values in blue indicate decre ases.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5- 10

### Table 5.1-5 Colorado Plateau Class I Are a IMPROVE Sites Change in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2009 Annual Average Trends

Site Group Annual Trend* (Mm -1 /year )

Amm

. Sulfate Amm

. Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt Arizona

GRCA2 20% Best

-- -- -- 0.0

-- -- 0.0 20% Worst

-- - 0.1

-- -- -- -- --

All Days

-- 0.0

-- -- -- -- --

BALD1 20% Best

-- 0.0

-- 0.0

-- 0.0 0.0 20% Worst

- 0.2

-- -- -- 0.1 0.3 0.0

All Days

- 0.1 0.0

-- -- -- 0.1 0.0

PEFO1 20% Best

-- 0.0

- 0.1

-- -- -- 0.0 20% Worst

-- -- -- -- 0.1

-- 0.0

All Days

-- 0.0

-- -- 0.0 0.1 0.0

SYCA1 20% Best

-- -- - 0.1

-- -- -- 0.0 20% Worst

-- -- -- 0.1

- 0.3

-- --

All Days

-- 0.0

-- -- - 0.1

-- -- Colorado

WEMI1 20% Best

- 0.1 0.0

- 0.1

- 0.1

-- -- -- 20% Worst

-- -- -- 0.0

-- -- --

All Days

-- 0.0

-- - 0.1

-- -- --

WHRI1 20% Best

-- 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

-- -- -- 20% Worst

-- -- -- - 0.1

-- -- 0.0

All Days

-- -- - 0.1 0.0

-- -- 0.0

MEVE1 20% Best

- 0.1 0.0

- 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

-- 20% Worst

-- -- -- - 0.2

-- -- 0.0

All Days

- 0.1

-- - 0.3

- 0.1

-- -- 0.0 New Mexico

SAPE1 20% Best

-- 0.0 0.0 0.0

-- -- -- 20% Worst

-- - 0.1

-- -- -- -- --

All Days

-- 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

-- 0.0 0.0 Utah

BRCA1 20% Best

-- 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

-- 0.0 0.0 20% Worst

- 0.2

-- 0.5 0.1

-- -- 0.0

All Days

- 0.1 0.0

-- -- -- -- --

CANY1 20% Best

- 0.1

-- - 0.1 0.0

-- - 0.1 0.0 20% Worst

- 0.1

-- -- -- -- -- 0.0

All Days

- 0.1 0.0

-- 0.0 0.0

-- 0.0

CAPI1 20% Best

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.1 0.0

-- - 0.1

-- 20% Worst

-- - 0.2

-- -- 0.1

-- 0.0

All Days

- 0.1

- 0.1

-- 0.0

-- -- 0.0

ZICA1 20% Best 0.0

-- -- 0.0 0.0

-- 0.0 20% Worst

- 0.5

-- -- -- -- -- --

All Days

- 0.2

-- -- - 0.1 0.1

-- -- *( --) Indicates statistically insignificant trend (<85% confidence level). Annual averages and complete trend statistics for all significance levels are included for each site in state specific appendices

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5- 11

### Figure 5.1-3. Chart Depicting Annual Average Ammonium Sulfate Concentrations for the 20% Worst Days as Measured at the Colorado Plateau CIA IMPROVE Sites.

5.2 EMISSIONS DATA

Similar to Section 308 requirements, Section 309 states are required to address how total emissions state have changes over the past 5 years (51.30 9(d)(10)(i)(D))

. Summaries depicting differences between emission inventories are included for all WRAP states in Section 3, and for each state individually in Section 6.0, using 2002 and 2008 inventories to represent changes between the baseline and progress periods

. These inventories are described in detail in Section 3.2.

In addition to tracking these differences in inventories, for the initial SIPS, Section 309
states were required to identify “clean air corridors” and track emissions inside and outside of these corridors that may affect impairment on the cleanest days

. 63 

### In the se initial 309 SIPs, an area covering major portions of Nevada, southern Utah, eastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho was defined as a “ clean air corridor,” which was intended to represent a region from which clean air transport influences many of the clean air days at Grand Canyon National Park. As noted in Section 5.1, visibility has improved for the best days at all of the CIA sites on the Colorado Plateau, so emissions specific to the “clean air corridor” counties are not presented separately here.

63 Section 51.309(d) (3) states, for t reatment of clean

- air corridors , “t he plan must describe and provide for implementation of comprehensive emission tracking strategies for clean

- air corridors to ensure that the visibil ity does not degrade on the least

- impaired days at any of the 16 Class I areas. ”

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5- 12

### Also, under Section 309 of the RHR, the participating states (and c ounty) are required to identify sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 

### ) emissions milestones, where a milestone is a maximum level of annual emissions for a given year (51.309(d)(4)(i)). In general, SO 2 

### emissions are specified in Section 30 9 because they are more instructive to track than most other pollutants, as they ar e generally associated with a small number of large sources, and can be measured and tracked with more certainty than some of the other pollutants that impact visibility

. Separate work by the WRAP supports the submittal of annual regional SO 2 

### and emission milestone reports for the 309
states which compar e actual emissions estimates to the pre

- defined milestones

. 64 

### Figure 5.1-4 presents a plot from the most recent WRAP SO 2 

### milestone report , showing the 3

- year average of current emissions through 2010, which indicated that actual emissions were below SO 2 

### milestone. Additionally, SO 2 

### emissions specific to EGU sources are presented in Section 6 .0 on an annual basis showing changes in these sources between 1996 and 2010 for each WRAP state.

Figure 5.1- 4. Chart Depicting 3- Year Average Sum of SO 2 

### emissions for New Mexico, Utah

, and Wyoming and the city of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County as compared to the 309 SIP SO 2 

### Milestones.

64 A nnual r egional SO 2 e missions and m ilestone reports are located on the WRAP website at http://www.wrapair2.org/reghaze.aspx

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5- 13

### 6.0 STATE AND CLASS I AREA SUMMARIES

As described in Section 2.0, each state is required to submit progress reports at interim points between submittals of Regional Haze Rule (RHR) State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which assess progress towards visibility improvement goals in each state’s mandatory Federal Class I areas ( CIA s)

. Data summaries for each CIA in each Western Regional Air Partnership ( WRAP ) state , which address Regional Haze Rule ( RHR ) requirements for visibility
measurements and emissions inventories are provided in this section. These summaries are intended to provide individual states wi th the technical information they need to determine if current RHR implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to meet all e stablished reasonable progress goals , as defined in their respective initial RHR implementation plans

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6-1

### 6.9 NEW MEXICO

The goal of the RHR is to ensure that visibility on the 20% most impaired, or worst, days continu es to improve at each Federal Class I a rea (CIA), and that visibility on the 20% least impaired, or best, days does not get worse, as measured at representative Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring sites. New Mexico has 9 mandatory Federal CIAs, which are depicted i n Figure 6.9- 1 and listed in Table 6.9-1 , along with the associated IMPROVE monitor locations.

This section addresses differences between the 2000

- 2004 baseline and 2005 -2009 period, for both monitored data and emission inventory estimates. Monitored data are presented for the 20% most impaired, or worst, days and for the 20% least impaired, or best, days, as per Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements. Annual average trend statistics for the 2000-2009 10- year period are also presented here to support asses sments of changes in each monitored species that contributes to visibility impairment. Some of the highlights regarding these comparisons are listed below, and more detailed state specific information is provided in monitoring and emissions sub- sections th at follow

.

• 

### For both the best and worst days, the 5

- year average deciview metric decreased at all New Mexico Federal CIA IMPROVE sites.

• 

### Ammonium sulfate was the largest contributor to aerosol extinction for the worst days at all New Mexico sites except GI CL1

, where particulate organic mass was the largest contributor followed by ammonium sulfate

.

• 

### All sites showed an increase in 5

- year average ammonium sulfate

, but annual average trends for ammonium sulfate were eith er insignificant or decreasing. Many regional sites, including sites in Arizona

, Colorado, and New Mexico were affected by anomalously higher than average ammonium sulfate measurements in 2005 . Increases were also not consistent with emissions inventory comparisons

, where s tate

- wide emis sions totals and annual tracking of EGU emissions showed decreases in SO 2 

### , due mostly to decreases in point, area and mobile sources.

• 

### For the worst days, a ll sites except BOAP1 measured a decrease in 5- year average ammonium nitrate, and annual average ammo nium nitrate trends were either decreasing or insignificant at all sites

. At the BOAP1 site, the increase in the 5

- year average was influenced by an unusually high ammonium nitrate event measured in January 2007. State

- wide emissions inventory comparisons showed a net decrease in NO X 

### , due mostly to point and off

- road mobile sources. Annual EGU emissions totals also showed decreases in NO X


### .

• 

### Two sites, BAND1 and GICL1, showed increasing annual average trends in coarse mass for the worst days for coarse mass, and increases in the 5

- year average of coarse

mass

. Increasing annual average coarse mass trends were also observed at the nearby BALD1 and PEFO1 sites in eastern Arizona. Th e curre nt emissions inventory indicate s that coarse mass is due mainly to fugitive dust (including road dust ) and windblown dust

, and monitoring data shows that the highest coarse mass events were measured during the spring. Inventory comparisons show increases in these

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 209

### categories, but these in ventories are not directly comparable due to changes in methodology as described in Section 3.2.

**Bandelier NM**

**Bosque del Apache WA**

**Gila WA**

**Carlsbad Caverns N Guadalupe Mountains NP**  **Salt Creek WA San Pedro Parks WA** 

**White Mountain WA**

**Wheeler Peak WA**

**Pecos WA** BAND1

BOAP1

GICL1

GUMO1 SACR1 SAPE1

WHIT1 WHPE1



### Figure 6.9- 1. Map Depicting Federal CIAs and Representative IMPROVE Monitors in New Mexico

.

Table 6.9-1 New Mexico CIAs and Representative IMPROVE Monitors

Class I A rea Representative IMPROVE Site Latitude Longitude Elevation (m)

Bandelier NM BAND1 35.78

- 106.27 1988 Bosque del Apache WA BOAP1 33.87

- 106.85 1389
Gila WA GICL1 33.22

- 108.24 1775 Guadalupe Mountains NP GUMO1 * 31.83

- 104.81 1672 Carlsbad Caverns NP
Salt Creek WA SACR1 33.46

- 104.40 1072
San Pedro Parks WA SAPE1 36.01

- 106.84 2935
White Mountain WA WHIT1 33.47

- 105.53 2063
Wheeler Peak WA WHPE1 36.59

- 105.45 3366 Pecos WA *IMPROVE Site is located in Texas.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 210

### 6.9.1 Monitoring Data

This section addresses RHR regulatory requirements for monitored data as measured by IMPROVE monitors representing Federal CIAs in New Mexico. These summaries are supported by regiona l data presented in Section 4.0 and b y more detailed site specific tables and charts in Appendix I.

As described in Section 3.1, regional haze progress in Federal CIAs is tracked using calculations based on speciated aerosol mass as collected by IMPROVE monitors. The RHR calls for trackin g h aze in units of deciviews (dv), where the deciview metric was designed to be linearly associated with human perception of visibility. In a pristine atmosphere, the deciview metric is near zero, and a one deciview change is approximately equivalent to a 10% change in cumulative species extinction. To better understand visibility conditions, summaries here include both the deciview metric, and the apportionment of haze into extinction due to the various measured species in units of inverse megameters (Mm -1 

### ).

6.9.1.1 Current Conditions

This section addresses the regulatory question

, w hat are the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days (40 CFR 51.30 9(d )(

10 )(i) (C) )? RHR guidance specifies that 5

- year averages be calculated over successive 5

- year periods, i.e. 2000

- 2004, 2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. 99 

### Current visibility conditions are represented here as the most recent successive 5

- year average period available, or the 2005

- 2009 period average, although the most recent IMPROVE monitoring data currently available includes 2010 data.

Tables 6.9- 2 and 6.9-3 present the calculated deciview values for current conditions at each site, along with the percent contribution to extinction from each aerosol species for the 20% most impaired, or worst, and 20% least impaired, or best, days for each of the Federal CIA IMPROVE monitors in New Mexico . Figure 6.9-2 presents 5

- year average extinction for the
current progress period for both the 20% most impaired and 20% le ast impaired days

. Note that the percentages in the tables consider only the aerosol species which contribute to extinction

, while the charts also show Rayleigh , or scattering due to background gases in the atmosphere.

Specific observations for the current visibility conditions on the 20% most impaired days are as follows:

• 

### The largest contributors to aerosol extinction at New Mexico sites were ammonium sulfate and particulate organic mass.

• 

### The highest aerosol extinction (1 7.5 dv) was measured at the S ACR 1 site, where ammonium sulfate was the largest contributor to aerosol extinction, followed by coarse mass. The lowest aerosol extinction ( 9.1 dv) was measured at the WHPE 1 site.

99 EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule specifies that progress is tracked against the 2000

- 2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods, i. e. 2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. (S ee page 4

- 2 in the Guidance document .)

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 211

### Specific observations for the current visibility conditions on the 20% least i mpaired days are as follows:

• 

### The aerosol contribution to total extinction on the best days was less than Rayleigh, or the background scattering that would occur in clear air. Average extinction (including Rayleigh) ranged from 0.9 dv ( WHPE1 ) to 7.3 deciview (SA CR 1).

• 

### For all sites, ammonium sulfate was the largest contributor to the non -Rayleigh aerosol species of extinction

.

Table 6.9-2 New Mexico Class I A rea IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions 2005-2009 Progress Period, 20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciviews (dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extinction by Species (Excludes Rayleigh) (% of Mm -1 ) and Rank *

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic

Mass Elemental Carbon Soil Coarse Mass Sea Salt

BAND1 11.8 34% (1) 10% (4) 31% (2) 8% (5) 5% (6) 13% (3) 0% (7)

BOAP1 13.4 30% (1) 14% (4) 22% (2) 10% (5) 5% (6) 19% (3) 1% (7)

GICL1 12.5 27% (2) 3% (6) 42% (1) 10% (4) 5% (5) 12% (3) 0% (7)

GUMO1 15.9 45% (1) 7% (4) 14% (3) 4% (6) 6% (5) 24% (2) 0% (7)

SACR1 17.5 38% (1) 15% (3) 13% (4) 5% (5) 5% (6) 23% (2) 1% (7)

SAPE1 9.9 34% (1) 6% (6) 32% (2) 8% (4) 7% (5) 13% (3) 0% (7)

WHIT1 13.2 40% (1) 6% (4) 18% (3) 5% (6) 6% (5) 25% (2) 1% (7)

WHPE1 9.1 36% (1) 8% (5) 27% (2) 9% (4) 7% (6) 12% (3) 0% (7)

* Highest aerosol species contribution per site is highlighted in bold.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 212

### Table 6.9-3 New Mexico Class I Are a IMPROVE Sites Current Visibility Conditions 2005-2009 Progress Period, 20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciviews (dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extinction by Species (Excludes Rayleigh) (% of Mm -1 ) and Rank

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic

Mass Elemental Carbon Soil Coarse Mass Sea Salt

BAND1 4.2 34% (1) 9% (5) 28% (2) 13% (3) 4% (6) 13% (4) 0% (7)

BOAP1 5.8 33% (1) 8% (5) 22% (2) 12% (4) 5% (6) 18% (3) 2% (7)

GICL1 2.7 41% (1) 6% (5) 25% (2) 10% (4) 5% (6) 12% (3) 1% (7)

GUMO1 5.4 37% (1) 11% (4) 18% (3) 8% (5) 5% (6) 21% (2) 0% (7)

SACR1 7.3 31% (1) 12% (4) 18% (3) 8% (5) 5% (6) 25% (2) 1% (7)

SAPE1 1.0 47% (1) 12% (3) 18% (2) 8% (5) 5% (6) 10% (4) 1% (7)

WHIT1 3.3 36% (1) 8% (5) 22% (2) 9% (4) 5% (6) 20% (3) 0% (7)

WHPE1 0.9 43% (1) 9% (5) 23% (2) 10% (4) 4% (6) 12% (3) 0% (7)

* Highest aerosol species contribution per site is highlighted in bold.11.8dv4.213.45.812.52.715.95.417.57.39.91.013.23.39.10.9



### 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B

BAND1 BOAP1 GICL1 GUMO1 SACR1 SAPE1 WHIT1 WHPE1Extinction* (Mm-1) 

### First Progress Period (2005

- 2009) Average Extinction, 20% Worst (W) and Best (B) Days

Sea Salt

Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh

*Visibility impairment in deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars. 

### Figure 6.9- 2. Average Extinction for Current Progress Period (2005

- 2009) for the Worst (Most Impaired) and Best (Least Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 213

### 6.9.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions

This section addresses the regulatory question, w hat is the difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions ( 40 CFR 51.30 9(d )(

10 )(i) (C) )? Included here are comparisons between the 5

- year average basel ine conditions (2000 -2004) and current progress period extinction (2005-2009).

Table 6.9- 4 presents the differences between the 2000

- 2004 baseline period average extinction and the 2005

- 2009 progress period average for each site in New Mexico for the 20% most impaired days, and Table 6.9- 5 presents similar data for the least impaired days. Averages that increased are depicted in red text and averages that decreased in blue.

Figure 6.9- 3 presents the 5

- year average extinction for the baseline and current p rogress period averages for the worst days and Figure 6.9- 4 presents the differences in averages by aerosol species, with increases represented above the zero line and decreases below the zero line. Figures 6.9-5 and 6.9-6 present similar plots for the bes t days.

For the 20% most impaired days , the 5- year average deciview metric decreased at all New Mexico sites. Notable differences for individual species averages were as follows:

• 

### All sites except BOAP1 measured a decrease in ammonium nitrate. The largest decrease in ammonium nitrate (3.8 Mm -1 

### ) was measured at the SACR1 site.

• 

### All sites measured a decrease in particulate organic mass.

• 

### An i ncrease in 5

- year average ammonium sulfate was measured at all sites, with the largest increases (2.1 Mm -1 

### ) measured at the GUMO1 and SACR1 sites.

For the 20% least impaired days , the 5- year average deciview metric decreased at all sites. Notable differences for individual species averages on the 20% least impaired days were as follows:

• 

### Amm onium sulfate decreased at most sites, but increased slightly at the WHPE1 site

.

• 

### Ammonium nitrate, particulate organic mass and elemental carbon decreased at all sites.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 214

### Table 6.9-4 New Mexico Class I Ar ea IMPROVE Sites Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2004 Baseline Period to 2005-2009 Progress Period 20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Species (Mm - 1 )*

2000

- 04 Baseline Period 2005

- 09 Progress

Period Change in dv* Amm

. Sulfate Amm

. Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

BAND1 12.2 11.8

- 0.4 +1.5

- 0.1

- 6.6

- 1.0 +0.1 +0.3

- 0.2

BOAP1 13.8 13.4

- 0.4 +1.4 +1.0

- 2.2 +0.2

- 0.3

- 1.2 0.0

GICL1 13.1 12.5

- 0.6 +1.2

- 0.1

- 3.5

- 0.2 0.0 +0.8 0.0

GUMO1 17.2 15.9

- 1.3 +2.1

- 0.9

- 0.8 +0.2

- 1.7

- 6.1 0.0

SACR1 18.0 17.5

- 0.5 +2.1

- 3.8

- 1.1 0.0

- 1.0

- 0.1 +0.3

SAPE1 10.2 9.9

- 0.3 +1.0

- 0.4

- 1.4

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.2 0.0

WHIT1 13.7 13.2

- 0.5 +1.4

- 1.2

- 3.6

- 0.4

- 0.1 +0.8 +0.1

WHPE1 10.4 9.1

- 1.3 +0.9

- 0.2

- 3.6

- 0.6

- 0.6

- 0.6

- 0.4 *Change is calculated as progress period average minus baseline period average. Values in red indicate i ncreases in extinction and values in blue indicate decre ases.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 215

### Table 6.9-5 New Mexico Class I A rea IMPROVE Sites Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2004 Baseline Period to 2005-2009 Progress Period 20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Species (Mm - 1 )*
2000

- 2004 Baseline Period 2005

- 2009 Progress

Period Change in dv* Amm

. Sulfate Amm

. Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

BAND1 5.0 4.2

- 0.8

- 0.3

- 0.2

- 0.4

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.2 0.0

BOAP1 6.3 5.8

- 0.5

- 0.2

- 0.2

- 0.4

- 0.2 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

GICL1 3.3 2.7

- 0.6

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.5

- 0.2 0.0 +0.1 0.0

GUMO1 5.9 5.4

- 0.5

- 0.3

- 0.3

- 0.1 0.0 0.0

- 0.3 0.0

SACR1 7.8 7.3

- 0.5 0.0

- 0.7

- 0.3

- 0.2

- 0.2 +0.2 0.0

SAPE1 1.5 1.0

- 0.5

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.2

- 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

WHIT1 3.6 3.3

- 0.3

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.2

- 0.1 +0.1 +0.1 0.0

WHPE1 1.2 0.9

- 0.3 +0.1

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.1 0.0

- 0.1 0.0 *Change is calculated as progress period average minus baseline period average. Values in red indicate i ncreases in extinction and values in blue indicate decre ases.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 21612.2dv11.813.813.413.112.517.215.918.017.510.29.913.713.210.49.1



### 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80BPBPBPBPBPBPBPBP
BAND1 BOAP1 GICL1 GUMO1 SACR1 SAPE1 WHIT1 WHPE1Extinction* (Mm-1) 

### Baseline (B) and First Progress (P) Period Average Extinction, 20% Worst Days

Sea Salt

Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh

*Visibility impairment in deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars. 

### Figure 6.9- 3. Average Extinction for Baseline and Progress Period Extinction for Worst (Most Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Ar ea IMPROVE Sites.

Δ dv =

- 0.4 - 0.4

- 0.6 - 1.3

- 0.5

- 0.3 - 0.5

- 1.3



### -12 -10

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

BAND1 BOAP1 GICL1 GUMO1 SACR1 SAPE1 WHIT1 WHPE1Change in Extinction* (Mm-1) 

## First Progress Period

- Baseline Period Change in Extinction, 20% Worst Days

Sea Salt

Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Sulfate

*Change in visibility impairment in deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars. 

### Figure 6.9- 4. Difference between Average Extinction for Current Progress Period (2005-2009) and Baseline Period (2000- 2004) for the Worst ( Most Impaired ) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 21 75.0dv4.26.35.83.32.75.95.47.87.31.51.03.63.31.20.9



### 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

B P B P B P B P B P B P B P B P

BAND1 BOAP1 GICL1 GUMO1 SACR1 SAPE1 WHIT1 WHPE1Extinction* (Mm-1) 

### Baseline (B) and First Progress (P) Period Average Extinction, 20% Best Days

Sea Salt

Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh

*Visibility impairment in deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars. 

### Figure 6.9-5. Average Extinction for Baseline and Progress Period E xtinction for Best ( Least Impaired ) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.

Δ dv =

- 0.8 - 0.5

- 0.6

- 0.5 - 0.5

- 0.5 - 0.3

- 0.3



### -1.5

-1 -0.5 0 0.5

1

BAND1 BOAP1 GICL1 GUMO1 SACR1 SAPE1 WHIT1 WHPE1Change in Extinction (Mm-1) 

## First Progress Period

- Baseline Period Change in Extinction, 20% Best Days

Sea Salt

Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium Sulfate

*Change in visibility impairment in deciviews (dv) is shown above respective bars. 

### Figure 6.9-6. Difference between Average Extinction for Current Progress Period (2005-2009) and Baseline Period (2000- 2004) for the Best ( Least Impaired ) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 218

### 6.9.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment

This section addresses the regulatory question, what is the change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5 years ( 40 CFR 51.309(d )(

10 )(i) (C) )? Included here are changes in visibility impairment as characterized by annual average trend statistics, and some general observations regarding local and regional events and outliers on a daily and annual basis that affected the current 5

- year progress period. The regulatory requirement asks for a description of changes over the past 5

- year period, but trend analysis is better suited to longer periods of time, so trends for the entire 10

- year planning period are presented here.

Trend statistics for the years 2000 -2009 for each species at each site in New Mexico are summarized in Table 6.9 -6, and regional trends were presented earlier in Section 4.1.1. 100 

### Only trends for aerosol species trends with p

- value statistic s less than 0.15 (85% confidence level) are presented in the table here , with increasing slopes in red and decreasing slopes in blue. 101 

### In some cases, trends may show decreasing tendencies while the difference between the 5

- year averages do not (or vice versa), as discussed in Section 3.1.2.2. In these cases, the 5

- year average for the best and worst days is the important metric for RHR regulatory purposes, but trend statistics may be of value to understand and address visibility impairment issues for planning
purposes.

For each site, a more comprehensive list of all trends for all species, including the associated p

- values, is provided in Appendix I. Additionally, th is appendix includes plots depicting 5

- year, annual, monthly and daily average extinction for each site. Thes e plots are intended to provide a fairly comprehensive compilation of reference information for individual states to investigate local and regional events and outliers that may have influenced changes in visibility impairment as tracked using the 5

- year de ciview metrics. Note that similar summary products are also available from the WRAP TSS website ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ). Some general observations regarding changes in visibility impairmen t at sites in New Mexico are as follows:

• 

### The largest decrease in 5

- year averages was measured for particulate organic mass at the BAND1 site , where a high event in May 2000 influenced the baseline period
average.

• 

### For ammonium nitrate, decreases in 5

- year averages on the worst days were measured at all sites except BOAP1 , which was influenced by an unusually high ammonium nitrate event measured in January 2007 . Additionally, all sites measured either

100 Annual trends were calculated for the years 2000

- 2009, with a trend defined as the slope derived using Theil statistics. Trends derived from Theil statistics are useful in analyzing changes in air quality data because these statistics can show the overall tendency of measurements over long periods of time, while minimizing the effects of
year

- to

- year fluctuations which are common in air quality data

. Theil statistics are also used in EPA’s National Air EPA’s National Air Quality Trends Reports ( http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ ) and the IMPROVE program trend reports ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/improve_reports.htm )
101 The significance of the trend is represented with p

- values calculated using Mann

- Kendall trend statistics. Determining a significance level helps to distinguish random variability in data from a real tendency to increase or decrease over time, where lower p

- values indicate higher confidence levels in the computed slopes.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 219

### insignificant or decreasing annual average ammonium nitr ate trends. The largest decrease was measured for the SACR1 site, but the year 2007 was incomplete for this site and not included in the 5

- year average.

• 

### For ammonium sulfate, increases in the 5

- year averages were recorded for the worst days at all sites, but no increasing annual average trends were measured and

s tatistically significant decreasing annual average trends were measured at the BAND 1, GUMO1, and SACR1 sites. High 5- year averages for the worst days at these sites were influenced by anomalously high ammonium sulfate measurements in 2005.

• 

### Two sites, BAND1 and GICL1, showed increasing trends on the worst days for coarse mass, and increases in the 5

- year average for coarse mass. Highest coarse mass events were measured during the spring.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 220

### Table 6.9-6 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites

Change in Aerosol Extinction by Species 2000-2009 Annual Average Trends

Site Group Annual Trend* (Mm -1 /year )

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic

Mass Elemental Carbon Soil Coarse Mass Sea Salt

BAND1 20% Best

- 0.1 0.0

-- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20% Worst

-- -- - 0.5

- 0.1

-- 0.1 0.0

All Days

- 0.1 0.0

- 0.2

- 0.1

-- -- --

BOAP1 20% Best

- 0.1 0.0

- 0.1

- 0.1

-- - 0.1

-- 20% Worst

-- -- - 0.6

-- -- -- --

All Days

-- -- - 0.2

- 0.1

-- -- --

GICL1 20% Best

- 0.1 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

-- -- 0.0 20% Worst

-- -- - 1.0

-- -- 0.2 0.0

All Days

-- 0.0

- 0.3

- 0.1

-- 0.0 0.0

GUMO1 20% Best

- 0.1 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

-- 0.0

-- 20% Worst

-- - 0.2

- 0.2

-- -- - 0.8

--

All Days

- 0.2

- 0.1

- 0.1

-- -- - 0.3

--

SACR1 20% Best

- 0.1

- 0.2

- 0.1 0.0

-- -- -- 20% Worst

- 0.5

- 0.8

- 0.3

-- -- -- 0.0

All Days

- 0.2

- 0.3

-- -- -- -- 0.0

SAPE1 20% Best

-- 0.0 0.0 0.0

-- -- -- 20% Worst

-- - 0.1

-- -- -- -- --

All Days

-- 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

-- 0.0 0.0

WHIT1 20% Best

-- -- 0.0 0.0

-- -- 0.0 20% Worst

-- - 0.3

- 0.6

- 0.2

-- -- 0.0

All Days

-- - 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.1

-- -- --

WHPE1 20% Best

-- 0.0

-- 0.0

-- 0.0 0.0 20% Worst

-- -- - 0.9

- 0.1

- 0.1

-- --

All Days

-- 0.0

- 0.3

- 0.1 0.0

- 0.1 0.0 *( --) Indicates statistically insignificant trend (<85% confidence level). Annual averages and complete trend statistics for all significance levels are included for each site in Appendix I.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 221

### 6.9.2 Emissions Data

Included here are summaries depicting differences between two emission inventory years that are used to represent the 5

- year baseline and current progress periods. The baseline period is represented using a 2002 inventory developed by the WRAP for use in the initial WRAP st ate SIPs, and the progress period is represented by a 2008 inventory which leverages recent WRAP inventory work for modeling efforts, as referenced in Section 3.2.1

. For reference, Table 6.9

- 7 lists the major emitted pollutants inventoried, the related aer osol species, some of the major sources for each pollutant , and some notes regarding implications of these pollutants. Differences between these baseline and progress period inventories

, and a separate summary of annual emissions from electrical generating units (EGUs), are presented in this section

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 222

### Table 6.9-7 New Mexico Pollutants, Aerosol Species , and Major Sources

Emitted Pollutant Related Aerosol Major Sources Notes

Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Ammonium Sulfate Point Sources; On- and Off

Road Mobile Sources SO 2 emissions are generally associated with anthropogenic sources such as coal

- burning power plants, other industrial sources such and refineries and cement plants, and both on - and off

- road diesel engines. Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X ) Ammonium Nitrate On

- a nd Off

Road Mobile Sources; Point Sources; Area Sources NO X emissions are generally associated with anthropogenic sources. Common sources include virtually all combustion activities, especially those involving cars, trucks, power plants, and other industrial processes.

Ammonia (NH 3 ) Ammonium Sulfate and Ammonium Nitrate Area Sources; On

- Road Mobile Sources Gaseous NH 3 has implications in particle formation because it can form particulate ammonium. Ammonium is not directly measured by the IMPROVE program, but affects formation potential of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate. All measured nitrate and sulfate is assumed to be associated with ammonium for IMPROVE reporting purposes. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Particulate Organic Mass (POM) Biogenic Emissions; Vehicle Emissions; Area Sources VOCs are gaseous emissions of carbon compounds, which are often converted to POM through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Estimates for biogenic emissions of VOCs have undergone significant updates since 2002, so changes reported here are more refle ctive of methodology changes than actual changes in emissions (see Section 3.2.1). Primary Organic Aerosol (POA) POM Wildfires ; Area Sources POA represents organic aerosols that are emitted directly as particles, as opposed to gases. Wildfires in the west generally dominate POA emissions, and large wildfire events are generally sporadic and highly variable from year

- to

- year. Elemental Carbon (EC) EC Wildfires ; On - a nd Off

Road Mobile Sources Large EC events are often associated with large POM events during wildfires. Other sources include both on - and off

- road diesel engines.

Fine soil Soil Windblown Dust; Fugitive Dust; Road Dust; Area Sources Fine soil is reported here as the crustal or soil components of PM 2.5 .

Coarse Mass (PMC) Coarse Mass Windblown Dust; Fugitive Dust Coarse mass is reported by the IMPROVE Network as the difference between PM 10 and PM 2.5 mass measurements. Coarse mass is not separated by species in the same way that PM 2.5 is speciated, but these measurements are generally associated with crustal components. Similar to crustal PM 2.5 , natural windblown dust is often the larges t contributor to PMC.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 223

### 6.9.2.1 Changes in Emissions

This section addresses the regulatory question

, what is the change over the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State ( 40 CFR 51.30 9(d )(

10 )(i) (D) )? For these summaries, emissions during the baseline years are represented using a 2002 inventory, which was developed with suppor t from the WRAP for use in the original RHR SIP strategy development (termed plan02d). Differences between inventories are represented as the difference between the 2002 inventory, and a 2008 inventory which leverages recent inventory development work performed by the WRAP for the WestJumpAQMS a nd DEASCO 3 

### modeling projects (termed WestJump2008). Note that the comparisons of differences between inventories does not necessarily reflect a change in emission s, as a number of methodology changes and enhancements have occurred between development of the individual inventories, as referenced in Section 3.2.1 . Inventories for all major visibility impairing pollutants are presented for major source categories, and categorized as either anthropogenic or natural emissions. State

- wide inventories totals and differences are presented here, and inventory totals on a county level basis are available on the WRAP Technical Support System website ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).

Table 6.9-8 and Figure 6.9 -7 present the differences between the 2002 and 2008 sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) inventories by source category. Tables 6.9

- 9 and Figure 6.9 -8 present data for oxides of nitrogen (NO X 

### ), and subsequent tables and figures (Tables 6.9

- 10 through 6.9

- 15 and Figures 6.9

- 9 through 6.9 -14) present data for ammonia (NH 3 

### ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primary organic aerosol (POA), elem ental carbon (EC), fine soil, and coarse mass

. General observations regarding emissions inventory comparisons are listed below.

• 

### Largest differences for point source inventories were decreases in SO 2 

### , NO X 

### , and VOCs

. Note that this is consistent with the summary of annual EGU emissions a s included in Section 6. 9 .2. 2, showing decreases in SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions.

• 

### Area source inventories showed decrease s in SO 2 

### and VOCs and increases in NO X 

### and NH 3 

### . These changes may be due to a combination of population changes and differences in methodologies used to estimate these emissions, as referenced in Section 3.2.1

. One methodology change was the reclassification of some off -road mobile sources (such as some types of marine vessels and locomotives) into the area source category in 2008, which may have contributed to increases in area source inventory totals, but decreases in off- road mobile totals.

• 

### On

- road mobile source inventory comparisons showed decreases in SO 2 

### , NH 3 

### , and VOCs, but increases in most other parameters, including NO X


### .

• 

### Off

- road mobile so urce inventories showed decreases in NO X 

### , SO 2 

### , VOCs, and EC, and slight increases in fine soil and coarse mass, which was consistent with most contiguous WRAP states. These differences were likely due to a combination of actual changes in source contributions and methodology differences, as referenced in Section 3.2.1

. As noted previously, one major methodology difference was the reclassification of some off

- road mobile sources (such as some types of marine vessels and locomotives) into the area source category in 2008, which may have

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 224

### contributed to decreases in the off

- road inventory totals, but increases in area source totals.

• 

### Inventory comparison results for area oil and gas showed decreases in NO X 

### and VOCs, but note that inventory methodologies for these sources may have evolved substantially between the baseline and 2008 inventories as referenced in Section 3.2.1.

• 

### For all parameters, especially POAs, VOCs

, and EC, natural fire emission inventory estimates decreased

, and anthropogenic fire inventories increased . Note that these differences are not necessarily reflective of changes in monitored data, as the baseline period is represented by an average of 2000

- 2004 fire emissions, and the progress period is represented o nly by the fires that occurred in 2008, as referenced in Section 3.2.1.

• 

### Comparisons between VOC inventories showed large decreases in biogenic emissions, which was consistent with other contiguous WRAP states . Estimates for biogenic emissions of VOCs have undergone significant updates since 2002, so changes reported here are more reflective of methodology changes than actual changes in emissions, as referenced in Section 3.2.1

.

• 

### Fine soil and coarse mass increa sed for the windblown dust inventory comparisons and the combined fugitive/road dust inventories. Large variability in changes in wind blown dust was observed for the contiguous WRAP states, which was likely due in large part to enhancements in dust inventory methodology, as referenced in Section 3.2.1, rather than changes in actual emissions.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 225

### Table 6.9-8 New Mexico Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category

Source Category Sulfur Dioxide Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 37,436 24,681

- 12,754 Area 5,115 347

- 4,768 On

- Road Mobile 1,950 498

- 1,452 Off

- Road Mobile 3,525 167

- 3,358 Area Oil and Gas 250 1,076 826 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 78 622 544 Total Anthropogenic 48,354 27,392

- 20,962 (

- 43%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 2,313 154

- 2,159 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 2,313 154

- 2,159 (

- 93%) All Sources Total Emissions 50,667 27,545

- 23,121 (

- 46%)



### Figure 6.9- 7. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Sulfur Dioxide by Source Category for New Mexico

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 226

### Table 6.9-9 New Mexico Oxides of Ni trogen Emissions by Category

Source Category Oxides of Nitr ogen Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 100,387 62,502

- 37,885 Area 25,130 27,754 2,624 On

- Road Mobile 67,835 72,074 4,239 Off

- Road Mobile 45,311 8,566

- 36,745 Area Oil and Gas 56,210 35,838

- 20,372 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 394 4,397 4,004 Total Anthropogenic 295,266 211,132

- 84,135 (

- 28%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 8,570 1,085

- 7,485 Biogenic 42,139 15,983

- 26,156 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 50,708 17,068

- 33,641 (

- 66%) All Sources Total Emissions 345,974 228,199

- 117,775 (

- 34%)



### Figure 6.9-8. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Oxides of Nitrog en by Source Category for New Mexico

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 227

### Table 6.9-10 New Mexico Ammonia Emissions by Category

Source Category Ammonia Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 75 274 199 Area 29,959 39,399 9,440 On

- Road Mobile 2,132 1,090

- 1,042 Off

- Road Mobile 26 10

- 16 Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fir e 75 3,067 2,992 Total Anthropogenic 32,266 43,840 11,573 ( 3 6%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 1,875 754

- 1,120 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 1,875 754

- 1,120 (

- 60%) All Sources Total Emissions 34,141 44,594 10 , 453 ( 31 %)



### Figure 6.9-9. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Ammonia by Source Category for New Mexico

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 228

### Table 6.9-11 New Mexico Volatile Organic Compound Emissions by Category

Source Category Volatile Organic Compound Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point 17,574 9,855

- 7,719 Area 49,010 37,395

- 11,614 On

- Road Mobile 38,768 29,629

- 9,138 Off

- Road Mobile 13,850 11,383

- 2,467 Area Oil and Gas 224,268 174,990

- 49,278 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 608 5,540 4,932 Total Anthropogenic 344,077 268,792

- 75,284 (

- 22%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 18,846 1,107

- 17,740 Biogenic 1,016,487 468,258

- 548,229 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 1,035,333 469,365

- 565,968 (

- 55%) All Sources Total Emissions 1,379,410 734,166

- 645,244 (

- 47%)



### Figure 6.9- 10

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions I nventory Totals, for Volatile Organic Compounds by Source Category for New Mexico

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 229

### Table 6.9-12 New Mexico Primary Organic Aerosol Emissions by Category

Source Category Primary Organic Aerosol Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 200 8 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point * 978 277

- 701 Area 2,529 2,876 346 On

- Road Mobile 653 1,506 852 Off

- Road Mobile 563 349

- 213 Area Oil and Gas 0 31 31 Fugitive and Road Dust 474 3,819 3,345 Anthropogenic Fire 682 8,821 8,139 Total Anthropogenic 5,879 17,678 11,799 (>100%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 16,272 1,727

- 14,545 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 16,272 1,727

- 14,545 (

- 89%) All Sources Total Emissions 22,151 19,406

- 2,745 (

- 12%)

* Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).



### Figure 6.9- 11

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Primary Organic Aerosol by Source Category for New Mexico

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 230

### Table 6.9-13 New Mexico Elemental Carbon Emissions by Category

Source Category Elemental Carbon Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point * 13 71 59 Area 301 945 644 On

- Road Mobile 756 2,999 2,243 Off

- Road Mobile 1,526 457

- 1,070 Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 34 74 40 Anthropogenic Fire 123 1,432 1,309 Total Anthropogenic 2,753 5,979 3,226 (>100%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 3,293 417

- 2,876 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0 Total Natural 3,293 417

- 2,876 (

- 87%) All Sources Total Emissions 6,046 6,397 351 (6%)

* Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).



### Figure 6.9- 12

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Elemental Carbon by Source Category for New Mexico

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 231

### Table 6.9-14 New Mexico Fine Soil Emissions by Category

Source Category Fine Soil Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 200 8 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point * 1,180 535

- 645 Area 2,821 1,485

- 1,336 On

- Road Mobile 429 258

- 172 Off

- Road Mobile 0 25 25 Area Oil and Gas 0 540 540 Fugitive and Road Dust 8,056 55,506 47,451 Anthropogenic Fire 87 3,239 3,152 Total Anthropogenic 12,573 61,587 49,014 (>100%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 1,223 646

- 577 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 16,399 28,151 11,752 Total Natural 17,622 28,798 11,176 (63%) All Sources Total Emissions 30,194 87,702 57,507 (>100%)

* Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).



### Figure 6.9- 13

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Fine Soil by Source Category for New Mexico

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 232

### Table 6.9-15 New Mexico Coarse Mass Emissions by Category

Source Category Coarse Mass Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02 d ) 2008 (WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources Point * 2,286 1,168

- 1,117 Area 695 506

- 189 On

- Road Mobile 403 2,994 2,590 Off

- Road Mobile 0 41 41 Area Oil and Gas 0 12 12 Fugitive and Road Dust 62,607 504,915 442,308 Anthropogenic Fire 105 1,691 1,586 Total Anthropogenic 66,096 511,327 445,230 (>100%) Natural Sources Natural Fire 5,400 330

- 5,070 Biogenic 0 0 0 Wind Blown Dust 147,589 253,362 105,773 Total Natural 152,989 253,692 100,703 (66%) All Sources Total Emissions 219,086 765,019 545,933 (>100%)

* Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).



### Figure 6.9- 14

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Coarse Mass by Source Category for New Mexico

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 233

### 6.9.2.2 EGU Summary

As described in previous sections, differences between the baseline and progress period inventories presented here do not necessarily represent changes in actual emissions because numerous updates in inventory methodologies have occurred between the development of the separate inventories. Also, the 2002 baseline and 2008 progress period inventories represent only annual snapshots of emissions estimates , which may not be representative of entire 5

- year monitoring periods compared. To better account for year

- to

- year changes in emissions, annual emission totals for New Mexico electrical generating units (EGU) are presented here. EGU emissions are some of the more consistently reported emissions, as tracked in EPA’s Air Markets Program Database for permitted Title V facilities in the state ( http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ ) . RHR implementation plans are required to pay specific attention to certain major stationary sources, including EGUs, built between 1962 and 1977.

Figu re 6.9-17 presents a sum of annual NO X 

### and SO 2 

### emissions as reported for New Mexico EGU sources between 1996 and 2010

. While these types of facilities are targeted for controls in state regional haze SIPs, it should be noted that many of the controls planned for EGUs in the WRAP states had not taken place yet in 2010, while other controls separate from the RHR may have been implemented. The chart shows periods of decline for both SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions, with a steeper decline in SO 2


### .

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010 

### Annual EGU Emissions New Mexico 1996

- 2010

SO2 (TPY)
NOX (TPY)



### Figure 6.9- 17

. Sum of EG U Emissions of SO 2 

### and NO X 

### reported between 1996 and 2010 for New Mexico

.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6- 234

## 2011 Regional SO 2 

## Emissions and Milestone Report

February 20, 2013

Wyoming

Brian Bohlmann, P.E. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division Herschler Building, 2

- East 122 West 25th Street Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 Phone: 307

- 777

- 6993 Fax: 307

- 777

- 7682 brian.bohlmann@wyo.gov Utah

Colleen Delaney Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Air Quality 195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, UT 84114

- 4820 Phone: 801

- 536

- 4 24 8 Fax: 801

- 536

- 0085 cdelaney@utah.gov

New Mexico

Rhonda Payne New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau 1301 Siler Rd., Bl dg. B Santa Fe, NM 8750 7 Phone: 505

- 476

- 4329 Fax: 505

- 476

- 4375 rhonda.payne@state.nm.us A lbuquerque

- Bernalillo County

Neal Butt City of Albuquerque Environmental Health/Air Quality Division P.O. Box 1293 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Phone: 505

- 768

- 2660 Fax: 505

- 768

- 2617 Nbutt@cabq.gov

### Executive Summary February 20, 2013

ES -1 Based on the adjusted milestone and emissions data, the average of 2009, 2010, and 2011 emissions is about 35% below the 2011 three

- state regional milestone. 

## 2011 Regional SO 2 

## Emissions and Milestone Report

Executive Summary

Under Section 309 of the Federal Regional Haze Rule, nine western states and tribes within those states have the option of submitting plans to reduce regional haze emissions that impair visibility at 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Five states -- Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

-- and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County initially exercised this option by submitting plans to EPA by December 31, 2003. Oregon elected to cease participation in the program in 2006 and Arizona elected to cease participation in 2010. The tribes were not subject to the deadline and still can opt into the program at any time. Under the Section 309 plans, the three participating states and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County have tracked the emissions of the applicable stationary sources as part of the pre-trigger portion of the SO 2 

### Milestone and Backstop Trading Program. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is assisting these states and city with the implementation and management of the regional emission reduction program. As used in this document, “ Section 309 states ” means the states of New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County.

As part of this program, the Section 309 states must submit an annual Regional Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### ) Emissions and Milestone Report that compares emissions to milestones. A milestone is a maximum level of annual emissions for a given year. The first report was submitted in 2004 for the calendar year 2003.

The milestone for 2011 is 200,722

. The 2009

, 2010 , and 2011 adjusted emissions from the Section 309 states were averaged, and this average was compared to the 201 1 milestone to determine whether the milestone was met. The adjustments to reported emissions were required to allow the basis of current emission estimates to be comparable to the emissions monitoring or calculation method used in the most recent base year inventory (2006).

The Section 309 states reported 117,474 tons of SO 2 

### emissions for the calendar year 201 1

. The total emissions increased to 117,976 tons of SO 2 

### after making adjustments to account for changes in monitoring and calculation methods. The adjustments result in an additional 502 tons of SO 2 

### emissions. The adjusted emissions values for 200 9 and 20 10 were 143,704 tons and 131,124 tons, respectively. The average of 200 9

, 20 10

, and 2011 adjusted emissions is 1 30,935 tons.

Based on this average annual emissions estimate, the Section 309 states determined that emissions in 201 1 are below the regional SO 2 

### milestone for 201 1 . The plans contain provisions to adjust the milestones to account for enforcement actions (to reduce the milestones where an enforcement action identified that emissions in the baseline period were greater than allowable

### Executive Summary February 20, 2013

ES -2 emissions). Based on emissions data received from the states and plan requirements regarding adjustments to the milestones, no enforcement action adjustment is required.

The plans also require that the annual report identify changes in the source population from year to year and significant changes in a source's emissions from year to year. The significant emission changes from 20 10 to 201 1 are included in Section 6 of this report. A list of facilities added to or removed from the list of subject sources included in the original base year inventories is included in Appendix B.

Table ES-1 Overview of 201 1 Regional Milestones and Emissions for Section 309 Participating States*

201 1 Sulfur Dioxide Milestones

Regional 201 1 Milestone* *

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 200,722 tons Adjusted 20 11 Milestone

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 200,722 tons



### 201 1 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

Reported 201 1 Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 117,474 tons Adjustments** * Emission Monitoring and Calculation Methods

................................ ................................ .............. 502 tons Adjusted 201 1 Emissions (rounded number)

................................ ................................ .......................... 117,976 tons 

### Average Sulfur Dioxide Emissions ( 2009 , 2010 , &2011 )

Adjusted 201 1 Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 117,976 tons Adjusted 20 10 Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 131,124 tons Adjusted 200 9 Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 143704 tons Average of, 200 9

, 20 10 , & 2011 Adjusted Emissions

................................ ................................ ........... 130,935 tons 

### Comparison of Emissions to Milestone

Average of 200 9

, 20 10 , & 20 1 1 Adjusted Emissions

................................ ................................ ............. 130,935 tons Adjusted Three

- State 20 10 Milestone

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 200,722 tons Difference (Negative Value = Emissions < Milestone)

................................ ................................ .......... - 69,788 tons 200 9

– 20 1 1 Emissions Average as Percent of 20 1 1 Milestone

................................ ................................ ........... 65 %

* Section 309 participating states means the states of New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming and AlbuquerqueBernalillo County. ** See the Regional Milestones section of each state's 309 plan.

** * See the Annual Emissions Report section of each state's 309 plan.

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

1 

## 2011 Regional SO 2 

## Emissions and Milestone Report

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

Under Section 309 of the Federal Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR Part 51), nine western
states and the tribes within those states have the option of submitting plans to reduce regional haze emissions that impair visibility at 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Five states

-- Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

-- and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County exercised this option by submitting plans to EPA by December 1, 2003. In October 2006, when EPA modified Section 309, Oregon elected to cease participation in the SO 2 

### Milestone and Backstop Trading Program by not resubmitting a Section 309 State Implementation Plan (SIP). In 2010, Arizona elected to cease participation in the Program. The tribes were not subject to this deadline and still can opt into the program at any time.

Under the Section 309 SIPs, these three states and one city have been tracking emissions under the pre-trigger requirements of the SO 2 

### Milestone and Backstop Trading Program since 2003. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is assisting these states with the implementation and management of this regional emission reduction program.

Under the milestone phase of the program, the Section 309 states have established annual SO 2 

### emissions targets (from 2003 to 2018). These voluntary emissions reduction targets represent reasonable progress in reducing the emissions that contribute to regional haze. If the participating sources fail to meet the milestones through this voluntary program, then the states will trigger the backstop trading program and implement a regulatory emissions cap for the states, allocate emissions allowances (or credits) to the affected sources based on the emissions cap, and require the sources to hold sufficient allowances to cover their emissions each year.

This report is the ninth annual report for the milestone phase of this program. The report provides background on regional haze and the Section 309 program, the milestones established under the program, and the emissions reported for 2011 . Based on the first nine years, the voluntary milestone phase of the program is working and emissions are well below the target levels.

What is Regional Haze ?

Regional haze is air pollution that is transported long distances and reduces visibility in national parks and wilderness areas across the country. Over the years, this haze has reduced the visual range from 145 kilometers (90 miles) to 24

– 50 kilometers (15

– 31 miles) in the East, and from 225 kilometers (140 miles) to 56

– 145 kilometers (35

– 90 miles) in the West. The pollutants that create this haze are sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust. Human-caused haze sources include industry, motor vehicles, agricultural and forestry burning, and windblown dust from roads and farming practices.

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

2 What U.S. EPA Requirements Apply ?

In 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations to address regional haze in 156 national parks and wilderness areas across the country. These regulations were published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35714). The goal of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) is to eliminate human-caused visibility impairment in national parks and wilderness areas across the country. It contains strategies to improve visibility over the next 60 years, and requires states to adopt implementation plans.

EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 40 CFR 51.308 (Section 308), and requires most states to develop long-term strategies out to the year 2064. These strategies must be shown to make "reasonable progress" in improving visibility in Class I areas inside the state and in neighboring jurisdictions. The other is 40 CFR 51.309 (Section 309), and is an option for nine states

-- Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

-- and the 211 tribes located within these states to adopt regional haze strategies for the period from 2003 to 2018. These strategies are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Adopting these strategies constitutes reasonable progress until 2018. These same strategies can also be used by the nine western states and tribes to protect the other Class I areas within their own jurisdictions.

EPA revised the RHR on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39104), and again on October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60612) in response to two legal challenges. The October 13, 2006, revisions modified Section 309 to provide a methodology consistent with the Court's decision for evaluating the equivalence of alternatives to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), such as the alternative Section 309 strategy based on the GCVTC recommendations.

How Have the WRAP States Responded to EPA Requirements ?

Of the nine states (and tribes within those states) that have the option under Section 309 of participating in a regional strategy to reduce SO 2 

### emissions, five states had originally submitted Section 309 SIPs to EPA. These states were Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. In addition, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County had also submitted a Section 309 SIP. EPA, however, never approved these SIPs due to the legal challenges.

Oregon and Arizona have opted out of submitting a revised Section 309 SIP under the modified RHR, which leaves three participating states and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. To date, no tribes have opted to participate under Section 309 and the other four states of the original nine opted to submit SIPs under Section 308 of the RHR.

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

3 The following summarizes a few key elements of the Section 309 process for the participating Section 309 states:

1. Section 309(d)(4)(i) requires SO 2 

### milestones in the SIP and includes provisions for making adjustments to these milestones if necessary. The milestones must provide for steady and continuing emission reductions through 2018 and greater reasonable progress than BART.

2. Section 309(d)(4)(iii) requires monitoring and reporting of stationary source SO 2 

### emissions in order to ensure the SO 2 

### milestones are met. The SIP must commit to reporting to the WRAP as well as to EPA.

3. Section 309(d)(4)(iv) requires that a SIP contain criteria and procedures for activating the trading program within five years if an annual milestone is exceeded. A Section 309 SIP also must provide assessments in 2013 and 2018.

This report responds to Item 2, above, and provides the annual report that compares the 201 1 emissions against the milestones for the states and city that have submitted Section 309 SIPs to EPA.

What Elements Must the Regional SO 2 

### Emissions and Milestone Report Contain ?

To facilitate compliance with the Section 309 SIPs, the WRAP has committed to compiling a regional report on emissions for each year. In accordance with the SIPs, the WRAP will compile the individual state emission reports into a summary report that includes:

1. Reported regional SO 2 

### emissions (tons/year).

2. Adjustments to account for:

● Changes in emissions monitoring or calculation methods; or

● Enforcement actions or settlement agreements as a result of enforcement actions.

3. As applicable, average adjusted emissions for the last three years (which are compared to the regional milestone). Since this is the ninth report, 2009

, 2010 , and 2011 emissions are averaged.

How Is Compliance with the SO 2 

### Milestone Determined ?

While the WRAP assists with the preparation of this report, each Section 309 state reviews the information in the report, and proposes a draft determination that the regional SO 2 

### milestone has either been met or exceeded. The draft determination is then submitted for public review and comment during the first part of 201 3 , culminating in a final report sent to EPA by March 31, 201 3

.

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

4 1.2 Report Organization

This report presents the regional SO 2 

### emissions and milestone information required by the 309 SIPs for the Section 309 states. The report is divided into the following sections, including two appendices:

● Reported SO 2 

### Emissions in 20 11 ;

● Monitoring Methodology Emissions Adjustments;

● Three-Year Average Emissions;

● Enforcement Milestone Adjustments;

● Quality Assurance (Including Source Change Information);

● Milestone Determination;

● Appendix A

-- Facility Emissions and Emissions Adjustments; and

● Appendix B

-- Changes to SO 2 

### Emissions and Milestone Source Inventory.

2.0 Reported SO 2 

### Emissions in 201 1

All stationary sources with reported emissions of 100 tons or more per year in 2000 or any subsequent year are required to report annual SO 2 

### emissions. Table 1 summarizes the annual reported emissions from applicable sources in each state. The 201 1 reported SO 2 

### emissions for each applicable source are in Appendix A, Table A-1.

Table 1 . Reported 2011 SO 2 

### Emissions by State

State Reported 201 1 SO 2 

### Emissions (tons/year)

New Mexico 19,904

Utah 24,564
Wyoming 73,007

TOTAL 117,474

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

5 3.0 Monitoring Methodology Emissions Adjustments

The annual emissions reports for each state include proposed emissions adjustments to ensure consistent comparison of emissions to the milestone. The reported emissions are adjusted so that the adjusted emissions levels are comparable to the levels that would result if the state used the same emissions monitoring or calculation method that was used in the base year inventory (2006). The net impact throughout the region as a result of these adjustments is an increase of 502 tons from the reported 201 1 emissions. Table 2 summarizes the emissions adjustments made for a total of four facilities.

Table 2 . Adjustments for Changes in Monitoring Methodology

State Source Reported 201 1 SO 2 

### Emissions (tons) Adjusted

201 1 SO 2 

### Emissions (tons) Monitoring

Methodology Adjustment (tons) Description

NM Giant Industries/Ciniza Refinery (Gallup) [Old name: GIANT REFINING/CINIZA] 125 259 134 Facility changed emissions calculation methodology from annual usage factors to CEMS

UT Holcim

- Devil's Slide Plant 344 390 46 Facility changed emissions calculation methodology from stack test to CEMS.

UT Holly Refining and Marketing Co.

-- Phillips Refinery 131 440 309 Facility changed emissions calculation methodology from stack test to CEMS.

UT Chevron Products Co.

– Salt Lake Refinery 24 37 13 Now Using CEM Data instead of Stack Tests and H2S Analysis

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

6 4.0 Three-Year Average Emissions (2009 , 2010, and 2011 )

The SIPs require multi-year averaging of emissions from 2004 to 2017 for the milestone comparison. From 2005 to 2017, a three-year average (which includes the reporting year and thetwo previous years) will be calculated to compare with the milestone. The average of the threeyears' emissions from 2009 to 201 1 is 130,935 tons. Table 3 shows the adjusted emissions for each year and three-year average emissions. The following report sections describe the adjusted milestone determination.

Table 3 . Average Sulfur Dioxide Emissions (2009, 2010, & 2011)

Year Adjusted SO 2 

### Emissions (tons/year)

200 9 143,704

20 10 131,124

201 1 117,976

Three

- Year Average ( 200 9

, 20 10

, 201 1 ) 130,935



### 5.0 Enforcement Milestone Adjustments

The SIPs require that each state report on proposed milestone adjustments due to enforcement actions, which affect baseline year emissions. The purpose of this adjustment is to remove emissions that occurred above the allowable level in the baseline year from the baseline and the annual milestones. The enforcement milestone adjustments require an approved SIP revision before taking effect.

Enforcement Milestone Adjustment

There were no proposed enforcement action related milestone adjustments reported for 201 1

.

6 .0 Quality Assurance

The states provided 201 1 emissions data based on their state emissions inventories. For this report, additional quality assurance (QA) procedures were used to supplement the normal QA procedures the states follow for their emissions inventories. First, each state submitted a source change report, and second, the states compared their inventory data for utility sources against 40 CFR Part 75 Acid Rain Program monitoring data.

6 .1 Source Change Report

The SIPs require that this annual SO 2 

### emissions and milestone report include a description of source changes or exceptions report to identify:

● Any new sources that were not contained in the previous calendar year's emissions report, and an explanation of why the sources are now included in the program;

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

7 ● Identification of any sources that were included in the previous year's report and are no longer included in the program, and an explanation of why this change has occurred; and

● An explanation for emissions variations at any applicable source that exceeds ± 20% from the previous year.

Table 4 provides explanations for the emissions variations from 20 10

– 2011 that are greater than 20%. Plants with variations greater than 20%, but reported emissions of less than 20 tons in both 20 10 and 201 1, are not included in Table 4 . Information on these plants is provided in Appendix A.

Appendix B provides a list of all sources added or removed from the program inventory in previous reporting years. One source was added since the 20 10 report.

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

8 Table 4

. Sources with an Emissions Change of > ±20% from the Previous Year

State County FIPS State

Facility Identifier Plant Name Reported 2010 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Reported

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Description Change > 20% 2010 to 2011 NM 15 350150002 BP America Production/Empire Abo Plant [Old name: Arco Permian/Empire Abo Plant] 786 1,704 Increased plant throughput, Increased field pressures lead to increased flaring events, The Sulfur Recovery Unit froze during the winter of 2011 and required extensive repairs

– and increased flaring events

NM 15 350150011 DCP Midstream/Artesia Gas Plant 12 326 Return to normal operations after Unit 12 maint e nnce activities in 2010. NM 31 350310008 Giant Industries/Ciniza Refinery (Gallup) [Old name: GIANT REFINING/CINIZA] 430 125 started FCC SO2 additives trial in July of 2010 which lasted thru December 2011. The trial was successful as the additive chosen greatly reduces SO2 emissions.

NM 15 350150008 Marathon Oil/Indian Basin Gas Plant 501 133 Sulfur Recovery Unit went out of service on February 2011 due to the low gas volumes going into the plant NM 25 350250008 Southern Union Gas/Jal #3 1,878 1,319 Decrease in SO2 emissions due to 2nd AGI was operating in 2011, therefore reducing acid gas to SRU NM 45 350450023 Western Refining Southwest Inc./San Juan Refinery (Bloomfield) [Old name: GIANT INDUSTRIES/BLOOMFIELD REF] 366 6 The 2010 reported amount was incorrect. It wasn't 366 tpy

- actually it was 2.75. In November of 2009, the facility suspended petroleum refining operations

UT 11 10119 Chevron Products Co.

-- Salt Lake Refinery 37 24 Decrease in flaring emissions

UT 11 10122 Flying J Refinery

-- (Big West Oil Company) 280 192 Decreased throughput / decrease in CEM values

UT 29 10007 Holcim

- Devil's Slide Plant 237 344 Increase in hours of operation along with higher CEM value UT 11 10123 Holly Refining and Marketing Co.

-- Phillips Refinery 231 131 Decrease in CEM values

UT 35 10572 Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.

-- Power Plant/Lab/Tailings Impoundment 3,046 1,704 Decrease in sulfur throughput due to decrease in coal burned

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

9 State County FIPS State

Facility Identifier Plant Name Reported 2010 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Reported

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Description Change > 20% 2010 to 2011 UT 37 10034 Patara Midstream LLC (was EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Incorporated and Tom Brown Incorporated)

- Lisbon Natural Gas Processing Plant 82 25 Large decrease in amount of natural gas burned

UT 7 10096 Sunnyside Cogeneration Associates

-- Sunnyside Cogeneration Facility 449 544 Increase in amount of coal burned

UT 43 10676 Utelite Corporation

-- Shale processing 60 130 Large increase in amount of coal and natural gas burned

WY 5 45 Basin Electric

-- Dry Fork Station 279 This facility went 'online' in CY 2011.

WY 45 5 Black Hills Corporation

- Osage Plant 1,525 0 The facility shut down in 2010.

WY 5 281 Black Hills Corporation

- Wygen III 173 256 CY 2010 was the first year of operation and as such a partial operating year. This explains the >20% increase in 2011 over 2010.

WY 13 0009 Burlington Resources

-- Bighorn Wells 0 223 The SO2 emissions increased due to increased flaring. One of the chokes was replaced during the past calendar year. Thus, this led to increased flaring and emissions.
WY 13 28 Burlington Resources

-- Lost Cabin Gas Plant 2,386 1,543 The emissions from the Train 2 Incinerator increased from 59 tons in 2010 to 133 tons in 2011. This increase was primarily caused by the Train being fully operational after repair from the 2009 fire in December 2010. The emissions from the Train 3 Flare decreased from 1332 tons in 2010 to 444 tons in 2011. This decrease was primarily caused by a lessening of problems with Reaction Furnace and H2S Compressor shutdowns as well as a decrease in unplanned power outages from the local electricity supplier. T he emissions from the Sulfur Tanks normally educted to the Train 1 Tail Gas Incinerator increased from 0.7 tons in 2010 to 1.1 tons in 2011. This increase is due to the decrease in operating hours of the Train 1 Incinerator from 8481 hours in 2010 to 8386 hours in 2011.

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

10 State County FIPS State

Facility Identifier Plant Name Reported 2010 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Reported

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Description Change > 20% 2010 to 2011 WY 41 9 Chevron USA

-- Carter Creek Gas Plant 74 100 The year 2011 SO2 emissions were 35% higher than the 2010 SO2 emissions, due to excess emissions events that occurred in December 2011. WY 37 14 Chevron USA

-- Table Rock Gas Plant (Formerly Anadarko E&P Co LP) 82 44 The decrease in emissions from calendar year 2010, was due to reduction in upsets and maintenance events. During the last turnaround, changes were made to reduce maintenance events.

WY 41 0008 Chevron USA

-- Whitney Canyon/Carter Creek Wellfield 169 2 The year 2011 SO2 emissions were 99% lower than the year 2010 SO2 emissions, due to the 2010 well testing performed on a well with a high H2S content (Well #1

- 17M).

WY 13 0007 Devon Energy Production Co., L.P.

-- Beaver Creek Gas Field 1 5 The SO2 emissions increased due to the acid gas reinjection well that is connected to the plant. The pipeline between the well and plant was blown down for maintenance and some of the emissions occurred o n the well itself.

WY 13 8 Devon Gas Services, L.P.

-- Beaver Creek Gas Plant 96 158 Devon Gas Services listed three (3) issues that led to increased SO2 emissions: electrical problems with the Inlet engine compressor during July 2011 (many startups and shutdowns likely affected calculations); The amine treating acid gas compressor had hydrate problems; there were mechanical issues with various engines also.

WY 23 1 Exxon Mobil Corporation

-- Labarge Black Canyon Facility 14 156 Every 2 years, the Black Canyon and Shute Creek Facilities undergo a turnaround procedure that results in more flaring. The turnaround occurs on odd calendar years. Thus, SO2 emissions increased by much more than 20% from 2010 to 2011.

WY 23 13 Exxon Mobil Corporation

-- Shute Creek 587 946 Every 2 years, the Black Canyon and Shute Creek Facilities undergo a turnaround procedure that results in more flaring. The turnaround occurs on odd calendar years. Thus, SO2 emissions increased by much more than 20% from 2010 to 2011.

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

11 State County FIPS State

Facility Identifier Plant Name Reported 2010 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Reported

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Description Change > 20% 2010 to 2011 WY 37 49 FMC Wyoming Corporation

-- Granger Soda Ash Plant 0 189 Total SO2 emissions for FMC Granger increased from 57.9 tons in 2009 to 189.0 tons in 2011, an increase of 226.4%. This was a result of the temporary production curtailment of the FMC Granger facility from April 2009 until June 2011. Production curtailme nt began in early 2009 and the process was completed by late April 2009. The facility came out of production curtailment in June of 2011. Therefore the coal

- fired boilers UIN

- 14 and UIN

- 15 hours of operation were significantly higher in 2011.
WY 21 1 Frontier Oil & Refining Company

-- Cheyenne Refinery 124 253 Frontier's SO2 emissions increased by more than 100% due to increased emissions in the FCCU Regenerator, the Sulfur Incinerator, and the Gas

- Fired Process Heaters. The greatest increase in emiss ions were due to upsets. For CY 2011, there were power outages, shutdowns, and maintenance activities

.

WY 29 0010 Marathon Oil Co

-- Oregon Basin Wellfield 125 96 The field flare emissions have reduced by 29.8 tons or 31%. This reduction is the result of increased use of the underground injection of gas that reduces the potential to flare.

WY 37 8 Merit Energy Company

- Brady Gas Plant (formerly Anadarko E&P Co LP) 52 209 Reporting year 2011 emissions for the Ucarsol Regenerator Heater (H

- 100A) and Benfield Regenerator Heater (H

- 100B) increased more than 20% from 2010 emissions. This is due to calculating emissions based on permit limits, as opposed to AP

- 42 emi ssion factors (which was the methodology used for 2010). In addition, emissions from the emergency flare (V

- 1) have increased more than 20% due to increased flaring events at the Brady plant.

WY 37 1002 Pacifi C orp

-- Jim Bridger Plant 13,654 9,689 Unit 3 Sulfur Dioxide had a decrease of more than 20% emissions from 2010 to 2011 due to the installation of Flue Gas Desulfurization system upgrades per Air Quality permit MD

- 1552 on Unit 3.

WY 5 46 Pacifi C orp

-- Wyodak Plant 6,768 2,387 The decrease in emissions from the 2010 to 2011 reporting year was due to the unit being off line for a maintenance overhaul and induced draft fan motor failures. A new Baghouse unit was also placed into service during the 2011 reporting year.

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

12 State County FIPS State

Facility Identifier Plant Name Reported 2010 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Reported

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Description Change > 20% 2010 to 2011 WY 7 1 Sinclair Oil Company

-- Sinclair Refinery 204 505 Sinclair had over 300 tons of excess emissions due to the volume of H2S flowing through the vertical flare. The volume was much greater, resulting in more emissions.

WY 15 1 The Western Sugar Cooperative

-- Torrington Plant 148 182 The SO2 emissions increased by +23.5% from 2010 to 2011 due to increased usage of the coal boiler with an additional 5,000 tons of coal burned in 2011. The coal boiler was used more as the natural gas boiler was down for a good portion of 2011.

WY 1 5 University of Wyoming

- Heat Plant 74 187 The 2011 SO2 results were much greater than those from previous years. This is attributed to the 2011 stack testing results, which were accompanied by higher

- than

- normal level of excess oxygen (approximately 12%). The plant typically operates between 6% and 10% excess oxygen.

WY 45 1 Wyoming Refining

-- Newcastle Refinery 535 324 E missions from the Prefract Heater (H

- 01) were lower since the average firing rate for 2011 was 26.09 MMBtu/hr. Also, the wet gas scrubber on the Fluidized Catalytic Crakcing Unit (FCCU) started on November 12, 2010. Therefore, SO2 emissions from the FCCU stack (S

- 21) decreased substantially from the previous year.

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

13 6 .2 Part 75 Data

Federal Acid Rain Program emissions monitoring data (required by 40 CFR Part 75) were used to check reported power plant emissions.

Sources in the region subject to Part 75 emitted 69 % of the region's reported emissions in 201 1 . We compared Acid Rain Program power plant emission data from EPA's Data and Maps website to plant totals reported by each state. The SIPs require the use of Part 75 methods for Part 75 sources. The reported emissions matched EPA's emission data a



### .

a The reported emissions for Pacificorp’s Naughton Plant in WY contain an extra 21 tons of SO 2 emissions due to wastewater ponds that are not included in the acid rain data. The reported emissions for the San Juan Generating Station in NM contain an extra 21 tons of SO 2 emissions due to emission points that are not included in the acid rain data.

### 201 1 Milestone Report February 20, 2013

14 7 .0 Preliminary Milestone Determination

The Section 309 state 2011 milestone is 200,722 tons SO 2 

### , which represents the average regional emissions milestone for the years 2009

, 2010, and 2011. The average of 2009

, 2010

, and 2011 adjusted emissions was determined to be 130,935 tons SO 2 

### . Therefore, the participating states have met the 200,722 tons SO 2 

### milestone.

8 .0 Public Comments

New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County each published a draft of this report for public review and comment. No comments were received.

### Appendix A February 20, 2013

Appendix-1 Appendix A

Table A-1 201 1 Reported and Adjusted Emissions for Sources Subject to

Section 309

-- Regional Haze Rule

State County FIPS State

Facility Identifier ORIS Plant Name Plant SIC Plant NAICS Reported

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Adjusted

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) 2011 General New

Monitoring Calculation Method Adjustment (tons)
NM 15 350150024 Agave Energy Co./Agave Dagger Draw Gas Plant 1311 211111 0 0

NM 15 350150002 BP America Production/Empire Abo Plant [Old name: Arco Permian/Empire Abo Plant] 1321 211112 1,704 1,704

NM 15 350150011 DCP Midstream/Artesia Gas Plant 1321 211112 326 326

NM 25 350250044 DCP Midstream/Eunice Gas Plant [Old name: GPM GAS EUNICE GAS PLANT] 1321 211112 2,921 2,921

NM 25 350250035 DCP Midstream/Linam Ranch Gas Plant [Old name: GPM GAS/LINAM RANCH GAS PLANT] 1321 211112 1,304 1,304

NM 15 350150138 Duke

-- Magnum/Pan Energy

-- Burton Flats 1321 211112 0 0

NM 15 350150285 Duke Energy/Dagger Draw Gas Plant 1321 211112 0 0
NM 25 350250060 Targa Midstream Services, LP/Eunice Gas Plant [Old name: WARREN PETROLEUM/EUNICE GAS PLANT] 1321 211112 718 718

NM 25 350250004 Frontier Field Services/Maljamar Gas Plant 1321 211112 2,986 2,986

NM 31 350310008 Giant Industries/Ciniza Refinery (Gallup) [Old name: GIANT REFINING/CINIZA] 2911 32411 125 259 134

### Appendix A February 20, 2013

Appendix-2 State County FIPS State

Facility Identifier ORIS Plant Name Plant SIC Plant NAICS Reported

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Adjusted

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) 2011 General New

Monitoring Calculation Method Adjustment (tons)
NM 25 350250007 J L Davis Gas Processing/Denton Plant 1311 211111 675 675

NM 15 350150008 Marathon Oil/Indian Basin Gas Plant 1321 211112 133 133

NM 15 350150010 Navajo Refining Co/Artesia Refinery 2911 32411 45 45

NM 45 350450902 2451 Public Service Co of New Mexico/San Juan Generating Station 4911 221112 4,741 4,741

NM 7 350070001 Raton Pub. Service/Raton Power Plant 4911 221112 0 0
NM 25 350250008 Southern Union Gas/Jal #3 1321 211112 1,319 1,319

NM 25 350250051 Targa Midstream Services, LP/Eunice South Gas Plant 1321 211112 0 0

NM 25 350250061 Targa Midstream Services, LP/Monument Plant [Old name: WARREN PETROLEUM/MONUMENT PLANT] 1321 211112 771 771

NM 25 350250063 Targa Midstream Services, LP/Saunders Plant [Old name: WARREN PETROLEUM/SAUNDERS PLANT] 1321 211112 251 251

NM 31 350310032 87 Tri

- State Gen & Transmission/Escalante Station 4911 221112 1,257 1,257

NM 45 350450247 Western Gas Resources/San Juan River Gas Plant 1321 211112 621 621

NM 45 350450023 Western Refining Southwest Inc./San Juan Refinery (Bloomfield) [Old name: GIANT INDUSTRIES/BLOOMFIELD REF] 2911 32411 6 6

UT 49 10790 Brigham Young University

-- Main Campus 8221 611310 99 99

UT 11 10119 Chevron Products Co.

-- Salt Lake Refinery 2911 324110 24 37 13

UT 11 10122 Flying J Refinery

-- (Big West Oil Company) 2911 324110 192 192

### Appendix A February 20, 2013

Appendix-3 State County FIPS State

Facility Identifier ORIS Plant Name Plant SIC Plant NAICS Reported

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Adjusted

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) 2011 General New

Monitoring Calculation Method Adjustment (tons)
UT 27 10313 Graymont Western US Inc.

-- Cricket Mountain Plant 1422 212312 16 16

UT 29 10007 Holcim

- Devil's Slide Plant 3241 327310 344 390 46
UT 11 10123 Holly Refining and Marketing Co.

-- Phillips Refinery 2911 324110 131 440 309

UT 27 10327 6481 Intermountain Power Service Corporation

-- Intermountain Generation Station 4911 221112 4,934 4,934

UT 35 10572 Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.

-- Power Plant/Lab/Tailings Impoundment 1021 212234 1,704 1,704

UT 35 10346 Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.

-- Smelter & Refinery 3331 331411 696 696

UT 27 10311 Materion Natural resources

- Delta Mill (was Brush Resources) 1099 212299 0 0

UT 7 10081 3644 PacifiCorp

-- Carbon Power Plant 4911 221112 7,740 7,740

UT 15 10237 6165 PacifiCorp

-- Hunter Power Plant 4911 221112 4,661 4,661

UT 15 10238 8069 PacifiCorp

-- Huntington Power Plant 4911 221112 2,529 2,529

UT 37 10034 Patara Midstream LLC (was EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Incorporated and Tom Brown Incorporated)

- Lisbon Natural Gas Processing Plant 2911 211111 25 25

UT 7 10096 Sunnyside Cogeneration Associates

-- Sunnyside Cogeneration Facility 4911 221112 544 544

UT 35 10335 Tesoro West Coast

-- Salt Lake City Refinery 2911 324110 795 795

UT 43 10676 Utelite Corporation

-- Shale processing 3295 212399 130 130

WY 11 2 American Colloid Mineral Co

-- East Colony 1459 212325 63 63

### Appendix A February 20, 2013

Appendix-4 State County FIPS State

Facility Identifier ORIS Plant Name Plant SIC Plant NAICS Reported

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Adjusted

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) 2011 General New

Monitoring Calculation Method Adjustment (tons)
WY 11 3 American Colloid Mineral Co

-- West Colony 1459 212325 50 50

WY 5 45 Basin Electric

-- Dry Fork Station 4911 22112 279 279

WY 31 1 6204 Basin Electric

-- Laramie River Station 4911 221112 9,402 9,402

WY 5 2 4150 Black Hills Corporation

- Neil Simpson I 4911 22112 789 789

WY 5 63 7504 Black Hills Corporation

- Neil Simpson II 4911 22112 542 542

WY 45 5 4151 Black Hills Corporation

- Osage Plant 4911 22112 0 0

WY 5 146 55479 Black Hills Corporation

- Wygen 1 4911 22112 559 559

WY 5 225 Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power Company

– Wygen II 4911 22112 215 215

WY 5 281 Black Hills Corporation

- Wygen III 4911 221112 256 256

WY 13 0009 Burlington Resources

-- Bighorn Wells 1300 21111 223 223

WY 13 28 Burlington Resources

-- Lost Cabin Gas Plant 1311 211111 1,543 1,543

WY 41 9 Chevron USA

-- Carter Creek Gas Plant 1311 211111 100 100

WY 37 0177 Chevron USA

-- Table Rock Field 1300 21111 0 0

WY 37 14 Chevron USA

-- Table Rock Gas Plant (Formerly Anadarko E&P Co LP) 1321 211111 44 44

WY 41 0008 Chevron USA

-- Whitney Canyon/Carter Creek Wellfield 1300 21111 2 2

WY 13 0007 Devon Energy Production Co., L.P.

-- Beaver Creek Gas Field 1300 21111 5 5

### Appendix A February 20, 2013

Appendix-5 State County FIPS State

Facility Identifier ORIS Plant Name Plant SIC Plant NAICS Reported

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Adjusted

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) 2011 General New

Monitoring Calculation Method Adjustment (tons)
WY 13 8 Devon Gas Services, L.P.

-- Beaver Creek Gas Plant 1311 211111 158 158

WY 29 12 Encore Operating LP

-- Elk Basin Gas Plant 1311 211111 847 847

WY 23 1 Exxon Mobil Corporation

-- Labarge Black Canyon Facility 1300 21111 156 156

WY 23 13 Exxon Mobil Corporation

-- Shute Creek 1311 211111 946 946

WY 37 48 FMC Corp

-- Green River Sodium Products (Westvaco facility) 2812 327999 2,876 2,876

WY 37 49 FMC Wyoming Corporation

-- Granger Soda Ash Plant 1474 212391 189 189

WY 21 1 Frontier Oil & Refining Company

-- Cheyenne Refinery 2911 32411 253 253

WY 43 3 Hiland Partners, LLC

-- Hiland Gas Plant 1321 48621 45 45

WY 29 7 Marathon Oil Co

-- Oregon Basin Gas Plant 1321 211112 247 247

WY 29 0010 Marathon Oil Co

-- Oregon Basin Wellfield 1300 21111 96 96

WY 37 8 Merit Energy Company

- Brady Gas Plant (formerly Anadarko E&P Co LP) 1321 211112 209 209

WY 41 12 Merit Energy Company

-- Whitney Facility 1311 211111 1 1

WY 41 0002 Merit Energy Company

-- Whitney Canyon WellField 1300 21111 0 0

WY 1 2 Mountain Cement Company

-- Laramie Plant 3241 23571 283 283

WY 37 3 P4 Production, L.L.C.

-- Rock Springs Coal Calcining Plant 3312 331111 706 706

WY 9 1 4158 Pacifi C orp

- Dave Johnston Plant 4911 221112 11,306 11,306

WY 37 1002 8066 Pacifi C orp

-- Jim Bridger Plant 4911 221112 9,689 9,689

### Appendix A February 20, 2013

Appendix-6 State County FIPS State

Facility Identifier ORIS Plant Name Plant SIC Plant NAICS Reported

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) Adjusted

2011 SO 2 Emissions (tons) 2011 General New

Monitoring Calculation Method Adjustment (tons)
WY 23 4 4162 Pacifi C orp

-- Naughton Plant 4911 221112 20,461 20,461

WY 5 46 6101 Pacifi C orp

-- Wyodak Plant 4911 221112 2,387 2,387

WY 37 22 Simplot Phosphates LLC

-- Rock Springs Plant 2874 325312 1,502 1,502

WY 7 1 Sinclair Oil Company

-- Sinclair Refinery 2911 32411 505 505

WY 25 5 Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company

-- Casper Refinery 2911 32411 241 241

WY 37 5 Solvay Chemicals

-- Soda Ash Plant (Green River Facility) 1474 325181 46 46

WY 37 2 TATA Chemicals (Soda Ash Partners)

-- Green River Plant (formerly General Chemical) 1474 327999 5,098 5,098

WY 15 1 The Western Sugar Cooperative

-- Torrington Plant 2063 311313 182 182

WY 1 5 University of Wyoming

- Heat Plant 8221 61131 187 187

WY 45 1 Wyoming Refining

-- Newcastle Refinery 2911 32411 324 324

### Appendix B February 20, 2013

Appendix-7 Appendix B

Table B-1 Sources Added to the SO 2 

### Emissions and Milestone Report Inventory

State County FIP Code State Facility ID Facility Name Report Year of Change

UT 043 10676 Utelite Corporation

-- Shale processing 2003

WY 011 0002 American Colloid Mineral Company

-- East Colony 2003

WY 011 0003 American Colloid Mineral Company

-- West Colony 2003

WY 037 0014 Chevron USA (previously owned by Anadarko E&P Company LP)

-- Table Rock Gas Plant 2003

WY 005 0146 Black Hills Corporation

-- Wygen 1 2003

WY 041 0002 BP America Production Company

-- Whitney Canyon Well Field 2003

WY 013 0009 Burlington Resources

-- Bighorn Wells 2003

WY 037 0177 Chevron USA

-- Table Rock Field 2003

WY 041 0008 Chevron USA

-- Whitney Canyon/Carter Creek Wellfield 2003

WY 013 0008 Devon Energy Corp.

-- Beaver Creek Gas Plant 2003

WY 035 0001 Exxon Mobil Corporation

-- Labarge Black Canyon Facility (also identified as Black Canyon Dehy Facility) 2003

WY 013 0007 Devon Energy Corp.

-- Beaver Creek Gas Field 2004

WY 005 0225 Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power (a subsidiary of Black Hills Corporation)

-- Wygen II 2008

WY 005 0281 Black Hills Corporation

– Wygen III 2010

WY 005 0045 Basin Electric

– Dry Fork Station 2011

### Appendix B February 20, 2013

Appendix-8 Table B-2 Sources Removed from the SO 2 

### Emissions and Milestone Report Inventory

State County FIP Code State Facility ID Facility Name 1998 Baseline Emissions (tons/year) Reason for Change Report Year of Change

WY 043 0001 Western Sugar Company

-- Worland 154 Emissions did not meet 100 TPY program criteria. 2003

WY 017 0006 KCS Mountain Resources

-- Golden Eagle 942 Emissions did not meet 100 TPY program criteria. 2003

WY 003 0017 KCS Mountain Resources

-- Ainsworth 845 Closed since 2000. 2003

WY 017 0002 Marathon Oil

-- Mill Iron 260 Emissions did not meet 100 TPY program criteria. 2003

UT 049 10796 Geneva Steel

-- Steel Manufacturing Facility 881 Plant is shut down and disassembled. 2004

WY 023 0001 Astaris Production

-- Coking Plant 1,454 Plant is permanently shut down and dismantled. 2004

ABQ* NM 001 00008 GCC Rio Grande Cement 1,103 Not subject to program after baseline revisions.* * 2008

ABQ NM 001 00145 Southside Water Reclamation Plant 120 Not subject to program after baseline revisions.* * 2008

NM 023 350230003 Phelps Dodge Hidalgo Smelter 16,000 Facility is permanently closed. 2008

NM 017 350170001 Phelps Dodge Hurley Smelter/Concentrator 22,000 Facility is permanently closed. 2008

WY 003 00012 Big Horn Gas Processing

– Bighorn/Byron Gas Plant 605 Facility is permanently closed and dismantled

. 2011

* ABQ NM means Albuquerque-Bernalillo County.

** 1998 baseline emissions were based on the facilities' potential to emit (PTE), and not actual emissions. Actual annual emissions have always been below 100 tons. Once the year 2006 baseline became effective, these facilities were removed from the inventory.

## APPENDIX I:

New Mexico Class I Area Monitoring Data Summary Tables and Charts

Includes the following subsections:

Subsection IMPROVE Monitor Cl ass I Area(s) Represented

I.1 BAND1 Bandelier NM

I.2 BOAP1 Bosque del Apache WA

I.3 GICL1 Gila WA

I.4 GUMO1 Guadalupe Mountains NP and Carlsbad Caverns NP

I.5 SACR1 Salt Creek WA

I.6 SAPE1 San Pedro Parks WA

I.7 WHIT1 White Mountain WA

I.8 WHPE1 Wheeler Peak WA and Pecos WA

### I.1. BANDELIER NM (BAND1)

The following tables and figures are presented in this section for the Bandelier NM represented by the BAND1 IMPROVE Monitor:

 

### Table I.1-1: Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages, and Trends: Table of averages and other metrics for the 20% leas t impaired days, the 20% most impaired days, and all sampled days is presented.

 

### Figure I.1-1: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicting annual and period averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.1-2: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicti ng annual and period aver ages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.1-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar char ts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% most impaired days are presented.

 

### Figure I.1-4: 20% Least Im paired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar charts depi cting annual averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.1-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.1-6: 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the progress period are presented.

 

### Figure I.1-7: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by year and component for th e baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.1-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Exti nction, All Sampled Days : Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by y ear and component for the progress period are presented.2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Slope (change/yr.) p-value Baseline (B) Progress

(P) Difference

(P -B) Percent

Change Baseline Period Progress Period 2000-2009 Trend Statistics* Period Averages**

Group 

### Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages and Trends Table I.1-1 Bandelier NM, NM (BAND1 Site)

Deciview (dv)
4.9 Best 20% Days 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.1 4.6 4.5 3.9 3.6 3.4 -0.1 0.0 5.0 4.2 -0.8 -16%

14.6 Worst 20% Days 11.1 12.3 12.7 10.5 12.3 11.6 12.8 11.5 11.0 9.7 -0.2 0.2 12.2 11.8 -0.4 -3%

9.1 All Days 7.9 8.4 8.4 7.8 8.0 7.8 8.2 7.6 7.1 6.5 -0.1 0.0 8.3 7.7 -0.6 -7% Total Extinction (Mm-1)
16.4 Best 20% Days 16.4 16.6 16.4 16.5 15.1 15.9 15.8 14.8 14.4 14.1 -0.2 0.0 16.5 15.2 -1.3 -8%

67.6 Worst 20% Days 30.5 35.8 37.7 28.7 34.8 32.2 38.7 31.8 32.1 26.8 -0.6 0.2 40.1 33.9 -6.2 -16%

31.4 All Days 22.5 24.2 24.4 22.2 23.2 22.5 24.2 22.1 21.5 19.6 -0.4 0.0 25.0 22.7 -2.3 -9% Ammonium Sulfate Extinction (Mm-1)
2.4 Best 20% Days 2.9 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.4 1.7 1.9 1.8 -0.1 0.0 2.4 2.1 -0.3 -13%

7.6 Worst 20% Days 7.5 7.1 7.1 5.2 10.6 7.7 8.4 7.3 7.9 5.3 0.0 0.3 6.9 8.4 1.5 22%

5.0 All Days 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.0 5.3 4.5 4.9 4.4 4.2 3.5 -0.1 0.1 4.6 4.7 0.1 2% Ammonium Nitrate Extinction (Mm-1)
0.8 Best 20% Days 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 -0.1 -14%

2.8 Worst 20% Days 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.2 1.4 2.1 4.1 2.3 2.0 1.6 0.0 0.2 2.5 2.4 -0.1 -4%
1.6 All Days 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.1 1.4 1.2 -0.2 -14% Particulate Organic Mass Extinction (Mm-1)
2.0 Best 20% Days 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.2 0.0 0.2 2.1 1.8 -0.3 -14%

38.1 Worst 20% Days 5.4 9.5 11.6 6.5 8.0 6.9 11.8 5.0 6.3 4.1 -0.5 0.2 14.2 7.6 -6.6 -47%

11.1 All Days 3.3 4.6 5.5 4.2 4.2 3.6 5.0 3.4 3.4 2.8 -0.2 0.1 5.7 3.9 -1.8 -32% Elemental Carbon Extinction (Mm-1)
0.9 Best 20% Days 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.8 -0.1 -11%

6.8 Worst 20% Days 2.0 2.5 2.5 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.8 1.5 1.9 1.2 -0.1 0.1 3.1 2.1 -1.0 -32%

2.6 All Days 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.2 0.9 -0.1 0.1 1.7 1.3 -0.4 -24% Soil Extinction (Mm-1)
0.3 Best 20% Days 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 -0.1 -33%

0.9 Worst 20% Days 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.5 2.3 1.5 1.1 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.1 9%

0.5 All Days 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.1 17% Coarse Mass Extinction (Mm-1)
1.0 Best 20% Days 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 -0.1 -11%

2.4 Worst 20% Days 2.6 3.5 3.4 2.8 2.7 3.4 1.9 4.4 3.5 4.3 0.1 0.2 2.9 3.2 0.3 10%

1.6 All Days 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.2 1.8 1.8 0.0 0% Sea Salt Extinction (Mm-1)
0.0 Best 20% Days 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%

0.1 Worst 20% Days 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 -0.1 -50%

0.0 All Days 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -100% *Values highlighted in blue (red) indicate statistically significant decreasing (increasing) annual trend. Significance is measured at the 85% confidence level (p-value ≤0.15). **Values highlighted in blue indicate a decrease in the 5-year average, values highlighted in red indicate an increase. "---" Indicates a missing year that did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

5.0 4.2

0 2 4 6 8 10Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average 11.8 12.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1

0 2 4 6 8 10

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1 

### Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.1-1 Bandelier NM, NM (BAND1 Site)

Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.1-2 Bandelier NM, NM (BAND1 Site)

### Bandelier NM, NM (BAND1 Site) Figure I.1-3

20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

22%

17%

6% 36% 8% 3% 7% 1% 12.2 dv (10.5 - 14.6 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 11.8 dv (11 - 12.8 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

27%

25%
7% 22% 6% 4% 9% 0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

### Bandelier NM, NM (BAND1 Site) Figure I.1-4

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

54%

15% 5% 13% 5% 2% 6% 0%

5 dv (4.9 - 5 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 4.2 dv (3.6 - 4.6 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

59%

14% 4% 12% 5% 1% 5% 0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

### 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.1-5 Bandelier NM, NM (BAND1 Site)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

1 - '04 2 - '04 3 - '04 4 - '04 5 - '04 6 - '04 7 - '04 8 - '04 9 - '04 10 - '04 11 - '04 12 - '04Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

1 - '00 2 - '00 3 - '00 4 - '00 5 - '00 6 - '00 7 - '00 8 - '00 9 - '00 10 - '00 11 - '00 12 - '00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

1 - '01 2 - '01 3 - '01 4 - '01 5 - '01 6 - '01 7 - '01 8 - '01 9 - '01 10 - '01 11 - '01 12 - '01Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

1 - '02 2 - '02 3 - '02 4 - '02 5 - '02 6 - '02 7 - '02 8 - '02 9 - '02 10 - '02 11 - '02 12 - '02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

1 - '03 2 - '03 3 - '03 4 - '03 5 - '03 6 - '03 7 - '03 8 - '03 9 - '03 10 - '03 11 - '03 12 - '03Extinction (Mm-1)

### 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.1-6 Bandelier NM, NM (BAND1 Site)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '09 2 - '09 3 - '09 4 - '09 5 - '09 6 - '09 7 - '09 8 - '09 9 - '09 10 - '09 11 - '09 12 - '09Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '05 2 - '05 3 - '05 4 - '05 5 - '05 6 - '05 7 - '05 8 - '05 9 - '05 10 - '05 11 - '05 12 - '05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '06 2 - '06 3 - '06 4 - '06 5 - '06 6 - '06 7 - '06 8 - '06 9 - '06 10 - '06 11 - '06 12 - '06Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '07 2 - '07 3 - '07 4 - '07 5 - '07 6 - '07 7 - '07 8 - '07 9 - '07 10 - '07 11 - '07 12 - '07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '08 2 - '08 3 - '08 4 - '08 5 - '08 6 - '08 7 - '08 8 - '08 9 - '08 10 - '08 11 - '08 12 - '08Extinction (Mm-1)

### 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.1-7 Bandelier NM, NM (BAND1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03Extinction (Mm-1)

### 2005-2009 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.1-8 Bandelier NM, NM (BAND1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08Extinction (Mm-1)

### I.2. BOSQUE DEL APACHE WA (BOAP1)

The following tables and figures are presented in this section for the Bosque del Apache WA represented by the BOAP1 IMPROVE Monitor:

 

### Table I.2-1: Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages, and Trends: Table of averages and other metrics for the 20% leas t impaired days, the 20% most impaired days, and all sampled days is presented.

 

### Figure I.2-1: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicting annual and period averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.2-2: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicti ng annual and period aver ages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.2-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar char ts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% most impaired days are presented.

 

### Figure I.2-4: 20% Least Im paired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar charts depi cting annual averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.2-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.2-6: 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the progress period are presented.

 

### Figure I.2-7: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by year and component for th e baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.2-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Exti nction, All Sampled Days : Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by y ear and component for the progress period are presented.2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Slope (change/yr.) p-value Baseline (B) Progress

(P) Difference

(P -B) Percent

Change Baseline Period Progress Period 2000-2009 Trend Statistics* Period Averages**

Group 

### Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages and Trends Table I.2-1 Bosque del Apache WA, NM (BOAP1 Site)

Deciview (dv)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 6.5 6.8 5.5 5.9 6.3 5.9 5.2 5.5 4.6 -0.2 0.1 6.3 5.8 -0.5 -8%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 14.6 13.9 12.9 14.3 13.9 14.2 12.8 11.9 10.9 -0.3 0.0 13.8 13.4 -0.4 -3%

--- All Days

--- 10.1 10.4 8.9 9.6 9.6 9.4 8.9 8.6 7.9 -0.2 0.0 9.8 9.2 -0.6 -6% Total Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 19.3 19.8 17.5 18.1 18.8 18.1 16.9 17.5 15.9 -0.3 0.1 18.9 17.9 -1.0 -5%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 44.7 40.5 37.5 42.1 41.8 45.7 36.5 32.9 29.7 -0.9 0.1 40.9 39.8 -1.1 -3%

--- All Days

--- 28.7 29.3 25.4 27.4 27.4 27.5 25.4 24.3 22.5 -0.6 0.1 27.8 26.4 -1.4 -5% Ammonium Sulfate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.2 2.4 2.1 -0.1 0.1 2.8 2.6 -0.2 -7%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 8.7 7.3 6.6 11.8 9.1 10.1 8.0 5.5 5.3 -0.2 0.4 7.5 8.9 1.4 19%

--- All Days

--- 5.2 5.1 4.4 6.4 5.4 5.5 4.9 4.2 3.9 -0.1 0.3 4.9 5.3 0.4 8% Ammonium Nitrate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.6 -0.2 -25%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 3.4 2.1 4.1 1.9 4.5 9.4 2.1 3.1 2.2 0.1 0.5 3.2 4.2 1.0 31%

--- All Days

--- 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.1 1.6 2.6 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.4 1.6 1.6 0.0 0% Particulate Organic Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.1 -0.1 0.1 2.1 1.8 -0.3 -14%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 9.6 8.5 8.0 8.0 7.2 7.2 5.2 5.2 4.6 -0.6 0.0 8.7 6.5 -2.2 -25%

--- All Days

--- 4.7 5.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.2 2.8 -0.2 0.0 4.7 3.7 -1.0 -21% Elemental Carbon Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.5 -0.1 0.0 1.1 0.9 -0.2 -18%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 2.5 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.2 3.2 1.8 2.6 2.0 0.0 0.5 2.6 2.8 0.2 8%

--- All Days

--- 1.7 1.8 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.2 -0.1 0.1 1.7 1.7 0.0 0% Soil Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.1 33%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 2.8 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.1 2.3 1.4 1.1 -0.1 0.3 1.9 1.6 -0.3 -16%

--- All Days

--- 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -10% Coarse Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 1.9 1.9 0.9 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.3 -0.1 0.1 1.6 1.4 -0.2 -13%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 7.6 8.3 4.2 5.3 5.9 4.4 7.0 4.9 4.4 -0.3 0.3 6.7 5.5 -1.2 -18%

--- All Days

--- 4.1 4.8 2.6 2.8 3.5 2.8 3.3 3.1 2.7 -0.1 0.3 3.8 3.1 -0.7 -18% Sea Salt Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0%

--- All Days

--- 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 100% *Values highlighted in blue (red) indicate statistically significant decreasing (increasing) annual trend. Significance is measured at the 85% confidence level (p-value ≤0.15). **Values highlighted in blue indicate a decrease in the 5-year average, values highlighted in red indicate an increase. "---" Indicates a missing year that did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

6.3 5.8

0 2 4 6 8 10Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average 13.4 13.8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1

0 2 4 6 8 10

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1 

### Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.2-1 Bosque del Apache WA, NM (BOAP1 Site)

Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.2-2 Bosque del Apache WA, NM (BOAP1 Site)

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. *Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### Bosque del Apache WA, NM (BOAP1 Site) Figure I.2-3

20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

25%

18%

8% 22% 6% 5% 16% 0% 13.8 dv (12.9 - 14.6 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 13.4 dv (11.9 - 14.3 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

26%

22%

11% 16% 7% 4% 14% 0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### Bosque del Apache WA, NM (BOAP1 Site) Figure I.2-4

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

53%

15% 4% 11% 6% 2% 8% 1% 6.3 dv (5.5 - 6.8 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 5.8 dv (5.2 - 6.3 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

56%

15% 3% 10% 5% 2% 8% 1%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.2-5 Bosque del Apache WA, NM (BOAP1 Site)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '04 2 - '04 3 - '04 4 - '04 5 - '04 6 - '04 7 - '04 8 - '04 9 - '04 10 - '04 11 - '04 12 - '04Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '00 2 - '00 3 - '00 4 - '00 5 - '00 6 - '00 7 - '00 8 - '00 9 - '00 10 - '00 11 - '00 12 - '00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '01 2 - '01 3 - '01 4 - '01 5 - '01 6 - '01 7 - '01 8 - '01 9 - '01 10 - '01 11 - '01 12 - '01Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '02 2 - '02 3 - '02 4 - '02 5 - '02 6 - '02 7 - '02 8 - '02 9 - '02 10 - '02 11 - '02 12 - '02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '03 2 - '03 3 - '03 4 - '03 5 - '03 6 - '03 7 - '03 8 - '03 9 - '03 10 - '03 11 - '03 12 - '03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that monthly averages for the years 2000 and 2001 are shown here, but these years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.2-6 Bosque del Apache WA, NM (BOAP1 Site)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '09 2 - '09 3 - '09 4 - '09 5 - '09 6 - '09 7 - '09 8 - '09 9 - '09 10 - '09 11 - '09 12 - '09Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '05 2 - '05 3 - '05 4 - '05 5 - '05 6 - '05 7 - '05 8 - '05 9 - '05 10 - '05 11 - '05 12 - '05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '06 2 - '06 3 - '06 4 - '06 5 - '06 6 - '06 7 - '06 8 - '06 9 - '06 10 - '06 11 - '06 12 - '06Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '07 2 - '07 3 - '07 4 - '07 5 - '07 6 - '07 7 - '07 8 - '07 9 - '07 10 - '07 11 - '07 12 - '07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '08 2 - '08 3 - '08 4 - '08 5 - '08 6 - '08 7 - '08 8 - '08 9 - '08 10 - '08 11 - '08 12 - '08Extinction (Mm-1)

### 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.2-7 Bosque del Apache WA, NM (BOAP1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that daily averages for the years 2000 and 2001 are shown here, but these years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.2-8 Bosque del Apache WA, NM (BOAP1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08Extinction (Mm-1)

### I.3. GILA WA (GICL1)

The following tables and figures are presented in this section for the Gila WA represented by the GICL1 IMPROVE Monitor:

 

### Table I.3-1: Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages, and Trends: Table of averages and other metrics for the 20% leas t impaired days, the 20% most impaired days, and all sampled days is presented.

 

### Figure I.3-1: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicting annual and period averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.3-2: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicti ng annual and period aver ages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.3-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar char ts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% most impaired days are presented.

 

### Figure I.3-4: 20% Least Im paired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar charts depi cting annual averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.3-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.3-6: 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the progress period are presented.

 

### Figure I.3-7: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by year and component for th e baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.3-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Exti nction, All Sampled Days : Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by y ear and component for the progress period are presented.2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Slope (change/yr.) p-value Baseline (B) Progress

(P) Difference

(P -B) Percent

Change Baseline Period Progress Period 2000-2009 Trend Statistics* Period Averages**

Group 

### Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages and Trends Table I.3-1 Gila WA, NM (GICL1 Site)

Deciview (dv)

--- Best 20% Days 3.7 3.4 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.3 2.7 1.9 2.7 2.3 -0.1 0.0 3.3 2.7 -0.6 -18%

--- Worst 20% Days 12.1 14.2 14.1 12.0 13.9 12.6 13.0 11.1 11.8 9.4 -0.2 0.1 13.1 12.5 -0.6 -5%

--- All Days 7.6 7.9 7.5 7.1 7.5 7.2 7.2 6.3 6.7 5.6 -0.1 0.0 7.5 7.0 -0.5 -7% Total Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 14.5 14.1 13.4 14.0 13.6 13.9 13.2 12.1 13.1 12.7 -0.2 0.0 14.0 13.2 -0.8 -6%

--- Worst 20% Days 34.8 46.2 43.4 36.8 42.7 40.7 44.0 30.7 33.6 28.2 -0.8 0.2 40.3 38.3 -2.0 -5%

--- All Days 22.6 24.7 23.6 22.0 23.2 22.8 23.4 19.8 20.8 18.6 -0.3 0.1 23.2 22.0 -1.2 -5% Ammonium Sulfate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.6 -0.1 0.1 1.9 1.7 -0.2 -11%

--- Worst 20% Days 8.3 6.4 6.9 5.8 10.1 7.9 8.8 7.0 6.4 7.3 0.0 0.5 6.9 8.0 1.1 16%

--- All Days 4.8 4.3 4.0 3.9 5.2 4.3 4.5 4.0 3.9 3.8 -0.1 0.2 4.2 4.4 0.2 5% Ammonium Nitrate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 -0.1 -33%

--- Worst 20% Days 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.8 -0.1 -11%

--- All Days 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.5 -0.1 -17% Particulate Organic Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.7 -0.1 0.0 1.5 1.1 -0.4 -27%

--- Worst 20% Days 10.2 21.2 18.0 14.5 15.7 15.4 16.2 5.7 9.3 5.5 -1.0 0.1 16.0 12.5 -3.5 -22%

--- All Days 4.7 6.6 6.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.5 2.8 3.6 2.5 -0.3 0.1 5.7 4.4 -1.3 -23% Elemental Carbon Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 -0.2 -33%

--- Worst 20% Days 2.3 3.5 3.9 2.9 4.6 3.0 3.3 1.2 2.4 1.3 -0.1 0.3 3.2 2.9 -0.3 -9%

--- All Days 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.7 -0.1 0.1 1.4 1.2 -0.2 -14% Soil Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.6 1.6 1.4 2.4 1.4 1.1 0.0 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 0%

--- All Days 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.7 -0.1 -13% Coarse Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 25%

--- Worst 20% Days 2.9 3.4 2.8 2.3 2.0 3.1 4.4 4.5 4.0 3.2 0.2 0.1 2.8 3.6 0.8 29%

--- All Days 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 0.0 0.1 1.5 1.7 0.2 13% Sea Salt Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0%

--- All Days 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% *Values highlighted in blue (red) indicate statistically significant decreasing (increasing) annual trend. Significance is measured at the 85% confidence level (p-value ≤0.15). **Values highlighted in blue indicate a decrease in the 5-year average, values highlighted in red indicate an increase. "---" Indicates a missing year that did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

3.3 2.7

0 2 4 6 8 10Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average 12.5 13.1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average

0 5 10 15 20 25

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1

0 2 4 6 8 10

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1 

### Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.3-1 Gila WA, NM (GICL1 Site)

Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.3-2 Gila WA, NM (GICL1 Site)

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. *Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### Gila WA, NM (GICL1 Site) Figure I.3-3

20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

22%

17%

2% 40% 8% 4% 7% 0% 13.1 dv (12 - 14.2 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 12.5 dv (11.1 - 13.9 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

23%

21%

2% 33% 8% 4% 9% 0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### Gila WA, NM (GICL1 Site) Figure I.3-4

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

65% 13% 2% 11% 5% 1% 3%

0% 3.3 dv (2.9 - 3.7 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 2.7 dv (1.9 - 3.3 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

68% 13% 2% 8% 3%

2% 4% 0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.3-5 Gila WA, NM (GICL1 Site)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1 - '04 2 - '04 3 - '04 4 - '04 5 - '04 6 - '04 7 - '04 8 - '04 9 - '04 10 - '04 11 - '04 12 - '04Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1 - '00 2 - '00 3 - '00 4 - '00 5 - '00 6 - '00 7 - '00 8 - '00 9 - '00 10 - '00 11 - '00 12 - '00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1 - '01 2 - '01 3 - '01 4 - '01 5 - '01 6 - '01 7 - '01 8 - '01 9 - '01 10 - '01 11 - '01 12 - '01Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1 - '02 2 - '02 3 - '02 4 - '02 5 - '02 6 - '02 7 - '02 8 - '02 9 - '02 10 - '02 11 - '02 12 - '02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1 - '03 2 - '03 3 - '03 4 - '03 5 - '03 6 - '03 7 - '03 8 - '03 9 - '03 10 - '03 11 - '03 12 - '03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that monthly averages for the year 2000 are shown here, but this year did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.3-6 Gila WA, NM (GICL1 Site)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '09 2 - '09 3 - '09 4 - '09 5 - '09 6 - '09 7 - '09 8 - '09 9 - '09 10 - '09 11 - '09 12 - '09Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '05 2 - '05 3 - '05 4 - '05 5 - '05 6 - '05 7 - '05 8 - '05 9 - '05 10 - '05 11 - '05 12 - '05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '06 2 - '06 3 - '06 4 - '06 5 - '06 6 - '06 7 - '06 8 - '06 9 - '06 10 - '06 11 - '06 12 - '06Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '07 2 - '07 3 - '07 4 - '07 5 - '07 6 - '07 7 - '07 8 - '07 9 - '07 10 - '07 11 - '07 12 - '07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '08 2 - '08 3 - '08 4 - '08 5 - '08 6 - '08 7 - '08 8 - '08 9 - '08 10 - '08 11 - '08 12 - '08Extinction (Mm-1)

### 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.3-7 Gila WA, NM (GICL1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that daily averages for the year 2000 are shown here, but this year did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.3-8 Gila WA, NM (GICL1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08Extinction (Mm-1)

### I.4. GUADALUPE MOUNTA INS NP AND CARLSBAD CAV ERNS NP (GUMO1)

The following tables and figures are presente d in this section for Guadalupe Mountains NP and Carlsbad Caverns NP represented by the GUMO1 IMPROVE Monitor:

 

### Table I.4-1: Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages, and Trends: Table of averages and other metrics for the 20% leas t impaired days, the 20% most impaired days, and all sampled days is presented.

 

### Figure I.4-1: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicting annual and period averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.4-2: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicti ng annual and period aver ages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.4-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar char ts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% most impaired days are presented.

 

### Figure I.4-4: 20% Least Im paired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar charts depi cting annual averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.4-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.4-6: 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the progress period are presented.

 

### Figure I.4-7: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by year and component for th e baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.4-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Exti nction, All Sampled Days : Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by y ear and component for the progress period are presented.2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Slope (change/yr.) p-value Baseline (B) Progress

(P) Difference

(P -B) Percent

Change Baseline Period Progress Period 2000-2009 Trend Statistics* Period Averages**

Group 

### Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages and Trends Table I.4-1 Guadalupe Mountains NP and Carlsbad Caverns NP, TX (GUMO1 Site)

Deciview (dv)
6.3 Best 20% Days 6.3 6.4 5.9 4.8 6.1 5.9 5.3 5.4 4.6 3.9 -0.2 0.0 5.9 5.4 -0.5 -9%

17.1 Worst 20% Days 16.6 18.1 18.5 15.6 17.5 15.3 15.7 16.8 14.1 13.7 -0.3 0.1 17.2 15.9 -1.3 -8%

11.6 All Days 11.4 12.2 11.7 9.9 11.2 10.5 10.2 10.5 9.3 8.5 -0.2 0.0 11.4 10.3 -1.1 -10% Total Extinction (Mm-1)
18.8 Best 20% Days 19.1 19.5 18.3 16.4 18.6 18.1 17.1 17.3 16.0 14.9 -0.3 0.0 18.4 17.4 -1.0 -5%

56.1 Worst 20% Days 53.6 62.5 68.2 49.0 59.0 46.5 49.6 56.5 41.4 40.7 -1.5 0.1 57.9 50.6 -7.3 -13%

34.5 All Days 33.6 37.1 36.3 29.2 33.5 30.3 29.8 31.4 26.9 24.9 -0.8 0.0 34.1 30.4 -3.7 -11% Ammonium Sulfate Extinction (Mm-1)
3.9 Best 20% Days 3.9 3.6 2.9 2.9 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.4 -0.1 0.0 3.4 3.1 -0.3 -9%

16.6 Worst 20% Days 18.6 20.5 12.4 14.4 26.0 16.6 21.5 14.5 14.4 11.9 -0.1 0.4 16.5 18.6 2.1 13%

9.6 All Days 10.0 9.7 7.8 7.5 11.2 9.2 9.6 7.9 7.3 5.9 -0.2 0.1 8.9 9.0 0.1 1% Ammonium Nitrate Extinction (Mm-1)
0.9 Best 20% Days 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.9 -0.2 -18%

5.4 Worst 20% Days 3.2 2.8 2.6 5.1 3.8 2.7 3.7 2.6 1.5 2.1 -0.2 0.0 3.8 2.9 -0.9 -24%

2.7 All Days 2.2 2.4 1.6 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.2 -0.1 0.0 2.2 1.6 -0.6 -27% Particulate Organic Mass Extinction (Mm-1)
1.9 Best 20% Days 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.9 -0.1 0.1 1.6 1.5 -0.1 -6%

7.4 Worst 20% Days 5.0 7.8 7.4 6.2 7.4 5.9 5.8 5.6 4.9 4.8 -0.2 0.0 6.7 5.9 -0.8 -12%

4.2 All Days 3.2 4.1 3.9 3.3 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.3 2.8 2.5 -0.1 0.0 3.8 3.4 -0.4 -11% Elemental Carbon Extinction (Mm-1)
0.9 Best 20% Days 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0%

2.0 Worst 20% Days 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 1.3 1.5 0.2 15%

1.4 All Days 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.0 0% Soil Extinction (Mm-1)
0.5 Best 20% Days 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.1 25%

2.4 Worst 20% Days 4.1 5.1 7.5 2.9 2.1 2.0 2.0 4.8 2.7 3.3 -0.1 0.2 4.4 2.7 -1.7 -39%
1.4 All Days 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.5 -0.1 0.2 1.9 1.3 -0.6 -32% Coarse Mass Extinction (Mm-1)
1.6 Best 20% Days 2.0 2.3 2.7 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.4 1.9 1.5 1.1 0.0 0.1 2.0 1.7 -0.3 -15%

13.2 Worst 20% Days 12.7 16.0 28.1 10.1 8.3 8.6 6.0 18.8 7.7 8.3 -0.8 0.1 16.0 9.9 -6.1 -38%

6.1 All Days 6.1 8.7 10.6 4.6 4.7 4.6 3.8 6.8 4.2 4.0 -0.3 0.1 7.2 4.8 -2.4 -33% Sea Salt Extinction (Mm-1)
0.1 Best 20% Days 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -100%

0.1 Worst 20% Days 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0%

0.1 All Days 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0% *Values highlighted in blue (red) indicate statistically significant decreasing (increasing) annual trend. Significance is measured at the 85% confidence level (p-value ≤0.15). **Values highlighted in blue indicate a decrease in the 5-year average, values highlighted in red indicate an increase. "---" Indicates a missing year that did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

5.9 5.4

0 2 4 6 8 10Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average 15.9 17.2

0 5 10 15 20Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1

0 2 4 6 8 10

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1 

### Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.4-1 Guadalupe Mountains NP and Carlsbad Caverns NP, TX (GUMO1 Site)

Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.4-2 Guadalupe Mountains NP and Carlsbad Caverns NP, TX (GUMO1 Site)

### Guadalupe Mountains NP and Carlsbad Caverns NP, TX (GUMO1 Site) Figure I.4-3

20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

16%

28%

7% 12% 2% 8% 27% 0% 17.2 dv (15.6 - 18.5 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 15.9 dv (14.1 - 17.5 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

18%

36%

6% 12% 3% 5% 20% 0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

### Guadalupe Mountains NP and Carlsbad Caverns NP, TX (GUMO1 Site) Figure I.4-4

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

49%

19% 6% 9% 4% 2% 11% 0% 5.9 dv (4.8 - 6.4 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 5.4 dv (4.6 - 6.1 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

51%

18% 5% 9% 4% 3% 10% 0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

### 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.4-5 Guadalupe Mountains NP and Carlsbad Caverns NP, TX (GUMO1 Site)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '04 2 - '04 3 - '04 4 - '04 5 - '04 6 - '04 7 - '04 8 - '04 9 - '04 10 - '04 11 - '04 12 - '04Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '00 2 - '00 3 - '00 4 - '00 5 - '00 6 - '00 7 - '00 8 - '00 9 - '00 10 - '00 11 - '00 12 - '00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '01 2 - '01 3 - '01 4 - '01 5 - '01 6 - '01 7 - '01 8 - '01 9 - '01 10 - '01 11 - '01 12 - '01Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '02 2 - '02 3 - '02 4 - '02 5 - '02 6 - '02 7 - '02 8 - '02 9 - '02 10 - '02 11 - '02 12 - '02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '03 2 - '03 3 - '03 4 - '03 5 - '03 6 - '03 7 - '03 8 - '03 9 - '03 10 - '03 11 - '03 12 - '03Extinction (Mm-1)

### 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.4-6 Guadalupe Mountains NP and Carlsbad Caverns NP, TX (GUMO1 Site)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '09 2 - '09 3 - '09 4 - '09 5 - '09 6 - '09 7 - '09 8 - '09 9 - '09 10 - '09 11 - '09 12 - '09Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '05 2 - '05 3 - '05 4 - '05 5 - '05 6 - '05 7 - '05 8 - '05 9 - '05 10 - '05 11 - '05 12 - '05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '06 2 - '06 3 - '06 4 - '06 5 - '06 6 - '06 7 - '06 8 - '06 9 - '06 10 - '06 11 - '06 12 - '06Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '07 2 - '07 3 - '07 4 - '07 5 - '07 6 - '07 7 - '07 8 - '07 9 - '07 10 - '07 11 - '07 12 - '07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '08 2 - '08 3 - '08 4 - '08 5 - '08 6 - '08 7 - '08 8 - '08 9 - '08 10 - '08 11 - '08 12 - '08Extinction (Mm-1)

### 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.4-7 Guadalupe Mountains NP and Carlsbad Caverns NP, TX (GUMO1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03Extinction (Mm-1)

### 2005-2009 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.4-8 Guadalupe Mountains NP and Carlsbad Caverns NP, TX (GUMO1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08Extinction (Mm-1)

### I.5. SALT CREEK WA (SACR1)

The following tables and figures are presented in this section for the Salt Creek WA represented by the SACR1 IMPROVE Monitor:

 

### Table I.5-1: Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages, and Trends: Table of averages and other metrics for the 20% leas t impaired days, the 20% most impaired days, and all sampled days is presented.

 

### Figure I.5-1: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicting annual and period averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.5-2: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicti ng annual and period aver ages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.5-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar char ts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% most impaired days are presented.

 

### Figure I.5-4: 20% Least Im paired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar charts depi cting annual averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.5-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.5-6: 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the progress period are presented.

 

### Figure I.5-7: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by year and component for th e baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.5-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Exti nction, All Sampled Days : Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by y ear and component for the progress period are presented.2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Slope (change/yr.) p-value Baseline (B) Progress

(P) Difference

(P -B) Percent

Change Baseline Period Progress Period 2000-2009 Trend Statistics* Period Averages**

Group 

### Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages and Trends Table I.5-1 Salt Creek WA, NM (SACR1 Site)

Deciview (dv)

--- Best 20% Days 7.9 7.9 8.5 7.1 7.9 8.0

--- 6.8 6.4 6.0 -0.2 0.1 7.8 7.3 -0.5 -6%

--- Worst 20% Days 17.6 18.0 18.8 17.7 19.2 17.3

--- 17.6 15.7 16.8 -0.1 0.2 18.0 17.5 -0.5 -3%

--- All Days 12.4 12.8 13.5 12.4 13.1 12.5

--- 12.1 11.3 11.2 -0.2 0.1 12.8 12.3 -0.5 -4% Total Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 22.3 22.3 23.5 20.5 22.1 22.5

--- 19.9 19.2 18.5 -0.4 0.1 22.1 20.9 -1.2 -5%

--- Worst 20% Days 62.2 61.4 67.0 60.2 69.4 57.2

--- 60.5 49.5 55.5 -1.0 0.1 62.7 59.1 -3.6 -6%

--- All Days 37.4 38.4 41.2 37.0 40.5 36.9

--- 36.5 32.7 33.2 -0.4 0.0 38.5 36.6 -1.9 -5% Ammonium Sulfate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.3 4.2 3.6

--- 3.2 2.6 2.9 -0.1 0.1 3.4 3.4 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days 18.7 17.9 13.9 16.5 29.3 16.2

--- 16.1 13.7 15.7 -0.5 0.1 16.7 18.9 2.2 13%

--- All Days 9.2 9.1 9.7 9.3 13.1 9.0

--- 8.6 7.9 7.8 -0.2 0.1 9.3 9.7 0.4 4% Ammonium Nitrate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 2.6 2.0 1.8 1.8 2.2 1.3

--- 1.0 0.7 0.9 -0.2 0.0 2.0 1.3 -0.7 -35%

--- Worst 20% Days 12.2 9.5 10.4 12.4 8.4 6.4

--- 9.3 5.4 7.3 -0.8 0.0 11.1 7.4 -3.7 -33%

--- All Days 5.1 5.4 4.4 4.8 4.1 3.3

--- 3.7 2.5 3.2 -0.3 0.0 4.9 3.4 -1.5 -31% Particulate Organic Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.3

--- 1.7 1.8 1.6 -0.1 0.1 2.3 2.0 -0.3 -13%

--- Worst 20% Days 6.1 7.3 8.5 8.1 8.4 6.5

--- 5.8 5.0 5.2 -0.3 0.1 7.5 6.4 -1.1 -15%

--- All Days 4.0 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.9 4.2

--- 3.8 3.5 3.5 -0.1 0.3 4.5 4.1 -0.4 -9% Elemental Carbon Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2

--- 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.9 -0.2 -18%

--- Worst 20% Days 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.3 3.3 2.4

--- 1.6 2.1 1.8 0.0 0.2 2.3 2.3 0.0 0%

--- All Days 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.7

--- 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.0 0.2 1.6 1.6 0.0 0% Soil Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.4 0.5 1.4 0.5 0.4 0.6

--- 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.5 -0.2 -29%

--- Worst 20% Days 2.1 2.1 4.9 4.2 1.4 2.3

--- 3.6 2.0 2.3 0.0 0.4 3.3 2.3 -1.0 -30%

--- All Days 1.3 1.2 3.0 2.4 0.9 1.2

--- 1.7 1.2 1.3 0.0 0.4 2.0 1.2 -0.8 -40% Coarse Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 2.4 3.1 3.4 1.3 2.0 3.5

--- 2.7 2.7 1.9 0.0 0.4 2.5 2.7 0.2 8%

--- Worst 20% Days 10.3 12.4 16.8 6.4 7.5 13.1

--- 13.8 11.0 13.1 0.2 0.4 11.5 11.4 -0.1 -1%

--- All Days 6.0 6.6 7.8 3.9 5.0 7.3

--- 7.2 6.2 6.1 0.1 0.5 6.1 6.4 0.3 5% Sea Salt Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

--- 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.3

--- 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 >100%

--- All Days 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2

--- 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 100% *Values highlighted in blue (red) indicate statistically significant decreasing (increasing) annual trend. Significance is measured at the 85% confidence level (p-value ≤0.15). **Values highlighted in blue indicate a decrease in the 5-year average, values highlighted in red indicate an increase. "---" Indicates a missing year that did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

7.8 7.3

0 2 4 6 8 10Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average 17.5 18.0

0 5 10 15 20 25Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1

0 2 4 6 8 10

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1 

### Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.5-1 Salt Creek WA, NM (SACR1 Site)

Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.5-2 Salt Creek WA, NM (SACR1 Site)

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. *Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### Salt Creek WA, NM (SACR1 Site) Figure I.5-3

20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

16%

27%

18% 12% 4% 5% 18% 0%

18 dv (17.6 - 18.8 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 17.5 dv (15.7 - 19.2 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

17%

32%

12% 11% 4% 4% 19% 1%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### Salt Creek WA, NM (SACR1 Site) Figure I.5-4

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

46%

16% 9% 10% 5% 3% 11% 0% 7.8 dv (7.1 - 8.5 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 7.3 dv (6.4 - 8 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

49%

16% 6% 10% 4% 2% 13% 0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.5-5 Salt Creek WA, NM (SACR1 Site)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '04 2 - '04 3 - '04 4 - '04 5 - '04 6 - '04 7 - '04 8 - '04 9 - '04 10 - '04 11 - '04 12 - '04Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '00 2 - '00 3 - '00 4 - '00 5 - '00 6 - '00 7 - '00 8 - '00 9 - '00 10 - '00 11 - '00 12 - '00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '01 2 - '01 3 - '01 4 - '01 5 - '01 6 - '01 7 - '01 8 - '01 9 - '01 10 - '01 11 - '01 12 - '01Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '02 2 - '02 3 - '02 4 - '02 5 - '02 6 - '02 7 - '02 8 - '02 9 - '02 10 - '02 11 - '02 12 - '02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '03 2 - '03 3 - '03 4 - '03 5 - '03 6 - '03 7 - '03 8 - '03 9 - '03 10 - '03 11 - '03 12 - '03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that monthly averages for the year 2000 are shown here, but this year did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.5-6 Salt Creek WA, NM (SACR1 Site)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '09 2 - '09 3 - '09 4 - '09 5 - '09 6 - '09 7 - '09 8 - '09 9 - '09 10 - '09 11 - '09 12 - '09Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '05 2 - '05 3 - '05 4 - '05 5 - '05 6 - '05 7 - '05 8 - '05 9 - '05 10 - '05 11 - '05 12 - '05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '06 2 - '06 3 - '06 4 - '06 5 - '06 6 - '06 7 - '06 8 - '06 9 - '06 10 - '06 11 - '06 12 - '06Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '07 2 - '07 3 - '07 4 - '07 5 - '07 6 - '07 7 - '07 8 - '07 9 - '07 10 - '07 11 - '07 12 - '07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '08 2 - '08 3 - '08 4 - '08 5 - '08 6 - '08 7 - '08 8 - '08 9 - '08 10 - '08 11 - '08 12 - '08Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that monthly averages for the year 2007 are shown here, but this year did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.5-7 Salt Creek WA, NM (SACR1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that daily averages for the year 2000 are shown here, but this year did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.5-8 Salt Creek WA, NM (SACR1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that daily averages for the year 2007 are shown here, but this year did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### I.6. SAN PEDRO PARKS WA (SAPE1)

The following tables and figures are presented in this section for the San Pedro Parks WA represented by the SAPE1 IMPROVE Monitor:

 

### Table I.6-1: Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages, and Trends: Table of averages and other metrics for the 20% leas t impaired days, the 20% most impaired days, and all sampled days is presented.

 

### Figure I.6-1: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicting annual and period averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.6-2: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicti ng annual and period aver ages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.6-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar char ts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% most impaired days are presented.

 

### Figure I.6-4: 20% Least Im paired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar charts depi cting annual averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.6-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.6-6: 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the progress period are presented.

 

### Figure I.6-7: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by year and component for th e baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.6-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Exti nction, All Sampled Days : Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by y ear and component for the progress period are presented.2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Slope (change/yr.) p-value Baseline (B) Progress

(P) Difference

(P -B) Percent

Change Baseline Period Progress Period 2000-2009 Trend Statistics* Period Averages**

Group 

### Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages and Trends Table I.6-1 San Pedro Parks WA, NM (SAPE1 Site)

Deciview (dv)

--- Best 20% Days 1.9 1.1 1.4 1.5 0.9 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.8 -0.1 0.1 1.5 1.0 -0.5 -33%

--- Worst 20% Days 9.3 10.6 11.6 9.3 10.8 9.7 10.7 10.0 8.2 8.5 -0.1 0.3 10.2 9.9 -0.3 -3%

--- All Days 5.7 5.8 6.2 5.5 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.6 4.7 4.8 -0.1 0.0 5.8 5.4 -0.4 -7% Total Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 12.1 11.2 11.6 11.6 11.0 11.6 11.1 10.8 11.2 10.8 -0.1 0.1 11.6 11.1 -0.5 -4%

--- Worst 20% Days 25.6 29.9 34.6 25.6 30.2 27.6 30.3 27.4 22.9 23.7 -0.4 0.4 28.9 27.7 -1.2 -4%

--- All Days 18.3 19.0 20.3 17.9 18.9 18.0 18.8 18.4 16.5 16.9 -0.1 0.1 18.9 18.1 -0.8 -4% Ammonium Sulfate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.3 0.0 0.2 1.6 1.5 -0.1 -6%

--- Worst 20% Days 6.5 6.0 5.3 5.3 9.1 6.3 7.4 6.3 4.7 4.3 0.0 0.4 5.8 6.8 1.0 17%

--- All Days 4.1 3.7 3.5 3.6 4.7 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.4 3.7 3.9 0.2 5% Ammonium Nitrate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 -0.1 0.0 1.6 1.2 -0.4 -25%

--- All Days 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -20% Particulate Organic Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.6 -0.1 -14%

--- Worst 20% Days 4.8 7.8 11.3 6.8 6.3 7.2 8.6 5.0 4.4 3.7 -0.5 0.2 7.7 6.3 -1.4 -18%

--- All Days 2.6 3.2 4.1 2.9 2.8 2.8 3.3 2.6 2.1 2.1 -0.1 0.1 3.2 2.7 -0.5 -16% Elemental Carbon Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 -0.2 -50%

--- Worst 20% Days 1.1 1.6 2.6 1.1 2.2 1.6 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.3 1.6 1.6 0.0 0%

--- All Days 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.8 -0.1 -11% Soil Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0.1 -50%

--- Worst 20% Days 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 2.3 1.3 1.8 -0.1 0.2 1.5 1.3 -0.2 -13%

--- All Days 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.0 0% Coarse Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days 2.0 2.6 4.2 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.5 3.2 2.3 3.8 0.1 0.2 2.7 2.5 -0.2 -7%

--- All Days 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.5 0.0 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.0 0% Sea Salt Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0%

--- All Days 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% *Values highlighted in blue (red) indicate statistically significant decreasing (increasing) annual trend. Significance is measured at the 85% confidence level (p-value ≤0.15). **Values highlighted in blue indicate a decrease in the 5-year average, values highlighted in red indicate an increase. "---" Indicates a missing year that did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

1.5 1.0 0 2 4 6 8 10Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average 9.9 10.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1

0 2 4 6 8 10

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1 

### Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.6-1 San Pedro Parks WA, NM (SAPE1 Site)

Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.6-2 San Pedro Parks WA, NM (SAPE1 Site)

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. *Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### San Pedro Parks WA, NM (SAPE1 Site) Figure I.6-3

20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

29%

20%

5% 26% 6% 5% 9% 0% 10.2 dv (9.3 - 11.6 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 9.9 dv (8.2 - 10.8 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

29%

24% 4% 23% 6% 5% 9% 0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### San Pedro Parks WA, NM (SAPE1 Site) Figure I.6-4

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

69% 14% 4% 6% 3% 1%

3% 0% 1.5 dv (1.1 - 1.9 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 1 dv (0.8 - 1.4 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

73% 13% 3% 5% 2%

1% 3% 0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.6-5 San Pedro Parks WA, NM (SAPE1 Site)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '04 2 - '04 3 - '04 4 - '04 5 - '04 6 - '04 7 - '04 8 - '04 9 - '04 10 - '04 11 - '04 12 - '04Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '00 2 - '00 3 - '00 4 - '00 5 - '00 6 - '00 7 - '00 8 - '00 9 - '00 10 - '00 11 - '00 12 - '00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '01 2 - '01 3 - '01 4 - '01 5 - '01 6 - '01 7 - '01 8 - '01 9 - '01 10 - '01 11 - '01 12 - '01Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '02 2 - '02 3 - '02 4 - '02 5 - '02 6 - '02 7 - '02 8 - '02 9 - '02 10 - '02 11 - '02 12 - '02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '03 2 - '03 3 - '03 4 - '03 5 - '03 6 - '03 7 - '03 8 - '03 9 - '03 10 - '03 11 - '03 12 - '03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that monthly averages for the year 2000 are shown here, but this year did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.6-6 San Pedro Parks WA, NM (SAPE1 Site)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '09 2 - '09 3 - '09 4 - '09 5 - '09 6 - '09 7 - '09 8 - '09 9 - '09 10 - '09 11 - '09 12 - '09Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '05 2 - '05 3 - '05 4 - '05 5 - '05 6 - '05 7 - '05 8 - '05 9 - '05 10 - '05 11 - '05 12 - '05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '06 2 - '06 3 - '06 4 - '06 5 - '06 6 - '06 7 - '06 8 - '06 9 - '06 10 - '06 11 - '06 12 - '06Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '07 2 - '07 3 - '07 4 - '07 5 - '07 6 - '07 7 - '07 8 - '07 9 - '07 10 - '07 11 - '07 12 - '07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '08 2 - '08 3 - '08 4 - '08 5 - '08 6 - '08 7 - '08 8 - '08 9 - '08 10 - '08 11 - '08 12 - '08Extinction (Mm-1)

### 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.6-7 San Pedro Parks WA, NM (SAPE1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that daily averages for the year 2000 are shown here, but this year did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.6-8 San Pedro Parks WA, NM (SAPE1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08Extinction (Mm-1)

### I.7. WHITE MOUNTAIN WA (WHIT1)

The following tables and figures are presented in this section for the White Mountain WA represented by the WHIT1 IMPROVE Monitor:

 

### Table I.7-1: Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages, and Trends: Table of averages and other metrics for the 20% leas t impaired days, the 20% most impaired days, and all sampled days is presented.

 

### Figure I.7-1: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicting annual and period averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.7-2: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicti ng annual and period aver ages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.7-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar char ts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% most impaired days are presented.

 

### Figure I.7-4: 20% Least Im paired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar charts depi cting annual averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.7-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.7-6: 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the progress period are presented.

 

### Figure I.7-7: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by year and component for th e baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.7-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Exti nction, All Sampled Days : Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by y ear and component for the progress period are presented.2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Slope (change/yr.) p-value Baseline (B) Progress

(P) Difference

(P -B) Percent

Change Baseline Period Progress Period 2000-2009 Trend Statistics* Period Averages**

Group 

### Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages and Trends Table I.7-1 White Mountain WA, NM (WHIT1 Site)

Deciview (dv)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 4.1 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.9 3.0 3.2 3.1 -0.1 0.4 3.6 3.3 -0.3 -8%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 14.8 13.9 12.4 13.7 12.7 12.4 14.3 12.9 12.3 -0.2 0.3 13.7 13.2 -0.5 -4%

--- All Days

--- 8.9 8.7 7.4 7.8 7.8 8.1 8.2 7.7 7.3 -0.1 0.2 8.3 7.9 -0.4 -5% Total Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 15.2 14.3 13.5 13.5 14.1 14.8 13.6 13.9 13.7 -0.1 0.4 14.3 14.0 -0.3 -2%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 46.0 42.2 38.1 40.4 37.3 35.0 44.0 38.3 45.4 -1.0 0.1 42.1 39.0 -3.1 -7%

--- All Days

--- 26.5 25.8 22.9 23.7 23.4 23.5 25.0 23.4 24.0 -0.2 0.1 25.1 23.8 -1.3 -5% Ammonium Sulfate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.4 1.9 1.8 -0.1 -5%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 13.1 10.7 7.8 15.5 10.5 11.4 11.6 10.2 13.6 -0.1 0.4 10.5 11.9 1.4 13%

--- All Days

--- 6.1 5.7 4.4 6.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.2 5.8 -0.1 0.4 5.4 5.8 0.4 7% Ammonium Nitrate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.4 -0.1 -20%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 3.9 2.9 2.3 1.9 1.4 2.2 2.3 1.2 1.2 -0.3 0.0 3.0 1.8 -1.2 -40%

--- All Days

--- 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.7 -0.1 0.0 1.3 1.0 -0.3 -23% Particulate Organic Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 1.6 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.3 0.0 0.1 1.3 1.1 -0.2 -15%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 8.6 7.0 11.3 6.6 5.2 4.8 4.7 5.5 4.4 -0.6 0.0 9.0 5.4 -3.6 -40%

--- All Days

--- 4.0 3.6 4.3 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.8 3.3 2.8 -0.1 0.1 4.0 3.1 -0.9 -23% Elemental Carbon Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 -0.2 -33%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 1.9 1.5 2.1 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 -0.2 0.1 1.8 1.4 -0.4 -22%

--- All Days

--- 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 -0.1 0.0 1.1 0.9 -0.2 -18% Soil Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.1 1.8 1.3 2.7 1.9 2.8 0.0 0.6 1.9 1.8 -0.1 -5%

--- All Days

--- 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.7 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.0 0% Coarse Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 1.0 1.1 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.1 11%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 7.4 8.9 3.8 3.9 7.3 4.7 12.1 9.2 13.1 0.4 0.2 6.7 7.4 0.7 10%

--- All Days

--- 3.6 4.1 2.0 2.3 3.2 2.6 4.1 3.4 4.0 0.1 0.4 3.2 3.1 -0.1 -3% Sea Salt Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 50%

--- All Days

--- 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0% *Values highlighted in blue (red) indicate statistically significant decreasing (increasing) annual trend. Significance is measured at the 85% confidence level (p-value ≤0.15). **Values highlighted in blue indicate a decrease in the 5-year average, values highlighted in red indicate an increase. "---" Indicates a missing year that did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

3.6 3.3

0 2 4 6 8 10Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average 13.2 13.7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1

0 2 4 6 8 10

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1 

### Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.7-1 White Mountain WA, NM (WHIT1 Site)

Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.7-2 White Mountain WA, NM (WHIT1 Site)

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. *Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### White Mountain WA, NM (WHIT1 Site) Figure I.7-3

20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

22%

26%

7% 21% 4% 4% 16% 0% 13.7 dv (12.4 - 14.8 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 13.2 dv (12.4 - 14.3 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

23%

29%

5% 14% 4% 5% 19% 1%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### White Mountain WA, NM (WHIT1 Site) Figure I.7-4

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

64% 13% 3% 9% 4% 1% 6% 0% 3.6 dv (3 - 4.1 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 3.3 dv (3 - 3.9 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

64% 13% 3% 8% 3% 2% 7% 0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.7-5 White Mountain WA, NM (WHIT1 Site)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '04 2 - '04 3 - '04 4 - '04 5 - '04 6 - '04 7 - '04 8 - '04 9 - '04 10 - '04 11 - '04 12 - '04Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '00 2 - '00 3 - '00 4 - '00 5 - '00 6 - '00 7 - '00 8 - '00 9 - '00 10 - '00 11 - '00 12 - '00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '01 2 - '01 3 - '01 4 - '01 5 - '01 6 - '01 7 - '01 8 - '01 9 - '01 10 - '01 11 - '01 12 - '01Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '02 2 - '02 3 - '02 4 - '02 5 - '02 6 - '02 7 - '02 8 - '02 9 - '02 10 - '02 11 - '02 12 - '02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '03 2 - '03 3 - '03 4 - '03 5 - '03 6 - '03 7 - '03 8 - '03 9 - '03 10 - '03 11 - '03 12 - '03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that monthly averages for the years 2000 and 2001 are shown here, but these years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.7-6 White Mountain WA, NM (WHIT1 Site)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '09 2 - '09 3 - '09 4 - '09 5 - '09 6 - '09 7 - '09 8 - '09 9 - '09 10 - '09 11 - '09 12 - '09Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '05 2 - '05 3 - '05 4 - '05 5 - '05 6 - '05 7 - '05 8 - '05 9 - '05 10 - '05 11 - '05 12 - '05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '06 2 - '06 3 - '06 4 - '06 5 - '06 6 - '06 7 - '06 8 - '06 9 - '06 10 - '06 11 - '06 12 - '06Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '07 2 - '07 3 - '07 4 - '07 5 - '07 6 - '07 7 - '07 8 - '07 9 - '07 10 - '07 11 - '07 12 - '07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 10 20 30 40 50

1 - '08 2 - '08 3 - '08 4 - '08 5 - '08 6 - '08 7 - '08 8 - '08 9 - '08 10 - '08 11 - '08 12 - '08Extinction (Mm-1)

### 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.7-7 White Mountain WA, NM (WHIT1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that daily averages for the years 2000 and 2001 are shown here, but these years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.7-8 White Mountain WA, NM (WHIT1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08Extinction (Mm-1)

### I.8. WHEELER PEAK WA AND PECOS WA (WHPE1)

The following tables and figures are presented in this section for the Bandelier NM represented by the WHPE1 IMPROVE Monitor:

 

### Table I.8-1: Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages, and Trends: Table of averages and other metrics for the 20% leas t impaired days, the 20% most impaired days, and all sampled days is presented.

 

### Figure I.8-1: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicting annual and period averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.8-2: Annual and 5-Year Period Averages for the 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Line graphs depicti ng annual and period aver ages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.8-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar char ts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% most impaired days are presented.

 

### Figure I.8-4: 20% Least Im paired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period averages and stacked bar charts depi cting annual averages by component are presented.

 

### Figure I.8-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.8-6: 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days: Line graphs depicting monthly aver ages by year and component for the progress period are presented.

 

### Figure I.8-7: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by year and component for th e baseline period are presented.

 

### Figure I.8-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Exti nction, All Sampled Days : Stacked bar charts depicting daily averages by y ear and component for the progress period are presented.2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Slope (change/yr.) p-value Baseline (B) Progress

(P) Difference

(P -B) Percent

Change Baseline Period Progress Period 2000-2009 Trend Statistics* Period Averages**

Group 

### Annual Averages, 5-Year Period Averages and Trends Table I.8-1 Wheeler Peak and Pecos Was, NM (WHPE1 Site)

Deciview (dv)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 1.1 1.5 1.0 0.6 1.3 1.2

--- 0.4

--- -0.1 0.2 1.2 0.9 -0.3 -25%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 11.1 11.4 8.7 10.1 9.2 8.6

--- 8.6

--- -0.5 0.0 10.4 9.1 -1.3 -13%

--- All Days

--- 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.0

--- 4.5

--- -0.2 0.0 5.7 5.0 -0.7 -12% Total Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 11.2 11.7 11.1 10.7 11.4 11.4

--- 10.4

--- -0.1 0.2 11.3 11.0 -0.3 -3%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 32.7 34.4 24.2 27.9 25.1 23.9

--- 24.0

--- -1.6 0.0 30.4 25.2 -5.2 -17%

--- All Days

--- 19.8 19.9 17.2 18.0 17.7 17.1

--- 16.4

--- -0.5 0.0 19.0 17.3 -1.7 -9% Ammonium Sulfate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.3

--- 1.3

--- 0.0 0.2 1.2 1.3 0.1 8%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 5.3 6.1 4.5 7.6 6.3 5.7

--- 5.1

--- 0.0 0.5 5.3 6.2 0.9 17%

--- All Days

--- 3.4 3.4 3.1 4.0 3.6 3.4

--- 3.2

--- 0.0 0.4 3.3 3.6 0.3 9% Ammonium Nitrate Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3

--- 0.2

--- 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 2.1 1.8 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.2

--- 1.5

--- -0.1 0.2 1.6 1.4 -0.2 -13%

--- All Days

--- 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9

--- 0.8

--- 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -20% Particulate Organic Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.8

--- 0.4

--- 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.7 -0.1 -13%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 10.1 10.2 4.7 5.7 4.3 5.0

--- 3.9

--- -0.9 0.0 8.4 4.7 -3.7 -44%

--- All Days

--- 3.7 3.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

--- 1.9

--- -0.3 0.0 3.4 2.3 -1.1 -32% Elemental Carbon Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3

--- 0.2

--- 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 -0.1 -25%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.4

--- 1.8

--- -0.1 0.0 2.2 1.6 -0.6 -27%

--- All Days

--- 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7

--- 0.7

--- -0.1 0.0 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -20% Soil Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

--- 0.1

--- 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 1.6 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.2 0.7

--- 1.3

--- -0.1 0.1 1.7 1.1 -0.6 -35%

--- All Days

--- 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5

--- 0.6

--- 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.5 -0.3 -38% Coarse Mass Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5

--- 0.2

--- 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.3 -0.2 -40%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 3.3 3.8 1.2 1.9 2.5 1.9

--- 2.3

--- -0.1 0.3 2.8 2.1 -0.7 -25%

--- All Days

--- 1.7 1.7 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.2

--- 1.1

--- -0.1 0.1 1.4 1.1 -0.3 -21% Sea Salt Extinction (Mm-1)

--- Best 20% Days

--- 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

--- 0.0

--- 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -100%

--- Worst 20% Days

--- 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

--- 0.1

--- 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.1 -0.4 -80%

--- All Days

--- 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

--- 0.0

--- 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -100% *Values highlighted in blue (red) indicate statistically significant decreasing (increasing) annual trend. Significance is measured at the 85% confidence level (p-value ≤0.15). **Values highlighted in blue indicate a decrease in the 5-year average, values highlighted in red indicate an increase. "---" Indicates a missing year that did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

1.2 0.9 0 2 4 6 8 10Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average 9.1 10.4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Deciveiw (dv) Deciview Period Average

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008* 2009 2010*Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1

0 2 4 6 8 10

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008* 2009 2010*Extinction (Mm-1) Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate Particulate Organic Mass
Elemental Carbon
Soil
Coarse Mass
Sea Salt Expr1 

### Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.8-1 Wheeler Peak and Pecos Was, NM (WHPE1 Site)

Annual and 5-Year Period Averages

Figure I.8-2 Wheeler Peak and Pecos Was, NM (WHPE1 Site)

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. *Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### Wheeler Peak and Pecos Was, NM (WHPE1 Site) Figure I.8-3

20% Most Impaired Visibility Days

26%

17%

5% 28% 7% 6% 9% 2%

10.4 dv (8.7 - 11.4 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 9.1 dv (8.6 - 10.1 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

32%

24% 6% 19% 6% 5% 8% 0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008* 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### Wheeler Peak and Pecos Was, NM (WHPE1 Site) Figure I.8-4

20% Least Impaired Visibility Days

71% 11% 3% 7% 3%

1% 4% 0% 1.2 dv (1 - 1.5 dv )

Ammonium Sulfate
Rayleigh Coarse Mass

Soil

Elemental Carbon
Particulate Organic Mass

Ammonium Nitrate 0.9 dv (0.4 - 1.3 dv ) 

### 2000-2004 Baseline Average 2005-2009 Progress Period Average

73% 12% 2% 6% 3%

1% 3% 0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2000* 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008* 2009Extinction (Mm-1) Sea Salt

*Missing years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria. Only complete years are included in 5-year average pie charts.

### 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.8-5 Wheeler Peak and Pecos Was, NM (WHPE1 Site)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '04 2 - '04 3 - '04 4 - '04 5 - '04 6 - '04 7 - '04 8 - '04 9 - '04 10 - '04 11 - '04 12 - '04Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '00 2 - '00 3 - '00 4 - '00 5 - '00 6 - '00 7 - '00 8 - '00 9 - '00 10 - '00 11 - '00 12 - '00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '01 2 - '01 3 - '01 4 - '01 5 - '01 6 - '01 7 - '01 8 - '01 9 - '01 10 - '01 11 - '01 12 - '01Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '02 2 - '02 3 - '02 4 - '02 5 - '02 6 - '02 7 - '02 8 - '02 9 - '02 10 - '02 11 - '02 12 - '02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 - '03 2 - '03 3 - '03 4 - '03 5 - '03 6 - '03 7 - '03 8 - '03 9 - '03 10 - '03 11 - '03 12 - '03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that monthly averages for the years 2000 and 2001 are shown here, but these years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored Days Figure I.8-6 Wheeler Peak and Pecos Was, NM (WHPE1 Site)

0 2 4 6 8 10

1 - '09 2 - '09 3 - '09 4 - '09 5 - '09 6 - '09 7 - '09 8 - '09 9 - '09 10 - '09 11 - '09 12 - '09Extinction (Mm-1)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt 0 2 4 6 8 10

1 - '05 2 - '05 3 - '05 4 - '05 5 - '05 6 - '05 7 - '05 8 - '05 9 - '05 10 - '05 11 - '05 12 - '05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

1 - '06 2 - '06 3 - '06 4 - '06 5 - '06 6 - '06 7 - '06 8 - '06 9 - '06 10 - '06 11 - '06 12 - '06Extinction (Mm-1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

1 - '07 2 - '07 3 - '07 4 - '07 5 - '07 6 - '07 7 - '07 8 - '07 9 - '07 10 - '07 11 - '07 12 - '07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

1 - '08 2 - '08 3 - '08 4 - '08 5 - '08 6 - '08 7 - '08 8 - '08 9 - '08 10 - '08 11 - '08 12 - '08Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that monthly averages for the year 2008 are shown here, but this year did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.8-7 Wheeler Peak and Pecos Was, NM (WHPE1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that daily averages for the years 2000 and 2001 are shown here, but these years did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.

### 2005-2009 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days Figure I.8-8 Wheeler Peak and Pecos Was, NM (WHPE1 Site)

x 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06Extinction (Mm-1) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07Extinction (Mm-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09Extinction (Mm-1)

Rayleigh Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt


### Indicates 20% Worst Day 0 20 40 60 80 100

Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08Extinction (Mm-1)

*Note that daily averages for the year 2008 are shown here, but this year did not meet RHR data completeness criteria.NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD NOTICE OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION

The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (“Board”) will hold, if requested, a public hearing on December 16, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 322 at th e State Capital in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The purpose of the hearing would be to consider the matter of No. EIB 13-08(R), proposed changes to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) revision for the 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report. A hearing will only be held if requested by a member of the public.

The proponent of this regulatory adoption and revi sion is the New Mexico Environment Department (“NMED”).

The purpose of the public hearing would be to consider and take possible action on a petition from NMED regarding the proposed SIP revision to adopt a 2013 Regional Haze Pr ogress Report. 40 CFR § 51.309 requires states to develop regional haze progress repor t SIPs in 2013 and 2018 to evaluate the state’s progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each Class I area located within the state and in each Class I area located outside the state which may be affected by emissions fr om within the state. On December 31, 2003 and June 29, 2011 , the State of New Mexico submitted regional haze SIPs to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) to meet the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.309 (“Section 309 SIP”) and 51.309(g) (“Section 309(g) SIP”). The 2003 Section 309 SIP, and subsequent revisions to the Section 309 SIP, address the first phase of regional haze requir ements, with an emphasis on stationary source sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emission reductions and a focus on improving visibility on the Colorado Plateau. The 2011 Section 309(g) SIP addressed the visibility requirements and improvements in New Mexico’s remaining eight Class I areas.

The proposed 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report is available for a 60-day public comment period during which a hearing request may be made. All comments an d hearing requests must be received by November 29, 2013

. All public comments received during the comment period will be evaluated and responded to as appropriate by NMED prior to the hearing or, if no hearing is requested, prior to submission of the proposed progress report to EPA. If a request for a public hearing is received during the 60-day public comment period, a hearing will be held on December 16, 2013 at the above listed location, in accordance with 20.1.1 NMAC – Rulemaking Procedures – Environmental Improvement Board. If a request for hearing is not received during th e 60-day comment period, the Decem ber 16, 2013 hearing before the Board shall be cancelled. The proposed progress report does not adopt or amend any regulations; therefore, it is not subject to the mandatory public hearing requirement of NMSA 1978 § 74-2-6. For more information, contact Gail Cooke at 505-476-4319 or via email at gail.cooke@state.nm.us. Upon completion of the 60-day public comment period and, if requeste d, the hearing process, all documents included in the New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report will be submitted to EPA to be included in the New Mexico State Implementation Plan.

The NMED will host an informational open house on the proposed 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report at the NMED Air Quality Bureau Office, 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505, from 12:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. on November 6, 2013. To attend the informational open house, please contact Gail Cooke at 505-476-4319 or gail.cooke@state.nm.us.

The proposed progress report may be reviewed duri ng regular business hours at the NMED Air Quality Bureau office, 525 Camino del los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico. The full text of NMED's proposed revised plans are available on NMED’s web site at www.nmenv.state.nm.us, or by contacting Gail Cooke at (505) 476-4319 or gail.cooke@state.nm.us.

The hearing, if requested, will be conducted in accor dance with 20.1.1 NMAC (Rulemaking Procedures – Environmental Improvement Board), the Environmental Improvement Act, NMSA 1978,Section 74-1-9, the Air Quality Control Act Section, NMSA 1978,74-2-6, and other applicable procedures.

All interested persons will be given reasonable opportun ity at the hearing to submit relevant evidence, data, views and arguments, orally or in writing, to introduce exhibits, and to examine witnesses. Personswishing to present technical testimony must file with the Board a written notice of intent to do so. The notice of intent shall:

(1) identify the person for whom the witness(es) will testify; (2) identify each technical witness that the person inte nds to present and state the qualifications of the witness, including a description of their education and work background; (3) include a copy of the dire ct testimony of each technical witness in narrative form; (4) list and attach each exhibit anticipated to be offered by that person at the hearing; and (5) attach the text of any recommended modifications to the proposed SIP revision.

Notices of intent to present technical testimony at the hearing, if requested, must be received in the Office of the Board not later than 5:00 p.m. on November 26, 2013 and should reference the docket number, EIB 13-08(R), and the date of the hearing. Notices of intent to present technical testimony should be submitted
to:

Pam Castañeda , Board Administrator Environmental Improvement Board P.O. Box 5469 Santa Fe, NM 87502 Phone: (505) 827-2425, Fax (505) 827-0310

Any member of the general public may testify at the he aring. No prior notificati on is required to present non-technical testimony at the hearing. Any such member may also offer exhibits in connection with his testimony, so long as the exhibit is not unduly repetitious of the testimony.

A member of the general public who wishes to submit a written statement for the record, in lieu of providing oral testimony at the hearing, shall file the written statement prior to the hearing, or submit it at the hearing.

Persons having a disability and needing help in being a part of this hearing process should contact J.C. Borrego of the NMED Human Resources Bureau by November 29, 2013 at P.O. Box 5469, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87502, telephone 505-827-0424 or email juancarlos.borrego@state.nm.us. TDY users please access his number via the New Mexico Relay Network at 1-800-659-8331.

If a hearing is held, the Board may make a decision on the proposed SIP revision at the conclusion of the hearing, or the Board may conven e a meeting at a later date to consider action on the proposal.DIRECCIÓN DE MEJORAS MEDIOAMBIENTALES DE NUEVO MÉXICO AVISO DE IMPLEMENTACION DE PLAN DE REVISIÓN DEL ESTADO

La Dirección de Mejoras Medioambientales de Nuevo México (“Dirección”) tend rá, si la solicitan, una audiencia pública el 16 de diciembre del 2013, en la sala 322 del Capitolio Estatal, en Santa Fe, Nuevo México. El propósito de la audiencia sería considerar el asunto de la EIB 13-08(R), cambios propuestos a la revisión del Plan de Implementación del Estado de Nuevo México (“SIP”, por sus siglas en inglés) para el Informe de Progreso de la Neblina Regional 2013. Habrá una audiencia pública únicamente si la solicita algún miembro del público.

El Departamento del Medio Ambiente de Nuevo México ("NMED", por sus siglas en inglés) es el que propone esta revisión y adopción normativa.

El propósito de la audiencia pública sería consid erar y tomar una posible acción sobre una petición del Departamento del Medio Ambiente de Nuevo México ("NMED") con relación a la propuesta revisión del SIP para adoptar el Informe de Progreso de la Neblina Regional 2013. La 40 CFR § 51.309 requiere que los estados desarrollen SIPs de los informes de progreso de la neblina regional en el 2013 y el 2018 para evaluar si han avanzado hacia una me ta de progreso razonable para cada área de Clase I situada dentro del estado y en cada área de Clase I situada fuera del es tado que pudieran ser afectadas por las emisiones creadas dentro del estado. El 31 de diciembre del 2003 y el 29 de junio del 2011, el estado de Nuevo México presentó SIPs de la neblina regional a la Agencia de Protección Ambien tal de EE. UU. (EPA, por sus siglas en inglés) para cumplir con los requisitos de la 40 CFR § 51 .309 (“Sección 309 SIP”) y 51.309(g) (“Sección 309(g)SIP”). La Secci ón 309 SIP del 2003 y revisiones post eriores a la Sección 309 SIP, abordan la primera fase de los requisitos de neblina regional, con énfasis en la reducción de emisiones de dióxido de azufre (SO 2 ) de fuentes inertes y un enfoque en mejorar la visibilidad en el altiplano de Colorado. La Sección 309(g ) SIP del 2011 aborda los re quisitos y mejoras de visi bilidad en las restantes ocho áreas de Clase I de Nuevo México.

El propuesto Informe de Progreso de la Neblina Regional del 2013 está disponible para comentarios públicos por un período de 60 días durante el cual se puede solicitar una audiencia pública. Los comentarios y solicitudes para una audiencia deben recibirse a más tardar el 29 de noviembre del 2013. Todos los comentarios públicos que se reciban durante el período de comentarios se evaluarán y responderán como es debido por el NMED antes de la audiencia o, si no se solicita una audiencia, antes de que el propuesto informe de progreso se presente a la EPA. Si se solicita una audiencia pública durante los 60 días del período para comentarios, habrá una audiencia el 16 de diciembre del 2013 en el sitio indicado arriba, de acuerdo con la 20.1.1 NMAC – Procedimientos de Regl amentación – Dirección de Mejoras Medioambientales. Si dentro de los 60 días del período para comentarios no se solicita una audiencia, la programada para el 16 de diciembre del 2013 ante la Dirección se cancelará. El propuesto informe de progreso ni adopta ni enmienda ninguna regla; por lo tanto, no está sujeto al requisito de audiencia pública obligatoria de la NMSA 1978 § 74-2-6. Para más información, comuníquese con Gail Cooke al (505) 476- 4319 o por correo electrónico: gail.cooke@state.nm.us . Al concluir el período de comentarios públicos de 60 días, si se solicita la audiencia, todos los documentos incluidos en el Informe de Progreso de la Neblina Regional del 2013 de Nuevo México se presentarán a la EPA para que se in cluyan en el Plan de Implementación del Estado de Nuevo México.

El NMED celebrará una reunión informativa sobre el proyecto 2013 Haze Informe de Progreso Regional en la Oficina de la Oficina de Calidad del Aire NMED, 525 Camino de los Márquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 , el 6 de noviembre del 2013, de las 12:00 p.m. a las 3:00 p.m. Para asistir a esta reunión, por favor comuníquese con Gail Cooke, en el 505-476-4319 o en gail.cooke@state.nm.us

. El informe propuesto puede ser revisado durante las horas regulares de la oficina Oficina de Calidad del Aire NMED, 525 Camino del los Márquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexico



### . El texto completo de las propuestas normas modificadas del NMED es tá disponible en el sitio electrónico: www.nmenv.state.nm.us
, o comunicándose con Gail Cooke en el (505) 476-4319 o gail.cooke@state.nm.us

.

La audiencia, si así lo solicita 

### , se realizará de conformidad con 20.1.1 NMAC (Procedimientos de Reglamentación – Consejo para la Mejora del Medio Ambiente), la Ley de Mejora del Medio Ambiente,Sección 74-1-9 NMSA 1978, la Ley de Control de Calidad del Aire, S ección, 74-2-6 NMSA 1978, y otros procedimientos aplicables.

Todas las personas interesadas tendrán oportunidad razonable en la audiencia de presentar pruebas, datos, opiniones y argumentos importantes, ya sea en forma ve rbal o por escrito, así como de presentar anexos e interrogar testigos. Las personas que deseen entregar testimonios técnicos deben presentar ante el Consejo una notificación por escrito de su intenció n. La notificación de intención deberá:

(1) identificar a la persona para quien testificará(n) el(los) testigo(s); (2) identificar a cada uno de los testigos técnicos que las personas desean presentar y declarar las cualificaciones de los mismos, incluyendo una descri pción de sus antecedentes de educación y trabajo; (3) resumir o incluir una copia del testimonio directo de cada testigo técnico y declarar la duración prevista del testimonio de ese testigo; (4) enumerar y describir, o adjuntar, cada uno de los anexos que dicha persona prevé ofrecer en la audiencia; y (5) adjuntar el texto de cualqui er modificación recomendada a las regulaciones propuestas nuevas y revisadas.

Las notificaciones de intención para la audiencia deben ser r ecibidas en la Oficina del Consejo a más tardar a las 5:00 p.m., el 26 de noviembre de 2013, y hacer referencia al número de expediente, EIB 13-08(R), y la fecha de la audiencia. Las notificaciones de in tención para presentar testimonios técnicos se deben entregar a:

Pam Castaneda, Administradora de la Junta Oficina de la Junta de Mejoramiento Ambiental Harold Runnels Building P.O. Box 5469 Santa Fe, NM 87502 Teléfono: (505) 827-2425, Fax (505) 827-0310

Cualquier miembro del público en general puede testifi car en la audiencia. No se requiere notificación previa para presentar testimonios no técnicos en la audiencia. Los miembros del público también pueden ofrecer anexos en relación con su testimonio, en ta nto no sean repeticiones excesivas de su testimonio.

Los miembros del público en general que deseen presentar una declaración por escrito para el registro, en vez de ofrecer testimonio verbal en la audiencia, presentarán la d eclaración por escrito antes de la audiencia, o la presentarán en la misma.

Las personas con discapacidades y que necesiten ayuda para participar en esta audiencia deben comunicarse con Juan Carlos Borrego, del NMED Human Resources Bureau a más tardar el 23 de septiembre del 2013, por correo: P.O. Box 5469, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, Nuevo México, 87502- 5469; teléfono: 505-827-0424; o correo electrónico: juancarlos.borrego@state.nm.us . Los usuarios de TDY pueden acceder a su número por el New Mexico Relay Network en el 1-800-659-8331.

Si se celebra una audiencia , el Consejo puede tomar la decisión sobre las regulaciones propuestas revisadas a la conclusión de la audiencia, o bien acordar una reunión para una fecha posterior a fin de considerar las acciones sobre la propuesta.

### November 27 , 2013

Ms. Gail Cooke New Mexico Environmental Department Air Quality Bureau 525 Camino del los Marquez, Suite 1 Santa Fe, New Mexico

Via email to gail.cooke@state.nm.us

Re: Proposed Revisions to New Mexico's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to Adopt New Mexico’s Proposed 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report , Docket No. EIB 13

- 08(R)

Dear Ms. Cooke

,

W e respectfully submit the following comments regarding the New Mexico Environmental Department ( “ NMED ” ) Air Quality Bureau’s ( “ AQB ” ) proposed Regional Haze Progress Report ( “ Progress Report ” ). The National Parks Conserv ation Association represents more than 830,000 members and supporters around the country , including 7,000 in New Mexico, who care deeply about protecting the air quality in our national parks and wilderness areas.

The proposed Progress Report has numerous flaws that prevent it from adequately fulfilling the Regional Haze Rule ’s requirements for progress reports . In addition to failing to use the most recent emission data available, the Progress Report also fails to demonstrate that New Mexico’s current SIP elements are sufficient to enable New Mexico to meet its establishe d reasonable progress goals. As a result, New Mexico emissions are inhibiting the ability of other states to meet reasonable progress goals for their Class I areas.

Despite these flaws in the Progress Report, the New Mexico AQB concludes that the current Section 309 and 309(g) of Regional Haze State Implementation Plan ( “ SIP ” ) is adequate to meet the state’s 2018 reasonable progress goals and that it requires no further revision at this time. 1 

### This conclusion is incorrect and contrary to the Progress Report’s findings. Therefore, the New Mexico AQB must revise its Progress Report to correct the flaws mention ed above and below to

1 p. 39.Page 2 of 10 

### ensure that the Class I areas within its borders and in th e surrounding states are on the glide path to achieving natural visibility conditions by 2064.

I. Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Background

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress created a program for protecting visibi lity in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “ prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution. ” The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( “ EPA ” ) promulgated regulations on December 2, 1980, to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “ reasonably attributable ” to a single source or small group of sources. 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations are codified at 40 CFR § 51.300

- 307. As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress added section 169B to focus attention on regional haze issues, and EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999) codified at 40 CFR § 51, subpart P, also known as the Regional Haze Rule. EPA's Regional Haze Rule provides two paths for States to address regional haze. The first path is through 40 CFR § 51.308, which requires st ates to submit a SIP that establishes reasonable progress goals and a long

- term strategy for achieving those goals.

The other path for addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR § 51.309, which is an option for certain western states that are a part of th e Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission ( “ GCVTC ” ), including New Mexico. Under § 169B(c)(i) and § 169B(e) of the CAA, EPA established the GCVTC on November 12, 1991 with the purpose to assess information about the adverse impacts on visibility in and around the sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau region and to provide policy recommendations to EPA to address such impacts. The other eight states that are part of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region are Arizona, California, Colorado, Id aho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.

The GCVTC was required to issue a report to EPA recommending what measures, if any, should be taken to protect visibility. In June 1996, the GCVTC issued its first policy recommendations to EPA, in which it determin ed that all nine transport region states could potentially impact the sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC's recommendations were incorporated into EPA's Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR § 51.309. The § 309 regulations provided the states in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region an alternative method of achieving reasonable progress for Class I areas that were covered by the GCVTC. States electing to submit regional haze SIPs under the § 309 regulations ( “ 309 SIPs ” ) may have other Class I areas that are not on the Colorado Plateau. Such states must either address these additional Class I areas through the § 309 SIP pursuant to 40 CFR § 51.309(g) or submit a regional haze SIP under 40 CFR § 51.308.

Additionally, the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10) requires periodic implementation plan revisions, known as progress reports, every five years. Each Transport Region State must submit to the EPA the 5

- year progress reports in 2013 and 2018 and indicate whether the State’s existing impl ementation plan is sufficient to achieve its established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions. 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(ii)(A)

- (D). In comingPage 3 of 10 

### to this conclusion, each Transport Region State must address, at a minimum, the following elemen ts:

(A) A description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State. (B) A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of the measures described in paragraph (d)(10)(i)(A) of this section. (C) For each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, an assessment of th e following: the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days; the difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions; the change in visibility im pairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5 years. (D) An analysis tracking the change over the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within th e State. Emissions changes should be identified by type of source or activity. The analysis must be based on the most recent updated emissions inventory, with estimates projected forward as necessary and appropriate, to account for emissions changes during the applicable 5

- year period. (E) An assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have occurred over the past 5 years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. (F) An assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other States with mandatory Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to m eet all established reasonable progress goals. (G) A review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.

40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A)

- (G ). If, after considering the above elements, a Transp ort Region State determines that its SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress, it must provide notification to the EPA, develop additional strategies to address the implementation plan deficiencies, collaborate with other States whose emis sions may be impeding its progress, and revise the plan no later than one year from the date that the progress report was due. 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(ii)(A)

- (D).

II. New Mexico’s Proposed Regional Haze Progress Report Does Not Adequately Meet the Regional Ha ze Program’s Progress Report Requirements

.
As a Transport Region State, New Mexico has elected to address the Regional Haze Rule requirements through § 309. As mandated by § 51.309(d)(10)(i), the New Mexico AQB drafted its proposed Progress Report

. It propo ses to conclude that its current Regional Haze SIP is adequate to meet the state’s 2018 reasonable progress goals and that it requires no further revision at thisPage 4 of 10 

### time. 2 

### However, as the following sections will show, the proposed Progress Report fa ils to adequately address all the requir ed elements of § 51.309(d)(10) . Therefore, the Progress Report is insufficient and cannot claim to meet the Regional Haze Program’s requirements.

To clarify its regulatory requirements, in April 2013 EPA issued gu idance regarding progress reports, entitled General Principles for the 5

- Year Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Reports) ( “ EPA April 2013 Guidance ” )

. Am ong other elements, EPA’s April 2013 Guidance includes a checklist, mirroring the regulatory requirements, for evaluating progress report submittals. 3 

### We will walk through EPA’s checklist and the regulations in offering comments on New Mexico’ s Progress Report, and supplement New Mexico’s report with additional information where possible. We note that a given item may be “ complete ” in the sense that it nominally exists, but if it is insufficient in detail, analysis, or substance the Progress R eport requirements are not fulfilled.

A. The Proposed Progress Report Does Not Meet § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A)

EPA Checklist: “ Status of Control Strategies in the Regional Haze SIP: Does the report include a list of measures the state relied upon? ”

The proposed Progress Report does not describe the measures New Mexico is relying upon to achieve its reasonable progress goals. 4 

### We request that New Mexico include a description of these measures as required, not merely a reference to previous SIP s. Elsewhere, the Progress Report notes that “ many of the controls planned for EGUs in New Mexico had not taken place yet in 2010. ” 5 

### Describing the “ status of the implementation of all measures, ” as required by § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A), means articula ting which of the relied

- upon controls have been implemented, and which have not. We ask New Mexico to include this information in its final report.

B. The Proposed Progress Report Does Not Meet § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)

EPA Checklist: “ Emissions Reductions fro m Regional Haze SIP Strategies: Does the report include estimated reduction estimates for these measures? ”

§ 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires a summary of the emissions reductions achieved through the implementation of measures to meet a state’s reasonable pro gress goals. Section 3.3 of the AQB’s proposed Progress Report claims to describe the emissions reductions resulting from New Mexico’s implementation of its SIP. 6 

### However, aside from qualitatively discussing a decrease in SO2, Section 3.3 does not include estimated emission reduction s. Instead, it seeks to rely upon monitoring data showing decreases in visibility impairment. These decreases, while encouraging, do not suffice to meet the burden of § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B), in part because they tell

2 p. 35.
3 p. 24

- 25.
4 p. 7.
5 p. 33.
6 p. 9.Page 5 of 10 

### us v ery little about whether the improvements are the result of emissions reductions due to New Mexico’s SIP, or external changes (e.g. a decrease in natural or out

- of

- state sources). 7 

### We ask that New Mexico include the required estimates of emission reductions associated with their SIP

measures.

C. The Proposed Progress Report Does Not Meet § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C)

EPA Checklist: Visibility Progress: Does the report include the summaries of monitored visib ility data as required by the Regional Haze Rule?

The goal of a 5

- year progress report is to document progress and changes in the preceding 5 years and , on that basis, to make informed decisions identifying needed adjustments to the SIP

. B ecause its data is not the most recent available, the proposed Progress Report fails to meet this goal

. To fulfill its goal of describing the most recent 5 years, the progress report should include information that describes the preceding 5

- year period as closely as possible, allo wing in some instances for lag time between an event and the reporting thereof. The regulations recognize this need for up

- to

- date data, and accordingly ask for information that is either current (as in § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A )

- (B)), based on “ the most recent updated ” data ( § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C)), or

covers “ the past 5 years ” (as in § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C)

- (E)). New Mexico’s Progress Report does
not meet this standard.

Specifically, § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) calls for an assessment of specific visibility param eters “ over the past 5 years, ” yet the Progress Report addresses 2005

- 2009, a time period ending nearly four
years ago

. 8 

### This is not a question of data availability; the report acknowledges that “ the most recent IMPROVE monitoring data currently available includes 2010 data, ” 9 

### and in fact data through 2011 are widely known and readily available. 10



### Rather this appears to be an issue of misinterpretation of both the regulations and EPA’s guidance. Citing EPA’s 2003 guidance, 11 

### the Progress Report states that it is describing “ the most recent successive 5

- year average period available, the 2005

- 2009 period average ” even though more recent data are available. Whi le EPA’s 2003 guidance does discuss successive 5

- year periods in one instance, 12 

### it very clearly states that the goal is to use the “ most recent ” data

7 Even when the Progress Report discusses emission trends in Section 3.5, it fails to determine whether this monitored improvement is a result of the implementation of the SIP or other external measures. p. 23. For example, the Progress Report finds that there is a negative change in total emissions of sulfur dioxide in New Mexico since 2002; however, it fails to explain how much of these emissions reductions are due to active control measures of the SIP and how much are due to factors outside of the SIP, such as surrounding states’ emission reductions. p. 25

- 26.
8 p. 3.
9 p. 13.
10 The summary data for 2010 have been included on the IMPROVE website since December 2011 ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/IMPROVE/summary_data.htm ); the raw data are available on the VIEWS website through 2011 ( http://views.cira.colostate.edu/web/DataWizard/ ); and WRAP provides visual summaries of this data as well, including quick comparisons between the 2000

- 2004 baseline and the 5 year period from 2007

- 2011 ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx ).
11 EPA’s Septembe r 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule.
12 p. 4

- 2.Page 6 of 10 

### available, 13 

### and also contemplates a 5 year period outsid e the “ successive ” pattern cited by New Mexico. 14



### Moreover, there is clear recent guidance on the issue. EPA’s April 2013 Guidance states that the description of “ current visibility conditions ” shou ld “ include[] the most recent quality assured public data available at the time the state submits its 5

- year progress report for public review. ” p. 9. As EPA noted in its recent comments to Texas, at present, “ this would include data at least through 2011. ” 15 

### The progress reports are intended to provide mid

- course correction if any is needed; there is no logical reason to purposefully rely on less than current information. Indeed,

as discussed below, this information is critical to demonstrating lasting rather than ephemeral changes. New Mexico should update its analyses to include visibility information up to at least 2011. We also ask that, per EPA’s suggestion, New Mexico include a rolling 5 year average in its analysis. 16



### Additional Information and Concerns

The data that New Mexico presents suggests that much of the improvement from the baseline through the 2005

- 2009 time period is due to decreases in particulate organic matter, which is largely the result of fire. Conversely, an increase in ammonium sulfate, largely an anthropogenic pollutant , was documented at each site . This casts doubt on whether the visibility improvements over this time frame are in fact attributable to changes in anthropogenic emissions from New Mexico. The Progress Report discusses the contribution from an anomalously high sulfate event in 2005, but fails to quantify the impacts (for instance by giving the worst 20% days with that event removed). We appreciate the perspective offered by including annual average trends (Table 3.5), but the time period from 2000

- 2009 is not up to date and seems to take credit for significant reductions that occurred during the baseline period rather than as the result of SIP

measures.

Additionally, we have performed a preliminary review of the available data from IMPROVE and the VIEWS website through 2011 for the New Mexico Class I areas. Our main concerns from this analysis of the worst 20% days i nclude:

- For White Mountain, the 2007

- 2011 dv appears to be higher than the 2000

- 2004 baseline (i.e., degradation appears to be occurring). This is in part due to a continued increase in contribution from ammonium sulfate.

- Bosque del Apache appears to be experienc ing an on going increase in impacts from ammonium nitrate, largely an anthropogenic pollutant, as compared to the baseline.

- Wheeler Peak, Pecos, and Gila all may still be experiencing ammonium sulfate impacts higher than or equivalent to baseline im pacts. 17

13 See , e.g., p. 1

- 9, 1

- 10, 1

- 11, 1

- 14.
14 See p. 1

- 6, which discusses the 2013

- 2017 time frame.
15 EPA Comments on the Texas Regional Haze Progress Report. 9/30/13. p. 2.
16 See EPA April 2013 Guidance, p. 10.
17 The data available from the IMPROVE summaries and that available through VIEWS are similar but not identical; hence, it is not clear whether ammonium sulfate has increased since the baseline or remained very similar.Page 7 of 10 

### - Looking at the 2006

- 2010 time period, many of the Class I areas still demonstrate an increase in ammonium sulfate over the baseline. This indicates that other factors may be at play in addition to the 2005 anomaly identified by New Mexico.

We ask that New Mexico include the most recent visibility data, and in particular that it provide explanation for any increases in contributions from anthropogenic pollutants.

D. The Proposed Progress Report Does Not Meet § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D)

EPA Checklist: “ Emissions Pr ogress: Does the report provide emissions trends across the entire inventory for a 5

- year period as required by the Regional Haze Rule? ”

Likewise, § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) requires an emission analysis covering the applicable 5

- year period “ based on the most recent updated emissions inventory, with estimates projected forward as necessary and appropriate

. ” New Mexico’s analysis includes a description of the differences between the 2002 inventory and the most recent updated inventory, which was for base year 20 08. It also describes EGU emissions from 1996

– 2010.

However, this fails to address the regulatory requirement to include “ estimates projected forward as necessary and appropriate. ” In this case, 2008 is 5 years ago. While the inventory is helpful, it
p rovides very little information about what is happening today, and little basis upon which to assess the sufficiency of New Mexico’s SIP. At a minimum, we ask that New Mexico include:

- Up

- to

- date EGU emissions (EPA’s Air Markets Database is typically availa ble through the most recent quarter).

- Descriptions of general trends for in

- state emissions from 2008 to at least 2012 by pollutant and source category (preferably quantitative).

Although a recreation of a full inventory for a more recent year is not nece ssary, some forward estimate of recent emissions is required. Some of this data should already be available through state emissions inventory and Title V reporting, 18 

### wildfire tracking (e.g. as required under § 51.309(d)(6)), and similar data collection endeavors; EPA’s 2011 National Emissions Inventory would also provide a more updated point of com parison. 19 

### Without this information it is impossible to determine the impact of New Mexico’s SIP measures.

Additional Information and Concerns

We reviewed EPA’s Air Markets Database for information on New Mexico’s EGUs. As the graph below shows, emissions from these sources have largely stagnated in more recent history (2010

- 2012; data for the first 9 months of 2013 also indicates roughly the same ). This reinforces the need for New Mexico to provide more detailed, thorough information about the controls that have already been adopted by sources, as well as those that are anticipated i n the future.

18 See, e.g. http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/modeling/modelingemissions.html

. 19 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html

.Page 8 of 10 

### E. The Proposed Progress Report Does Not Meet § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E)

EPA Checklist: “ Assessment of Changes Impeding Progress: Does the report include an explicit statement of whether there are anthropogenic emissions changes impeding progress? ”

§ 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) requires that a progress report provide “ an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or o utside the State that have occurred over the past 5 years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. ” Instead of providing this assessment, the Progress Report only indicates the major sources of anthrop ogenic sources in New Mexico of visibility

- impairing pollutants; it provides a static glance at the 2005

- 2009 time period rather than addressing change over time. 20 

### It then draws the unsupported conclusion that there are no anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico that limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emi ssions or improving visibility. To support its determination, we request that New Mexico include an analysis of the emissions nearby each Class I area and identify any that are un expected as compared to the predictions of the SIP.

Moreover, the proposed Progress Report completely fails to address anthropogenic emissions outside of New Mexico that limit or impede progress in visibility improvement

. Models have identified that Texa s sources have a disproportionate impact on New Mexico Class I areas. According to CENRAP modeling for 2018, for example, Texas contributes more than 20% of the total visibility impairment at three New Mexico Class I areas (35% at Carlsbad Caverns, 22% at

20 p. 35.Page 9 of 10 

### Salt Creek, and 21% at White Mountain); Texas contributes more than 5% of the total visibility impairment at another four New Mexico Class I areas (11% at Bosque del Apache, 8% at Wheeler Peak and Pecos, 7% at San Pedro Parks). 21



### Texas’ SIP submission requires no emissions reductions at all. EPA has thus far failed to act on Texas’ SIP submission. Thus, the emissions reductions that should be required under the Regional Haze Rule have not come to pass and are clear ly impeding New Mexico’s ability to make progress towards natural visibility. We ask New Mexico to make clear to EPA and Texas the need for additional reductions from Texas in order to improve visibility at New Mexico’s Class I areas.

F. The Proposed Progre ss Report Does Not Meet § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F)

EPA Checklist: “ Assessment of Current Strategy: Does the report include an assessment of whether the state’s haze plan is on track to meet reasonable progress goals? ”

In order to comply with § 51.309(d)(10)(i)( F), the proposed Progress Report should provide an assessment of whether New Mexico’s current SIP is sufficient to enable it and other states with mandatory Class I areas affected by New Mexico emissions to meet all established reasonable progress goals un der the CAA. The proposed Progress Report does not fulfill this requirement. Section 3.7, which addresses this element, re

- states the visibility monitoring data, and uses this to conclude that New Mexico’s approach is sufficient.

This approach is flawed. By failing to provide timely data regarding New Mexico’s emissions, controls, and progress, the Progress Report offers no support for the idea that the demonstrated visibility benefits are in fact causally linked to New Mexico’s SI P measures rather than changes in natural or out

- of

- state sources. The Progress Report states that “ New Mexico believes that the current control strategies

... are sufficient; ” 22 

### we ask New Mexico to provide quantitative evidence that this is the case for both its in

- state and out

- of

- state impacted Class I areas.

III. The Proposed Progress Report Fails to Account for Emission Reductions from EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan for San Juan Generating Station

In September 2011, EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan ( “ FIP ” ) requiring significant additional emission reductions from the San Juan Generating Station. 76 FR 52389 (September 21, 2011). This FIP will lower New Mexico’s 2018 emissions below thos e used to model the reasonable progress goals. The reasonable progress goals, by definition, should reflect all of the reductions in the SIP/FIP and in any other Clean Air Act requirements. 40 CFR 51.30 8(d)(1)(B)(vi). In promulgating the FIP, therefore, EP A should have revised the reasonable progress goals to be consistent with the additional emissions reductions; that is, the reasonable progress goals for Class I areas impacted by San Juan Generating Station should be lower than those presented in the Progress Report

.

21 Compiled from CENRAP’s PS AT Visualization Tool, 2018 Future Year, CM&Soil RRF=1. Available at http://www.censara.org/html/presentations.php . Some of this impairment is from natural sources, but a significant portion is an thropogenic.
22 p. 36.Page 10 of 10 

### Given that neith er EPA nor New Mexico have quantified the appropriate reasonable progress goals, it is impossible to tell the magnitude of progress towards them. At a minimum we ask that New Mexico include a list of the Class I areas impacted by the additional reductions from San Juan Generating Station and quantitative description of reasonable progress goals that are consistent with EPA’s FIP.

In conclusion, the information that New Mexico has presented is insufficient to make the required determination of adequacy und er § 51.309(d)(10)(ii). Therefore, the data presented in the 5

- year Progress Report is not sufficient to support AQB ’ s conclusion thatthe proposed SIP makes adequate progress toward the regional haze program’s reasonable progress requirements

. The New Mexico pro gress report should be revised to address the plans deficiencies within a year. These revisions must include more detailed, updated, thorough analysis that concretely links the emissions reductions required under its SIP to visibility improvements at its C lass I

areas. In addition, the plan should be revised to include reasonable progress goals that are consistent with EPA’s FIP and identify measures sufficient to ensure that the state’s regional haze plan helps put in and out

- of

- state Class I areas bac k on the glide path to achieving natural visibility by 2064.

Sincerely,

/s/ Nathan Miller Stephanie Kodish National Parks Conservation Association

# United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVIC E
A i

r R eso u r ces D i v i s i o n P

. O

. B ox 2 5 287 D e nv e r , CO 80225 -0 28 7



### TRANSMITIED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL- NO HARDCOPY TO FOLLOW



## ' · N3615 (2350)

October 25, 2013

Memorandum

To: Rita Bates, New Mexico Air Quality Branch

From: Pat Brewer, NPS Air Re sources Division

Subject: NPS Comments NM Five Year Progress Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on New Mexico' s**R~gional** 

### Haze Progress Report. I believe that New Mexico Air Quality Board (AQB) has met the periodic rep01ting requirements of 40 CFR 5l.308(g) and (h) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(l0)

. AQB has effectively used the Western Regional Partnership (WRAP) Regional Haze Reasonable Progre ss Summary Report 1 

### to demon s trate that visibi lit y i s improving on the 20 % b es t and 20 % worst d ays at all C l ass I areas in New Mexico. AQB has demonstrated that ammonium s ulfate, particulate orga ni c matter
, and coarse mass are the large st contr ibutor s to visibility imp airment

on the 20 % wor s t and 20% best v i sibility clays at Class I ar e as in New Mexico. AQB ha s demonstrated that an throp ogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides have decrea sed. AQB asserts that a ll em i ssions control m eas ure s used by New Mexico to se t 20 1 8 reasonable
progr ess goals are b e ing impl emented and that New Mexico i s not imp ed in g other states from meeting their 2018 reasonable progr ess goa l s. The on ly exce ption is that tlte final determination of Best Available R e trofit T ec hnology (BART) for San Ju an Generating Station i s s till p e nding

.

N e w Mexico is th e fir s t of th e w es tern states to pr e pare a regional haze progres s report. The fo ll owing r eco mm e ndations would improve AQB's s ubmittal to EPA:

• S ec tion 1. 

### Intr oduct i on briefly di sc u ss e s BART for San Ju an Generating Station

. Pleas e upd ate thi s di sc u ss i on to r e port the BART decision by the New M ex i co E n v ironmental Impr ovement Board in September 2013. EPA review of this deci s ion i s s till pending. Plea se al so di sc us s BART in more d e tail in Section 3.5 Emissions lnventor y including f in al p e rmitt e d BART emission limit s for s ulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, assumed

1 http: //www. wrapair2.org/documen t s /Fuii %20 Rep o rt/WRAP _RHRPR

_ Fuii

_ Report

_ without

_ Append i ce s

. POF

### 2

capacity and annual generation for each unit (mw), and assumed annual emission totals

.

 Section 3.2 Control Measures: AQB states that NM is implementing the l ong

- term strategies in the State’s 309 and 309(g) State Implementation Plans. Please summarize major control measures

.

 Section 3.4.1

, Current Visibility, cites EPA 2003 guidance that specifies using successive 5

- year periods (e.g. 2000

- 2004, 2005

- 2009) to review visibility progress. Please also reference EPA 2013 guidance that recommended using rolling five year averages 2



### . The rolling average has the advantage of considering the most current ly available IMPROVE monitoring data. It also reduces the imp ortance of any single year on the overall visibility trend.

In addition to the detailed t echnical analyses i n the WRAP reasonable progress report, WRAP also provided trends for deciview and species

- specific extinction for each Class I area for the 20% worst and 20% best visibility days in 2000

- 2004, 2005

- 2009, 2006

- 2010, and 2007

- 2011 3



### . As an exampl e, the table below reports visibility trends at Bandalier National Park for the 20% worst visibility days

. Please add these tables to supplement the detailed WRAP reasonable progress analyses in the NM report.

Bandalier , NM Reasonable Progress Summary: Visibility Conditions: Worst 20% Days

2000

- 04 Baseline Conditions (Mm

- 1) 2005

- 09 Progress

Period (Mm

- 1) 2006

- 10 Progress

Period (Mm

- 1) 2007

- 11 Progress

Period (Mm

- 1)

Sulfate 5.3 6.2 5.7 5.6

Nitrate 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4
Organic Carbon 8.4 4.7 4.4 6.6

Elemental Carbon 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.8

Fine Soil 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.2

Coarse Material 2.8 2.1 2.2 2.6

Sea Salt 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Light Extinction 31.4 26.2 25.4 28.2

Deciview 10.4 9.1 8.8 9.6

2 General Principles for the 5

- Year Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Reports) , A pril 2013

, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

, Research Tr iangle Park, North Carolina

3 WRAP Technical Support S ystem website ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/HazePlanning.aspx ).

### 3

 Section 3.4.2, Visibility Change: Table 3.3 demonstrates that v isibility improved on the 20% worst days between the base period 2000

- 2004 and 2005

- 2009

. The table above shows that visibility on the 20% worst days also improved in 2006

- 2010 and 2007

- 2011

. The contributions of the primary contributors, ammonium sulfate ( primarily anthropogenic ) and particulate organic matter and coarse mass (primarily biogenic and more episodic in occurrence), varies year to year. I n years with high influence from wildfires, particulate organic matter dominate s the 20% worst visibility days, and ammonium sulfate h as a lower c ontribution. Conversely, in years with low fire activity, particu late organic matter w as low er and ammonium sulfate had a comparatively higher
cont ribution on the 20% worst days. P lease discuss th is interdependency between pollutants to account for what otherwise would appear to be an increase in ammonium sulfate contributions since the 2000

- 2004 baseline . Th e dominant role of fire also point s to the difficulty in predicting future visibility trends using the 20% worst days as the indicator of progress.

 Section 3.4.3 Annual Average Visibility Trend: AQB demonstrated that annual average visibility impairment decreased for all pollutant species , includin g ammonium sulfate over the 2000

- 2009 period (Table 3.5). Annual average trends are less responsive to episodic impacts from wildfire and are appropriate to report as weight of evidence , in addition to trends for the 20% worst and 20% best days

. I am not asking that annual average trends be updated beyond 2009.

 Section 3.5 Emissions Inventory: Tables 3.7 and 3.8 demonstr ate that anthropogenic sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) emissions have been reduced by 43% and anthropogenic nitrogen oxide (NO x 

### ) emissions have been reduced by 28% between the 2002 WRAP inventory and the 2008 WESTJUMP inventory. Figure 3.20 indicates additional SO 2 

### and NO x 

### emissions reductions in 2009

- 2010 f r om El ectric Generating Units (EGU)

. Please discuss the control s that were implemented for specific EGU to accomplish the se S O 2 

### and NO x 

### emission reduction s

. EPA ’ s Clean Air Markets Division EGU data tracks emis s i ons and controls by unit, facility, a nd state. Will a dditional S O 2 

### and NO x 

### controls (beyond continued implementation of federal requirements for mobile and area sources and BART for San Juan Generating ) be implemented before 2018 ? Figure 4.5 shows that i n 2010 SO 2 

### emissions in New Mexico, Utah , and Wyoming were below 309 milestones. Are additional SO 2 

### reductions expected in New Mexico?

 WRAP provided the western states with particulate source apportionment analyses using the CAMx regional air quality model for 2002 and 2018 inventories

. An example plot for Mesa Verde, Colorado, is cop ied from the WRAP T echnical Support System t o illustrate that SO 2 

### emission reductions f rom NM by 2018 are expected to significantly reduce NM ’ s contribution to ammonium sulfate to that Class I area. Please add at least a few of the se plots for neighbo ring Class I areas to suppo rt AQB ’ s conclusion that NM is not impeding other states meeting their reasonable progress goals

.

### 4

We appreciate the opportunity to work closely with AQB to improve visibility in our Class I national park and wilderness areas.

### Ms. 

### Rita Bates UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75202·2733



### Pllllliling Section Chief, Air Quality Bureau New Mexico Environment Department 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite I Santa Fe, NM 87505

Re: New Mexico's Proposed Five Year Progress Report

Dear Ms. Bates:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on New Mexico's Regional Haze Progress Report. Overall, 

### we believe it was well prepared, the data and 

### analysis 

### was comprehensive, and information was presented in a clear and easily understandable manner. The Progress Report State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision addresses the adequacy of the existing regional haze SIP to meet the reasonable progress goals oftbe state's nine (9) Class [areas and assesses the
current visibility conditions and 

### recent changes in emissions. Visibility conditions are improving
at all Class I areas in the state, and 

### all but two have already exceeded the visibility improvement goals set for 2018. We offer the following comments to 

### strengthen tbe SIP:

• We recommend updating section 1 to reflect tbe current statuS of the New Mexico Regional Haze SIP (NM RH SIP) revision containing the "State Alternative" for NOx BART for the San Juan Generating Station. 

### It would also 

### be helpful to include additional detail on the emission reductions achieved at the facility 

### in response to the 2005 consent decree as well as emission reductions and implementation schedule anticipated in the new RH SIP revision in the appropriate sections of the report. Emission reductions at San Juan Generating Station are a significant element of the

measures implemented during the first planning period that improve visibility conditions at Class I areas within the State and surrounding areas.

• 309(d)(IO)(i)(A) requires a description of the status of implementation of all

measures included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State. Section 309(d)( IO)(i)(B) requires A summary oftbe emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of the measures described in paragraph ( d)(l O)(i)(A). Please expand sections 3.2 and 

### 3.3 to provide additional detail on the
status of the emissions reduction measures that were included in the WRAP regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling, and included in the state's long-term strategy. This summary should include a brief discussion of the benefits associated with each measure and quantification of these emission reductions achieved throughout the state through implementation of these measures wherever possible. We recommend including information on any additional measures being implemented

### that were not relied upon in the initial regional haze SIP to meet RPGs, but have resulted in additional visibility benefits.

• As our guidance 1 

### indicates, "For current visibility conditions, the reports should include the 5-year average that includes the most recent quality assured public data available at the time the state submits its 5-year progress report for public review." This would include data at least through 20 II. We note that the WRAP TSS website provides summaries of rolling 5-yr averages including data for 20 II for each Class I

area. In addition to 

### the trend analysis contained in section 3 and Appendix C of the SIP, this data is useful for examining the overall trends in visibility conditions and contributions from the different light impairing species.

• Table 3.3 

### shows an increase in sulfate across all Class I areas between the 2000-2004 baseline and the 2005-2009 period. The report will be improved if it provides available information on the potential causes of this increase, including any available information on the 2005 sulfate transport event mentioned on page 21. How does

more recent data for 20 I 0 and 2011 compare to the 2005-2009 period? Are 

### there reductions in sulfate at Class I areas that can be identified in response to sulfate emission reductions at San Juan Generating Station in the 2009 and beyond time period?

• Section 3.5 provides an analysis of emissions and compares the 2002 emission inventory to 

### a 2008 emission inventory developed for recent modeling efforts. We recommend you also include a comparison of emissions to the 2018 projected emissions included in the WRAP regional 

### haze emissions inventory and 

### RPG modeling, relied upon in the 201 1 NMRH SIP. This comparison is useful in tracking
progress towards emission redU£tions anticipated in the RH SIP as well as providing addition information on uncertainties and possible errors in the 

### 2018 projections. For example, 

### we noted in our earlier reviews ofNM RH SIP submittals that large increases in projected area source emissions for 

### S02 that were unlikely to occur. We also note the recent availability of the 2011 NEI data as a tool for making comparisons to a more current emission inventory.

• Large reductions in 

### S0 2 

### and NOx emissions from point sources are identified between the 2002 and 2008 emission inventory. We recommend that the report provide additional information on the location of these emission reductions as well as recent emissions data, as available, for individual EO Us and other sources in the state. This additional information may also be helpful in quantifying emission reductions due to implementation of control measures for Section 3.3.

' General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Repons ), April 20 l3

### • We reconunend adding information on the variability of impacts from wildfires from
year to year and their impact on overall visibility conditions for the 20% worst days between the baseline and other 5-yr periods.

• We also reconunend a discussion of any ongoing or future consultation with Texas concerning establishing consistent natural conditions for Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains. These two Class I areas are represented by a single monitor and separated by a small distance.

• We would value a discussion of any current efforts or plans for future consultation (either through the RPO process or separately) with Texas and other non-members of the WRAP RPO having emissions that may impact visibility at New Mexico Class I

areas

..

We continue to offer NMED our support during the SIP revision process. Please let us know how we may be of further assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Guy Donaldson Chief Air P Ianning Section

### New Mexico Environment Department’s Responses to the November 27, 2013 National Parks Conservation Associations Comments Regarding New Mexico’s 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report.

1. The Proposed Progress Report Does Not Meet §51.309(d)(10)(i)(A).

NMED has included a summary of the major source long-term strategies in the 2013 RH Progress Report.



### 2. The Proposed Progress Report Does Not Meet §51.309(d)(10)(i)(B).

NMED has provided additional information on SO 2 

### and NOx emissions from New Mexico point sources in the 2013 RH Progress Report. NMED also compared the 2018 projected emissions from the WRAP RH emissions inventory to present SO 2 

### and NOx emission data in the 2013 RH Progress Report.



### 3. The Proposed Progress Report Does Not Meet §51.309(d)(10)(i)(C).

NMED incorporated reasonable progress summaries for each Class I area that includes the rolling averages for 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2006-2010, and 2007-2011.

4. The data that New Mexico presents suggests that much of the improvement from the baseline through the 2005-2009 time period is due to decreases in particulate organic matter, which is largely the result of fire. Convers ely, an increase in ammonium su lfate, largely an anthropogenic pollutant, was documented at each site.

NMED incorporated a discussion on the interd ependency of pollutants in the 2013 RH Progress Report. The 20% worst days occur on different days in different years depending on the presence of fire. In a high fire year, some of the 20% worst days are dominat ed by fire. However, in the absence of fire, the 20% worst day s are dominated by other pollutants including sulfates. These days may occur at different times of the year as well. The graphs included in Section 3.3 of the revised Progress Report show that emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide from point sources in New Mexico are decreasing.

5. The Proposed Progress Report Does Not Meet §51.309(d)(10)(i)(D).

NMED has provided more recent information on SO 2 

### and NOx emissions from New Mexico point sources in the 2013 RH Progress Report. NMED had included a comparison of the 2018 projected emissions from the WRAP RH em issions inventory to present SO 2 

### and NOx emission data.



### 6. Emissions from New Mexico’s EGUs have largely stagnated in more recent history (2010- 2012; data for the first 9 months of 2013 also in dicates roughly the same). This reinforces the need for New Mexico to provide more detaile d, thorough information about the controls that have already been adopted by sources, as well as those that are anticipated in the future.

SJGS consent decree controls were complete d in 2009. Additional controls at SJGS will be implemented upon EPA approval of the revised B ART determination submitted in October 2013.

### These will result in approximately 62% reducti on of NOx, 67% reduction of SO2, and 50% reduction of PM.

7. The Proposed Progress Report Does Not Meet §51.309(d)(10)(i)(E).

NMED has reviewed the anthropogenic sources for the 2013 RH Progress Report that could potentially affect visibility in each of New Mexico’s Class I areas and we do not agree that an additional analysis is necessary. See chart in Section 3.3 of the revise d progress report that shows reductions in emis sion in New Mexico.

8. The Proposed Progress Report Does Not Meet §51.309(d)(10)(i)(F).

NMED has adhered to and is exceeding the st ate’s regional commitments for emission reductions. The emission reduc tions that New Mexico agreed to during this regional planning process are also what other states have relied upon for their visibility modeling. In fact, New Mexico has reduced emissions fu rther than those predicted for 2018 that other states relied upon for meeting their reasonable progress goals.

9. The Proposed Progress Report fails to account for emission reductions from EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan for San Juan Generating Station.

NMED has incorporated a summary on the most recent Regional Haze (RH) SIP revisions regarding BART for San Juan Generating Station in the 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report. NMED submitted a revised BART determination in a revised Regional Haze SIP submittal in October 2013. EPA has committed to review and pr opose either approval or denial of that submittal no later than April 30, 2014 (135 day s following completeness determination on December 17, 2013). The submitted SIP revision would require d ecreases of NOx emissions by 62 percent, SO2 by 67 percent, and PM by 50 pe rcent at San Juan Genera ting Station. Although the compliance deadline in the Federal Implemen tation Plan currently remains in effect, EPA has agreed that it will take ac tion to withdraw that pl an if the SIP is approved.

### New Mexico Environment Department’s Responses to the October 25, 2013 U.S. National Park Service’s Comments Regarding New Mexico’s 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report.

S ec ti o n 1. Intr o du c ti o n bri e fly di s cu sses BART f o r San Juan G e n e ratin g Station

. Pl e a se upd a t e thi s di sc u ss i o n to r e p o rt th e BART d e ci sio n b y th e N ew M e xi c o E nvironm e nt a l Improvem e nt Board in Sept e mb e r 2013. EPA r ev i e w of thi s d e ci s ion i s s till p e nding. Pl ease al so di s cu ss BART in m o r e d e tail in Se c ti o n 3 .5 E mi ss i o n s In v ent o r y includin g fin a l pe rmitt e d BART emi ss i o n limit s for s ulfur di ox id e a nd nitr oge n oxid es , ass umed capacity and annual generation for each unit (mw), and assumed annual emission totals.

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has incorporated a summary on the most recent Regional Haze (RH) SIP revisions regarding BART for San Juan Generating Station in Sections 1.0 and 3.2 of the 2013 Re gional Haze Progress Report.

Section 3.2 Control Measures: AQB states that NM is implementing the long-term strategies in the State’s 309 and 309(g) State Implementa tion Plans. Please summarize major control

measures.

NMED has incorporated a summary of the majo r source long-term strate gies in the 2013 RH Progress Report in Section 3.2.

Section 3.4.1, Current Visibility, cites EPA 2003 guidance that spec ifies using successive 5-year periods (e.g. 2000-2004, 2005-2009) to re view visibility progress. Please also reference EPA 2013 guidance that recommended usi ng rolling five year averages 2 

### . The rolling average has the advantage of considering the most currently available IMPROVE monitoring data. It also reduces the importance of any single y ear on the overall vi sibility trend.

In addition to the detailed technical analyses in the WRAP reasonabl e progress report, WRAP also provided trends for deciview and species-s pecific extinction for each Class I area for the 20% worst and 20% best visibility days in 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2006- 2010, and 2007-2011 3



### . As an example, the table below reports visibility trends at Bandalier National Park for the 20% worst visibility days. Please add these tabl es to supplement the detailed WRAP reasonable progress analyses in the NM report.

NMED has incorporated tables showing roll ing averages and referen ces 2013 EPA guidance in Section 3.4.1 of the 2013 RH Progress Report.

Section 3.4.2, Visibility Change : Table 3.3 demonstrates that visibility improved on the 20% worst days between the base period 2000- 2004 and 2005-2009. The table above shows that visibility on the 20% worst days also im proved in 2006-2010 and 2007-2011. The contributions of the primary contributors, ammonium sulfate (p rimarily anthropogenic) and particulate organic matter and coarse mass (primarily biogenic and more episodic in occurrence), varies year to year. In years with high influence from wildfires, pa rticulate organic matter dominates the 20% worst visibility days, and ammonium sulfate has a lo wer contribution. Conversely, in years with low fire activity, particulate orga nic matter was lower and ammonium sulfate had a comparatively

### higher contribution on the 20% worst days. Pl ease discuss this inte rdependency between pollutants to account for what othe rwise would appear to be an increase in ammonium sulfate contributions since the 2000-2004 base line. The dominant role of fire also points to the difficulty in predicting future visibility trends using th e 20% worst days as the indicator of progress.

NMED has incorporated discussion on the in terdependency of pollutants in the 2013 RH Progress Report in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2.

Section 3.4.3 Annual Average Visib ility Trend: AQB demonstrated that annual average visibility impairment decreased for all pollutant spec ies, including ammonium sulfate over the 2000-2009 period (Table 3.5). Annual average trends are less responsive to episodic impacts from wildfire and are appropriate to report as weight of evidence, in addition to trends for the 20% worst and 20% best days. I am not asking that a nnual average trends be updated beyond 2009.

Thank you for your comment.

Section 3.5 Emissions Inventory: Tables 3.7 an d 3.8 demonstrate that anthropogenic sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) emissions have been reduced by 43% and anthropogenic nitrogen oxide (NO x 

### ) emissions have been reduced by 28% betw een the 2002 WRAP inventory and the 2008 WESTJUMP inventory. Figure 3.20 indicates additional SO 2 

### and NO x 

### emissions reductions in 2009-2010 from Electric Generating Units (EGU). Please discuss the controls that were implemented for specific EGU to accomplish these SO 2 

### and NO x 

### emission reductions. EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division EGU data tracks emi ssions and controls by unit, facility, and state. Will additional SO 2 

### and NO x 

### controls (beyond continued implem entation of federal requirements for mobile and area sources and BART for San Juan Generating) be implemented before 2018? Figure 4.5 shows that in 2010 SO 2 

### emissions in New Mexico, Ut ah, and Wyoming were below 309 milestones. Are additional SO 2 

### reductions expected in New Mexico?

The reductions in EGU SO 2 

### and NOx emissions were largely as a result of controls installed in compliance with a 2005 consent decree between Grand Canyon Trus t, the Sierra Club, NMED and PNM for San Juan Generating Station. Contro l technology implementation was completed in 2009. More reductions are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2017 when PNM has agreed to shut down two units at San Juan Genera ting Station and install se lective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology on the remaining two units. This will result in an approximately 62 percent reduction of NOx, 67 percent reduction of SO 2 

### and 50 percent reduction of PM by 2018. In addition to the San Juan Generating Station exis ting controls and planned controls, El Paso Electric in Sunland Park, NM instal led Flue Gas Regeneration in 2010.

WRAP provided the western states with partic ulate source apportionment analyses using the CAMx regional air quality model for 2002 a nd 2018 inventories. An example plot for Mesa Verde, Colorado, is copied from the WRAP Technical Support System to illustrate that SO 2 

### emission reductions from NM by 2018 ar e expected to significantly reduce NM’s contribution to ammonium sulfate to that Class I area. Please add at least a few of these plots for neighboring Class I areas to support AQ B’s conclusion that NM is not impeding other states meeting their reasonable progress goals.

### Other states relied on WRAP modeling to show re asonable progress at their Class I areas. With the BART determination of a 2 un it shut-down and 2 unit SNCR installation, New Mexico will be exceeding the modeled levels relied on by WRAP for regional haze. Therefore, NM is not impeding other states in meeti ng their reasonable progress goal s, and is, in fact, decreasing more than was anticipated in th e WRAP modeling for both NOx and SO 2


### .

### New Mexico Environment Department’s Responses to the November 22, 2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comments Regarding New Mexico’s 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report.

1. We recommend updating section 1 to reflect the current status of the New Mexico Regional H aze SIP (NM RH SIP) revision containing the "S tate Alternative " for N Ox BART for the San Juan Generating Station. I t would a l so be helpful to include add itional detail on the emission reductions achieved at the facility in response to t h e 2005 consent decree as well as emission reductions and implementation schedule antic ipat ed in the new RH SIP revision in the appropriate sections of the report. Emission reductions at San Juan Generating Station are a sign ificant element of the measures implemented during the first planning period that improve visibility cond ition s at Class I areas within th e State and surrounding areas.

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has incorporated the current status and information on NOx BART for the San Juan Generation Station (SJGS) and the emission reductions achieved due to the 2005 Consent Decree at SJGS (Section 3.3 of the Progress Report) in the 2013 Regional Haze (RH) Progress Report (in Sections 1.0 and 3.2 regarding BART, and in Section 3.3 regarding the Consent Decree).

2. 3 09( d)(10 )(i)(A) requires a description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State. Section 30 9 ( d)( 10 )(i)(B) requires A s umma ry of the emiss i o n s reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of the mea s ures described in paragraph (d ) (10)(i)(A). Please expand sections 3.2 and 3.3 to provide additiona l detail on the s ta tus of the emissions r eduction mea s ur es that were included in the WRAP regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling

, and included in the state ' s l ong-term stra tegy. This summary s h ould include a bri ef d i scuss ion of the benefits associated wit h each measure and quantification of these emission reductions achieved throughout the state through implementation of these mea s ures wherever possible. We recommend including information on any additional measures being implemented that w ere not relied upon in the initial regional haze SIP to meet RPGs, but have resulted in additional visibility benefits.

NMED has included a summary of the major source long-term strategies in Section 3.2 of the 2013 RH Progress Report.

3. As our guidance indicates, "For current visibility conditions, the reports sho uld i nclude the 5-year average that includes the most recent quality assured public dat a available at the time the state submits its 5-year progress report for public review. " T h is would include data at least through 2011. We no t e that the WRAP TSS web s ite provides summaries of rolling 5-yr averages includin g data for 2011 for each Clas s I ar e a. In addition to the trend analysis contained in section 3 and Appendix C of the S I P, this data is useful for examining the overall trends in visibility conditions and contributions from the different light impairing species.



### NMED incorporated tables showing 5-year roll ing averages in Section 3.4.1 of the 2013 RH Progress Report.

4. Ta ble 3.3 shows an increase in sulfate across all Class I areas between the 2000-2004 baseline and the 2005-2009 period. The report will be improved if it provides a v ailable information on the

### potential causes of this increase, includin g any available information on the 2005 sulfa t e transport event mentioned on page 21. How does more recent data for 2010 and 2011 compare to the 2005- 2009 period? Are there reductions in sulfate at Class I areas that can be identified in response to sulfate emission reductions at San Juan Generating Station i n the 2009 and beyond time period?

NMED incorporated additional information in regards to the increase of sulfate between the baseline and 2005-2009 period in Section 3.4.1. NMED has also incorporated information comparing more recent emissions data in Section 3.4.1.

5. Section 3.5 provides an analysis of emissions and compares the 2002 emission i nventory to a 2008 emission inventory developed for recent modeling efforts

. W e recommend you also include a comparison of emissions to the 2018 projected emissions included in the WRAP regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling, relied upon in the 2011 NM RH SIP. This comparison is useful in tracking p rogress towards emission reductions anticipated in the RH SIP as well as providing addition information on unc ertainties and possible errors in the 2018 projections. For

e x ample, we noted in our earlier reviews of NM RH SIP submittals that large increases in projected area source emissions for SO 2 

### that were unlikely to occur. We also note the recent availability of the 2011 NEI data as a tool for making comparisons to a more current emission inventory.

NMED has compared the 2018 projected emissions from the WRAP RH emissions inventory to present emission data in the 2013 RH Progress Report. See Figure 3.6.

6. Large reductions in SO 2 

### and NOx emissions from point sources are identified b e tween the 2002 and 2008 emission inventory. We recommend that the report p r ovide addi tional information on the location of these emission reductions as we ll as recent emissio ns data, as available, for individual EGUs and other so urc es in the s tate. This additional information may also be helpfu l in quantifying emission reductions d u e to implemen t ation of control measures for Section 3.3.

NMED has provided additional information on SO 2 

### and NOx emissions from point sources in the 2013 RH Progress Report. See Figure 3.6 and Section 3.3.

7. We recommend adding information on the variability of impacts from wi l dfir e s from y e ar to year and their impact on ov e rall visibility conditions for t he 20% worst da y s b e tween the baseline and other 5-yr periods.

NMED has provided additional information on the impacts due to wildfire for the 20% worst days in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of the 2013 RH Progress Report.

8. We also r e commend a discussion o f any ongoing or fu t ure consultation with Tex a s concerning

e stablishing consistent natural conditions for Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains. Thes e two Class I areas are represented by a s ingle monit o r a n d separated by a small distance.

NMED has provided additional information on the state’s consultation process with Texas in Section 2.0 of the 2013 RH Progress Report.

9. We would value a discussion of any current efforts or plans for fu ture consultatio n (e i ther through the RPO process or sepa r ately) with Texas and other non-member s of th e WRAP RPO having

e missions that may impact visibi l i t y at New M e xico Clas s I a re as.

### NMED has provided additional information on the state’s consultation process with other RPOs in Section 1.1 of the 2013 RH Progress Report.CLA-22-A (R-l/93) 

# AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

STATE OF NEW MEXICO County of Bernalillo 

## ss

Linda MacEachen, being duly sworn, declares and says that she is Classified Advertising Manager
of The Albuquerque Journal, and that this newspaper is duly qualified to PUblish legal notices or advertisements within the meaning of Section 3, Chapter 167, Session Laws of 1937 and th 1 t ' a paymen therefore has been made of assessed as Court cost; that the 

# nrice, Copy Of Which is hereto attached,

## ,~u~~ in

## sa~:!!c**re~:** daily edition, for times, the first publication being on

## th~ day of

## ~~~. 2o_l3nd the subsequent consecutive publications on 

## -oc----------=-----

_____ , 20

__ .

# ~.<!C=:._:_ __

# ~&vlb. 

# - )

..**-~ :;:_;,-;.::.,::L"c;i":;:;L~**  Sworn and subscribed before me, a Notary Public, in and ) 

# f,

. 

# \v 3a nora B. Cu1ia;rez

## n--\lhount~erna ]uandS teofNewMexicothis I\, / " NOTARYPUL.UC

### ~ \ -::L. ) '

__ .,_- "TI\T£

### Oii.f.:..'Y~.':IJ day of 

### ,.e.J'l of

### 20_~ 

## k':J '-.-!**r.:__~** "':

### r![:_~::.._~Q.::]--. 

# ciffikct, "- 

# /3-tit£6

PR!CE,

__

# ,.._,5~:5....,)!'--'-'·-9-+---=3"""'----- Statement to come at end of munth.

ACCOUNT NUMBEH \ () 

# Q""") 

# 0 

# tl

# RECEIVED

• OCT 8 2013 

# In v 01

# c~ir Quality Bureau Commission of Public**R~'Cords** 

### Administrative 

### Law Divison

1205 

### Camino Carlos Rey 

### Invoice Number: 

### l'·/MR-201 .f- 

### 66



### Date:

. Bill To: 

### Gail Cooke 

### ! Environmental Protection. Air Quulily
525 Camino de los Marquez

Santa Fe, NM 87505- 

### I 0/l/20 13 Santa Fe, NM 87507- 

### Phone: (505) 476-7907
Fax: (505) 4 

### 76-7910

Ship To (if different address):
Environmental Protection- Air Quality

525 Camino de los Marquez

Santa Fe. NM 87505-

SRC AuthorizHtion

Louise Wood Phonl'**~umber** :**D-~te** Requested II DHtr_SIIippcd J ShijJped Yin 

### _I_**Riii···T-;;-(ng~~-~Y~odc)** '
(505>476·7875 1

_

# Jo/t/20_1_~_ _ __

# u_s_P~~t 

# j

__**66~** _ :

Dcscrit}tion
28_l__ Columnar inch Other Material

For Internal Usc Only 

### ! Revenue Code

1 4Jt902 

# I

_L

# Un-~~-:~:c•_L_ 

# ..**To:a;**

# 00**~** Subtotal

. $56.00

., Pnyn1ent Method:

: Payment Amount:**Purcha.~** Order Number: 66700-0000020222 Payment Amount

Amount Due $56.00 :
!



### Please pay promptly to Vendor Number 0000000729

Form SnC-2002-03-**!~evised** September 2006 

### State Records Center mul Arclzil'el· 

### Commi.1·sion '![_!ubl0__llecortls

## New Mexico Commission of Public Records 

# RECEIVED
Administ1·ative Law Division
1205 Camino Carlos Rey OCT 8 

## 2013

Santa Fe, NM 87507 

## Air Quality Bureau 505-4 76-7907 

# Affidavit of Publication in the 

# New Mexico Register

I, Art Bransford

. certifY that the agency noted below has published legal notices or rules in the New Mexico Register, and that payment has 

### been assessed 

### by invoice for said legal notice

or publication, which appeared on the date and in the volume and issue number noted below.

Date of Publication: 9/30/2013 Agency:

Volume: XXIV 

### Issue # : 

### 18 Environmental Protection

- Air Quality
Contact: 

### Gail Cooke 

### Invoice#: NMR-20/4- 66

Amount: $56.00



### Description: 525 Camino de los Marquez
Santa Fe. NM 87505-

Other Other Materiul Notice of State lmrlcmentation Plan Revision



### (seal) State of New Mexico. County of Santa Fe Signed and aflirmed before me on Tuesday, October 

### 01,2013 by ;\rt Flmnsford 

# J

Notary Public:

# -;p{viJ~ 

# _JA!J:a)

__ Louise Wood [My

# co1~~ expires.

# ~ / 

# C I 

# 7

Affiant: 

# c:i..-ct-**6~-u~--•-zi?** Publisher, Nell' Mexico Register

# ~U Date: 10/1/20 I 

### 3

-·Cop;es**r~/lhe** publi.vhed motctrictl documented in this t!{/hlav/t are endosedfonn SRC -2002-04 Revised July 2007

### New Mexico Register 

### I Volume XXIV, Number 18 

### I September 30, 2013 729 

# Other Material Related to Administrative Law

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD

NEW MEXICO ENVII\ONMENTAL JMI'ROVEMENT BOARD NOTICE OF STATE IMPLFMENTATION !'LAN HEVISION

The New**Mcxi~o** Envirot1mcntal Improvement Board ("'Board 1 ') v.ill hold. if requested, a public h<.'!tlring on**l)e~;ember** 16, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 322 al the State Capital in Santa Fe, New Mcxietl,
The purpose of the hearing would be to consider the matter t>f No, F.m 13-0&(R). proposed changes to the New Mexico State hnpicmentttiml Plan (''SIP'") revision for the 2013 Regional Hal£ Progress Report. A ht!aring will only he held if**~4JUcst.::d** by a member of the: public.

The proponent of thh: regulatory ndoplion and revision is lhc New Mexico Enviromncnt Dc(l<lrtmcnt ("NMGD").

The purpose of the public hearing would be to consider und take possible action on a pctition from NMED rcganJlng the proposed SIP revisi011 lo adopt tt 

### :zo I J 1\egit,nal Hll7.e Progress Report. 40 CFR**~** 51.309 requires sl.il1C!l to develop regional haze progn:ssrcpon SIPs in 201 J nnd 2018 to evaluate the state's
progress towards the rca.t;Onabltl progress goal for ench Class J area located within the

state and in each Class I arealocab.."d outside the state which may be affected by cmis.,ions from within the state. On December 3 t,
2003 and June 29, 2011. the State of New Mexico submitted regional haze SlPs to the O.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to m.::et the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.309 ("Section J09 SIP") and 5U09(g) ("Section 309(g) SIP"). The 2003 Section 309 SIP. and subS&.jucnt revisions to the**Sc~:."t!on** 309 SIP. address the firs! pha. 1 l): of reglmwJ haze rcquin:mcnts, with an emphosis on stationary sourL't! sull'ur dioxide (SOi) cmi!ision reductions and a foct1S on Improving. visibility on the Colomdo Plateau.
Thl! 20ll Sl.'(:tion 309\g) SIP addressed the "risibility requirements Md improvements in New Mexico's re-maining eight Cht.ss I an:us.**Th~.:** proposed 20t3 Regional Haze Progress Report Is available for a**60~day** public
commo..:nt period during which u**h~.Yotring** request may be made. AU c{unmc!ltS i:lnd hearing**requ~ls mu~t**  be received by November 29. 20J3. All pub!ic commcms received during the comment po.:rim.l will X evaluated nnd rcs(xmded to as appropriate hy NMED prior to lh<: hearing or, if 110**he~tring** is requested, prior lo suhmis.''iiOn uf the proposed progress report to EPA. If u reqw.-st for a pub1il.' hearing is received during the**60~day** public comment period. a ht:aring will be held on December 16. 20 lJ at the above listed location. in accordant.'\! with 20. I .I NMAC

- Rulemaking Procedures

P.nvirorun<nla1 Improvement Uoord. If a request for hearin& is not n-ccived during the OO..day comment**period~** the December 16, 2013 hearing before the Board shall be eancdlcd. llte proposed progress report does nol adopl or amend- ony regulntinns:**thercfo~.** il is nol subject lu the mandatory public hcari11g requirement ofNMSA 1978 §**74-2~6.** For mCire infonnution. contuct Gail Cooke at 505-476-4-319 or via email at gait cookc@statc.nm.us. Upon completion of' the**60-da~** public comment period and. if rctlucstcd. the hearing process. all U01:uments included in the New Mr:xlC() 2013 Regional Baze Progress Report wiH he submitted to EPA to be included in the New Mexico State Implementation Plan.

·n1e NMED will hos: an informn1iomll open huusc on the proposed 2013 Regional Har.e J>rogl'1!ss Re(l<lrt Ill the NMUJ Air Quality Bureau**Offic~.** 525 Camino de los Marquez, Sujte 1. Santa Fe. New Mexico 8750.5, from
12:00 p.m: ·3:00p.m. on November6. 2013. To attend the in!Ormatiunal open house, pleo.'e contac1 Gail Cooke at 505-4?(>-4)19

or gaiLcookc@statc.nm.us.

The proposed. progress report may be reviewed during n:gular**hu~iness** hours al the NMED Air Quality Bureau ollicc. 525 Camino del tos Marquez., Suite I. Santa Fe, New Mexico. Tltc full !ext of NMED'! proposed ruvise:d plans are available on NMED's web she at www.nmcnv.state. nm.11s, or by contacting Gail Cooke al (505)**476~4319** or guil.cooke@statc.nm.us.

The hr,:pring, if reque5:tcd, will he: <:onducted in uccordnncc with 20.1. I NMAC (Rulcmaking Procedures Environmental lmprovemer.t Board). the**Enviromn~.;ntal** lmpnn·emenl AcL NMSA l97&,Scction**74~ !~9.,**  the Air Quality Control Act Section, NMSA 1978.74-2·6, ond other oppticable proccdun.-s.

All iatt:rested persons will be given reasonable oppuriunity ul tht: hearing to**~ubmit** relevant**C\'idcnc~** duta

.. vh:ws nod argumcnl'>. orully or in wrhing, to introduce exhibit'). and to examine**witnc~s.cs.** P:::rsons wi:.ihing lo present t.echnicul testimony must flle with**1~** Board a wri1tt:n notice of intent lo do sn. Tt:c notice of int..;IH shall:

(I} identify the person fUr whom the wilncss(es) \Viii testify: (2J identify each tcdmicnl witness lhut lhe peri>On intends w**pre~"llt** and state the qmdilications of the witness. including a**de~cription** of their education and work bnckground: (3) include .n COp)' of the direct te::>timony of each technical witness in narrative fonn: (4) list and attach each c.'Xhibil anticipated to be on'crcd by that person ut the !"tearing: {md (5) attach the text of any**rccomrncnd~d** modilkations to lhc proposed SIP revision.

Notices of intent tn present technical teslimony al the hc:aring. if requested. must he: received in the**Offi~.:c** of the Boord not Iuter than 5;00 p.m. on No.,cmber 26, 2013 and should reference the doc·kct number, Elll IJ-08(R), and the ua<c of the he!lling. Notices of lntenl to present technical testimony :-hould be submitred to;

Pam CastaJ)eda, Board Administrator Environmcnt.1l Improvement Oo-Urd**1~0.** Box 3469 S•nta Fe, NM 875[)2 Phone: (505)827-2425. fax (505) 821·0310

Any member of the genc:rnl public msy testify at the**h~nring.** No prior notification is required to present**·non~tcchnka1** testimony at the hearing. Any such memb\."'1'
may also offer exhibit!' in connection with his testimony+ so kmg os the exhibit is not unduly repetitious of the lXStimooy,

A member of the**gcr~erat** public who wishes
to suhmit 11 written statement for the «.-cord, in lieu of providing oral testimony at the hearing. shall 

## me the written stutemcnt prior
to the hearing, or submit it at the hearing.

Penillns having a dbability und nccding help in bdng a part of this hearing process ::i:hould**~ontact** J.C. Borrego of the NMED Human**Rcsoun.~** Bureau b; Novcmlh!r 29. 2013

at P.O, flo:'\ 5469, 1!90 SL f-rnnds Drive. Santa Fe, New Mexico. 87502. tdephonl.!**50.5-827~0424** or**~!mail juancarlos.burrego~~1**  !ilHte.nm.u..'i. TDY Ui.Crs please accc;;;s his number via the New Mexico Relay Network

at t-k00·6S9-8331.

If a**h~.ulng** Lo;; held. the Hoard may make a dt:dsion on the proposed SIP revision at theconclusion of the hearing, or the I3oarU may

convene u 11l\%1.ing at a lalcr date to cons.iUcr action on**th~ propo~L** 



### End of Other Hclatcd Material Section