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 87505 
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

1.1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 5-YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ........... 2 

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

2.1 PROGRESS TOWARDS REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS (40 CFR § 51.309(D)(10)(I)) .............. 5 

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

3.1 40 CFR § 51.309(D)(10)(I) PROGRESS REPORT REQUIREMENTS .............................................. 6 

3.2 STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES: 40 CFR § 51.309(D)(10)(I)(A) ............. 7 

Major Control Measures ............................................................................................................ 7 

BART ..................................................................................................................................... 7 

New Source Review Program ................................................................................................ 8 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program ....................................................... 8 

Ongoing Implementation of SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program ....................... 8 

Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques ................................................. 9 

Enforceability of New Mexico’s Measures ............................................................................. 10 

3.3 SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTION ACHIEVED 40 CFR § 51.309(D)(10)(I)(B) ................... 10 

3.4 ASSESSMENT OF VISIBILITY CONDITIONS: 40 CFR § 51.309(D)(10)(I)(C) ............................. 15 

3.4.2 Differences Between Current Visibility Conditions for the Most and Least Impaired 

Days and Baseline Visibility Conditions ................................................................................ 27 

3.4.3 Change in Visibility Impairment for the Most Impaired and Least Impaired Days Over 

the Past 5 Years ....................................................................................................................... 31 

3.5 ANALYSES OF EMISSIONS: 40 CFR § 51.309(D)(10)(I)(C) ..................................................... 33 

3.6 CHANGES TO ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS: 40 CFR § 51.309(D)(10)(I)(E) .......................... 44 

3.7 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SIP STRATEGY: 40 CFR § 51.309(D)(10)(I)(F) ........................... 45 

3.8 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT MONITORING STRATEGY: 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 Federal Class I Areas and Representative IMPROVE Monitors in 

New Mexico .............................................................................................................................. 4

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. ............. 11

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................. 11

Figure 3.3. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction 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. ........................................................................... 13
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report ii 

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. ........................................................................................................................................ 14

Figure 3.6. Statewide Point Source Emission Reductions for SO2, NO2 and PM from 2008-2012 

Compared to WRAP’s Projected 2018 Emissions 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 Progress 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 for Baseline and Progress Period Extinction for Worst (Most 

Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites. ............................ 29

Figure 3.9. 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. ................................................................................................ 29

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. ............................ 30

Figure 3.11. 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. ................................................................................... 30

Figure 3.12. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Navy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction System 

(NAAPS) map of sulfate surface concentrations 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 Source Category for New Mexico. ..................................... 39

Figure 3.17. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for 

Primary Organic Aerosol by Source Category for New Mexico. ........................................... 40

Figure 3.21. Sum of EGU Emissions of SO2 and NOX reported between 1996 and 2010 for New 

Mexico ..................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 3.22. Average light extinction 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 Extinction by Pollutant for First Progress Period 

Average (2005 – 2009) for 20% Best Days ............................................................................ 52

Figure 4.4. Chart Depicting Annual Average Ammonium Sulfate Concentrations for the 20% 

Worst Days as Measured at the Colorado Plateau CIA IMPROVE Sites. .............................. 58

Figure 4.5. Chart Depicting 3-Year Average Sum of SO2 emissions for New Mexico, Utah and 

Wyoming and the city of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County as compared to the Section 309 SIP 

SO2 Milestones. ....................................................................................................................... 59
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report iii 

Tables 

Table 2.1 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites 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% Best 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% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary ...................... 21 

Table 3.8 Gila Wilderness Area20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary ........................ 21 

Table 3.9 Carlsbad Caverns National Monument20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress 

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 22 

Table 3.10 Carlsbad Caverns National Monument20% Best Days: Reasonable Progress Summary

 ................................................................................................................................................. 22 

Table 3.11 Salt Creek Wilderness Area 20% Worst Days: Reasonable Progress Summary ......... 23 

Table 3.12 Salt Creek Wilderness Area 20% Best 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 Period to 2005-2009 Progress Period 20% Least Impaired 

Days ......................................................................................................................................... 28 

Table 3.21 New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites Change in Aerosol Extinction by Species 

2000-2009 Annual Average Trends ........................................................................................ 33 

Table 3.22 New Mexico Pollutants, Aerosol 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 Emissions by Category ............................................................................... 38 

Table 3.26 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions by Category .................................................. 39 

Table 3.27 Primary Organic Aerosol 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 Emissions by Category ........................................................................... 43 

Table 4.1 Colorado Plateau Class I Areas and Representative IMPROVE Monitors ................... 49 
New 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 Progress 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 Progress 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 Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress 

Summary Report 

Appendix B – Western Regional Air Partnership 2011 Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestone 

Report 

Appendix C – New Mexico Class I Area Monitoring Data Summary Tables and Charts 
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 1 

New Mexico Regional Haze Progress Report 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Regional haze (RH) is pollution that impairs visibility 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 affect 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 important sources of haze-forming 

emissions are coal-fired power plants, oil and gas development, wildland fires, and windblown dust. 

Visibility impairment is tracked using a Haze Index in units of deciview (dv), which is related to the 

cumulative sum of visibility impairment from individual aerosol species as measured by monitors in 

the Interagency Monitoring of Protective Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. Emissions 

which affect visibility include a wide variety of natural (e.g., wildland fires) and anthropogenic, or 

man-made, sources (e.g., industrial sources and vehicles). 

In Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the 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 areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 

acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. In the 1990 Amendments 

to the CAA, Congress added Section 169B and called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to issue rules addressing regional haze impairment from manmade air pollution and 

establishing a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. 

The EPA promulgated the RH rule on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). States are required under 40 

CFR § 51.308 to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) to the EPA that set out each states’ plan 

for complying with the RH rule. States must demonstrate reasonable progress toward meeting the 

national goal of a return to natural visibility conditions by 2064. The rule directs states to 

graphically show what would be a “uniform rate of progress”, also 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 optional approach to nine western states to 

incorporate emission reduction strategies 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 Parks 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 Section 309 SIP and subsequent revisions to 

the Section 309 SIP address the first phase of requirements, with an emphasis on stationary source 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) 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 conditions for the most impaired (20% worst) and 

least impaired (20% best) days at the additional mandatory Class I areas; provisions for establishing 
New 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 build 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 source Particulate Matter (PM) and Nitrogen 

Oxide (NOx) emissions pursuant 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 determination for nitrogen oxides for San Juan 

Generating Station77 Fed. Reg. 70,693. EPA had previously issued a federal implementation plan 

(FIP) containing a different NOx BART determination 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 address pollution control requirements for the San Juan 

Generating Station under the Clean Air Act’s requirements for regional 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 Board unanimously approved a SIP revision 

incorporating the terms of the tentative 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 consideration of public comment. If approved by EPA, the SIP revision 

will satisfy all of New Mexico’s remaining obligations with respect to regional haze BART. 

1.1 State Implementation Plan Requirements 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 existing 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 Section 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 revisions 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 summary 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 pollutants, 5) an assessment of significant changes in 

emissions that may have limited or impeded progress in improving visibility, 6) an assessment of 

whether the current SIP elements and strategies are sufficient to meet reasonable progress goals and 

7) a review of the state’s visibility 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 the 
New 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 reasonable 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 successive 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 aerosol measurements from the IMPROVE network, 

and the differences between emissions inventory years represent both the baseline and current 

progress period. 

As required by 40 CFR §51.308(i), the regional haze SIP must include procedures for continuing 

consultation between the States and federal land managers (FLMs) on the implementation of the 

visibility protection program, including development and review of implementation plan revisions 

and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to 

contribute to impairment of visibility in any mandatory 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, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, 

Utah, Washington, Wyoming, the United States Department of Interior (USDI) Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) and National Park Service (NPS), and the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Forest Service (FS). Consultation through WRAP also includes consultation with other 

regional planning organizations, including CENRAP. 

Pursuant to the Tribal Authority Rule, any Tribe whose lands are within the boundaries of the State 

of New Mexico has the option to develop a RH Tribal 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 shall be construed as being applicable to Indian Country. 

 

1 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 RH regulations. Detailed information regarding WRAP 

support of air quality management issues for western 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 National Park, Gila Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Salt 

Creek Wilderness, Wheeler Peak Wilderness, White 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 Wilderness 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 the 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 report also reviews the long-term strategy to 

determine if there have been any changes that need to be addressed. 

In developing the initial RH SIP, AQB also considered 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 visibility at Class I areas in neighboring states. Through WRAP, the 

western states worked together to assess state-by-state contributions to visibility impairment in 

specific Class I areas, including those in New Mexico and those affected by emissions from New 

Mexico. The sources identified in the initial RH SIP 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 natural 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 (TCEQ). 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 visibility conditions at Carlsbad Caverns National Park. 

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

Based on IMPROVE monitoring data, all of New Mexico’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 well 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 3.42 
New 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 Section 309 RH SIPs, the state must submit a report to the EPA in 2013 

and 2018 evaluating 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 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) Progress Report Requirements 

(1) A description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the SIP for achieving 

reasonable progress goals for 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 towards renewable energy goals 

(40 CFR § 51.309(d)(8)(vi)). 

(2) A summary of the emission reductions achieved throughout the state through implementation 

of the measures described in (1) above. 

(3) Assess the following visibility conditions and changes, 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 sources and activities with the state. 

(5) 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. 

(6) An assessment of whether the current SIP elements and strategies are sufficient 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 visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as 

necessary. 

In the sections to follow, the NMED will address 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 description of the emission reduction measures 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 impairment 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-longer being implemented is the State Mobile Source Regulation 

(20.2.88 NMAC - Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles). This regulation was first adopted 

in 2007 to apply the California motor vehicle emissions standards, or “California standards,” within 

New Mexico beginning with model year 2011. The start date was later revised to 2016. When the 

Clean Cars regulation was adopted, the California standards were more 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 California standards. As a result, 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 committed 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-fired boilers. Unit 1 is 360 megawatts (MW), Unit 2 

is 350 MW, Unit 3 is 544 MW and Unit 4 is 544 MW. In its September 2013 revised SIP, New 

Mexico determined that BART for NOx for the San Juan Generating Station is selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) on Units 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 with 
New 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), referred to hereafter as the “State Alternative.” 

Implementation of the State Alternative will reduce 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 current emissions of NOx by 62% (from 21,000 tons per 

year (tpy) to 8,011 tpy); of SO2 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, 

SO2 and particulate matter. 

New Source Review Program 

The New Source Review (NSR) Program is a permit program for the construction of new sources 

and modification of existing sources as established by 20.2.72 NMAC - Construction Permits and 

20.2.74 NMAC - Permits - Prevention of Significant 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 and eliminate air pollution 

emissions, and to prevent deterioration of clean 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 Deterioration (PSD) Program 

New Mexico’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program is protective of visibility 

impairment from proposed major stationary sources or major modifications to existing facilities. 

New Mexico has a fully-approved PSD program and has successfully implemented this program 

since 1982. 

Ongoing Implementation of SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program 

The SO2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program were developed to implement the emissions 

reduction program for major industrial sources of SO2 described in 40 CFR 51.309(h). 

The program is implemented through the following documents: 

 The New Mexico RH 309 SIP describes the overall 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, SO2 emissions tracking requirements, and, if the 

Western Backstop SO2 Trading Program ("WEB Trading Program") is triggered, the plan 

also describes how New Mexico shall determine allocations and manage the allowance 

tracking system that is needed to implement the program. 

 20.2.81 NMAC, Western Backstop SO2 Trading Program, contains the requirements that 

shall apply to major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide as a backstop regulatory program if 

the SO2 milestones are exceeded. The rule may never be implemented if the goal to meet the 

regional SO2 milestones through voluntary means is achieved. If the rule is implemented, it 

establishes the procedures and compliance requirements for sources in the Trading Program. 

 20.2.73 NMAC requires major industrial sources of SO2 to submit an annual emissions 

inventory in the pre-trigger phase of the program to measure compliance with the regional 
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 9

SO2 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 SO2 Emissions and Milestone Report (Appendix B) for the participating 309 

states, which includes New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM, 

shows that the 2009-2011 average regional emissions milestone of 200,722 tons of SO2 was met. 

The average of 2009- 2011 adjusted emissions for the participating 309 states was determined to be 

130,935 tons of SO2. 

Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques 

In December of 2003, NMED adopted 20.2.65 NMAC - Smoke Management. The New Mexico 

Environment Department developed the state Smoke Management Program (SMP) to protect the 

health and welfare of New Mexicans from the impacts 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 for 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 Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF), formed to address both 

policy and technical issues concerning 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 policies for the WRAP through a stakeholder-based 

consensus process to assist the WRAP states and tribes in addressing emissions from fire sources. In 

these policies, the WRAP seeks to provide a consistent framework that states and tribes can use to 

efficiently develop their individual regional haze implementation 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 Categorizing 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 Management Programs for Visibility defines the 

enhanced smoke management program as smoke management efforts that specifically address 

visibility, thereby going beyond the EPA Interim Policy and the AAQTF Air Quality Policy specific 

guidance provided for smoke management programs that address public health and nuisance 

concerns. The Policy identifies for states/tribes in the WRAP region the elements of an enhanced 
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 10

smoke management program to address visibility effects from all types of fire that contribute to 

visibility impairment in mandatory 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 emission 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 that 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 through 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 reduced as a result of implementation measures 

discussed in Section 3.2. Since the submittal of New Mexico’s Section 309(g) RH SIP revision in 

June of 2011, the most significant decrease in emissions has been from SO2 in accordance with the 

state’s SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program. Although New Mexico has not inventoried 

emissions reductions for all other visibility impairing 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 and 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 defined using deciview units, does not provide information regarding 

the relative contributions of specific pollutants to overall visibility impairment. The calculation of 

visibility impairment is based on the cumulative impacts of several different species measured at 

IMPROVE network sites. Analyzing the behavior of each individual species has important 
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 12

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 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 progress period average (2005-2009), 

respectively, for the IMPROVE monitors representing Federal Class I areas 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 IMPROVE network. 

Figure 3.3. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollutant 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 Pollutant for the First Progress Period Average (2005-2009) for 

20% Worst Days. 

Figure 3.5 presents the individual 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 highlighted with blue circles. 

For New Mexico, Figure 3.5 depicts most of the decreases in deciview averages were associated 

with decreases in ammonium nitrate, coarse mass and particulate organic matter. The decrease in 

ammonium nitrate is most likely due to federal mobile source regulations. For coarse mass and 

particulate organic matter, the decrease is likely due to the decreasing 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, NO2, SO2 and PM point source actual emissions have decreased in New 

Mexico from 2008-2012. This decrease in actual emissions is significantly greater for NO2 and SO2

than projected by WRAP’s regional modeling for 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 result 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 SO2, NOx, PM and mercury. 
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 15

Figure 3.6. Statewide Point Source Emission Reductions for SO2, NO2 and PM from 2008-2012 Compared to WRAP’s Projected 

2018 Emissions for New Mexico. Actual Point Source Emission Data Based on New Mexico’s 2008-2012 Emission Inventories.

3.4 Assessment of Visibility Conditions: 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 conditions and changes, 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 days and 

baseline visibility conditions; 

(iii)The changes in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the 

past 5-years. 

This section addresses RH rule regulatory requirements for monitored data as measured by 

IMPROVE monitors representing Federal Class I areas in New Mexico. These summaries are 

supported by regional data presented in more detailed site specific tables and 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 tracking haze in units of 

deciviews, 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). 
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 currently 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 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 matter. 

 The highest aerosol extinction (17.5 dv) was measured at the SACR1 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 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 (WHPE1) to 7.3 deciview (SACR1). 

 For all sites, ammonium sulfate was the largest contributor 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-year 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 Extinction 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 Extinction 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 Impaired) and Best (Least Impaired) 

Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites. 

In April of 2013, EPA issued updated guidance 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 based on the 2003 guidance issued by EPA, to 

provide the most currently available IMPROVE data for New Mexico’s Class I areas the following 

tables (Tables 3.3 through 3.18) have been included. 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 visibility trends for each Class I areas show a downward trend 

through 2011 as compared to the 2000-2004 baseline conditions. The relative contribution of each 

pollutant varies in different time periods due to the presence or absence 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 3.9
New 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 5.5
New 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 2.4
New 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 4.9
New 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 6.9
New 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 1.0
New 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 0.9
New 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 3.3
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 27

3.4.2 Differences Between Current Visibility Conditions 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 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 3.20 presents similar data for the least impaired days. Averages that increased are 

depicted in red text and averages that decreased in blue. 

Figure 3.8 presents the 5-year average extinction for the baseline and current progress period 

averages for the worst days and Figure 3.9 presents the differences in averages by aerosol species, 

with increases represented above the zero line and decreases 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 average RH rule deciview metric decreased at all New 

Mexico sites. Notable differences for individual 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 SACR1 sites. This increase is 

predominately due to the interdependency of pollutants on the 20% worst days. Years 

with a high influence from wildfires and particulate matter will more heavily dominate 

the 20% worst days thus seeing higher levels of organic matter, elemental carbon, fine 

particulate matter and coarse particulate matter and a lower contribution from 

ammonium sulfate. Conversely, for those years with less influence from wildfires and 

particulate matter there will be a larger contribution 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, particulate organic matter and elemental 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 average 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 SeaSalt

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 average 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 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. 

*Change in total extinction in units of deciviews (dv) is shown above respective 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 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. 

*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 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 

requires a description of changes over the past 5 year period. Because trend analysis is better suited 

to longer periods of time, 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 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 increasing slopes in red and 

decreasing slopes in blue.4

 In some cases, trends may show decreasing tendencies while the 

difference between the 5-year averages do not (or vice versa). In these cases, the 5-year average for 

the best and worst days is the important metric for RH 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 pvalues, is provided in Appendix C. Additionally, the Appendix includes 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, and was declared contained on June 6, 2000. 

The fire burned approximately 48,000 acres. 

 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. It is unclear what caused this event; it appears to be an anomaly 

and has not been repeated. Additionally, all sites measured either insignificant or decreasing 

annual average ammonium nitrate 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 statistically significant 

decreasing annual average trends were measured at the BAND1, 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. During September of 2005, a large sulfate 

transport event occurred over much of the eastern and mid-western U.S. reaching into New 

 

3

 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) 

4

 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.
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 occurred in New Mexico in 2005 took 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 coarse 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 spring months in New Mexico. 

Figure 3.12. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Navy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction System (NAAPS) map 

of sulfate surface concentrations 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 insignificant trend (<85% confidence level). Annual averages and complete trend statistics for all 

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 change over the past 5 years in 

emissions of pollutants contributing 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 account for emissions changes during 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 current progress periods. The baseline period is 

represented using a 2002 inventory developed by the WRAP for use in the initial WRAP state SIPs, 

and the progress period is represented by a 2008 inventory which leverages recent WRAP inventory 

work for modeling efforts. For reference, Table 3.22 lists the pollutants inventoried, the related 

aerosol species, some of the key 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. 
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 

(SO2) 

Ammonium 

Sulfate 

Point sources; 

On- and offroad mobile 

sources 

SO2 emissions are generally associated 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 

(NOX) 

Ammonium 

Nitrate 

On- and offroad mobile 

sources; 

Point sources; 

Area sources 

NOX 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 

(NH3) 

Amm. 

Sulfate 

and 

Amm. 

Nitrate 

Area sources; 

On-road mobile 

sources 

Gaseous NH3 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 

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 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 

PM2.5. 

Coarse 

Mass 

(PMC) 

Coarse 

Mass 

Windblown 

dust; 

Fugitive dust 

Coarse mass is reported by the IMPROVE network as the 

difference between PM10 and PM2.5 mass measurements. Coarse 

mass is not separated by species in the same way that PM2.5 is 

speciated, but these measurements are generally associated with 

crustal components. Similar to crustal PM2.5, natural windblown 

dust is often the largest contributor to PMC. 

For these summaries, emissions during the baseline years are represented using a 2002 inventory, 

which was developed with support from the WRAP for use in the original RH 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 West-wide Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling Study 

(WestJumpAQMS) and the Deterministic & Empirical Assessment of Smoke’s Contribution to 

Ozone (DEASCO3) modeling projects (termed WestJump2008). Note that the comparison of 
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 35

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 

inventories (see Appendix A). Inventories for all major 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 (SO2) 

inventories by source category. Tables 3.24 and Figure 3.14 present data for oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), and subsequent tables and figures (Tables 3.25 through 3.30 and Figures 3.15 through 3.20) 

present data for ammonia (NH3), 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 source inventories were decreases in SO2, NOX and 

VOCs. Note that this is consistent with the summary of annual EGU emissions as 

included in Figure 3.20, showing decreases in SO2 and NOX emissions. 

 Area source inventories showed decreases in SO2 and VOCs and increases in NOX and 

NH3. 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 SO2, NH3 and 

VOCs, but increases in most other parameters, including NOX. 

 Off-road mobile source inventories showed decreases in NOX, SO2, 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 (see Section 3.2.1 of Appendix A). 

 Inventory comparison results for area oil and gas showed decreases in NOX and VOCs, 

but note that inventory methodologies for these sources may have evolved substantially 

between the baseline and 2008 inventories (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 monitored data, as the baseline 

period is represented by an average of 2000-2004 fire emissions, and the progress period 

is represented only by the fires 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 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 (see 

Section 3.2.1 of Appendix A). 

 Fine soil and coarse mass increased for the windblown dust inventory comparisons and 

the combined fugitive/road dust inventories. Large variability in changes in windblown 

dust was observed for the contiguous WRAP states, which was likely due in large part to 
New 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 Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Sulfur Dioxide by Source Category for 

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 Difference 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 Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, 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 Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Volatile Organic 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 Totals, for Primary Organic 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 and 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 Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Coarse Mass by Source Category for 

New Mexico. 

As described above, 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 the entire 5-year monitoring periods 

compared. To better account for year-to-year changes in emissions, annual emission totals for New 
New 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

50,000

199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010

Annual EGU Emissions

New Mexico 1996‐2010

SO2 (TPY)

NOX (TPY)

Mexico, Figure 3.6 above depicts the actual emission reductions achieved in New Mexico between 

2008-2012 for NO2, SO2 and PM. To further demonstrate the reductions, the emission changes and 

annual total for EGUs are also 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/). RH implementation plans are required to pay 

specific attention to certain major stationary sources, including EGUs, built between 1962 and 

1977. 

Figure 3.21 presents a sum of annual NOX and SO2 emissions as reported for New Mexico EGU 

sources between 1996 and 2010. While these types of facilities are targeted 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 SO2 and NOX emissions, with a steeper decline in SO2. 

Figure 3.21. Sum of EGU Emissions of SO2 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 demonstrates that on the 20% worst 

days in the Class I areas in New Mexico, ammonium sulfate and particulate organic matter are the 
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 45

major concern for visibility impairment. Stationary point sources are the largest contributor of SO2

emissions, accounting for 90% of the SO2 emissions in New Mexico. Over 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 over the 5-year period 2005 through 2009 for all Class I areas in New 

Mexico. 

Anthropogenic sources of SO2 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. The primary sources of anthropogenic 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 existing RH long-term control strategies. 

There does not appear to be any anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico that would have 

limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or improving visibility. As Figure 3.6 

above shows, SO2, NO2 and PM point source emissions have steadily decreased between 2008-2012 

and have surpassed the Projected 2018 emissions reductions New Mexico committed to under the 

WRAP regional planning process. 

3.7 Assessment of Current SIP Strategy: 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 sufficient to enable the State, or other States with mandatory Federal 

Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established reasonable progress 

goals.” 
New Mexico 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report 46

Figure 3.23 displays the reconstructed extinction for the 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. Given that IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as 

the baseline for the regional haze program, the future regional haze monitoring strategy must 

necessarily be based on, or directly comparable to the current IMPROVE network. The IMPROVE 

measurements provide the only long-term record available for tracking visibility improvement or 

degradation and therefore New Mexico intends to continue reliance on the IMPROVE network for 

complying with the RH monitoring 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 Class 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 State is required to submit any 5-year progress report to EPA in 
New 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 presented in the progress report: 

(1) If the State determines that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive 

revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions 

reductions, the State must provide to the Administrator a negative declaration that further revision 

of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. 

(2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure 

reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in another State(s) which participated in a 

regional planning process, the State must provide notification to the Administrator and to the other 

State(s) which participated in the regional planning process with the States. The State must also 

collaborate with the other State(s) through the regional planning process for the purpose of 

developing additional strategies to address the plan's deficiencies. 

(3) Where the State determines that the implementation 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 information, to the Administrator. 

(4) Where the State determines that the implementation 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 plan's deficiencies within one year” 

The State of New Mexico has provided the information required under 40 CFR § 51.309(d)(10)(i) 

in this 5-year progress report. Based upon this information, New Mexico 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 revision at this time. 

Other states relied on WRAP modeling to show reasonable progress at their Class I areas. With the 

BART determination of a 2 unit 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 meeting their reasonable progress goals, and is, in fact, decreasing visibilityimpairing pollutants more than was anticipated in the WRAP modeling for NOx, SO2 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) Recommendations report,5 specific to visibility impacts at the 16 Class I 

areas on the Colorado Plateau. Of the nine western states originally eligible for Section 309 RH rule 

implementation, only the states of New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming and the city of 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County currently exercise this option. 

The 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau are depicted in Figure 4.1 and listed in Table 4.1. Note 

that the ZION1 site, which originally represented Zion Canyon National Park, has since been 

replaced with the ZICA1 site. This section presents 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 Commission Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas Report is archived on the WRAP website 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

CAPI1 CANY1

GRCA2

MEVE1

PEFO1

SAPE1

SYCA1

WEMI1

WHRI1

ZICA1

Figure 4.1. Map Depicting Colorado Plateau 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 averages for the 20% worst and best days for 

the IMPROVE sites representing Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The size of the pie chart is 

related to the magnitude of visibility impairment, and colors represent the relative contribution of 

the pollutants which are measured by the IMPROVE network. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 present the 

difference between the 2000-2004 baseline period average and the 2005-2009 first progress period 

average for the 20% worst and best days, respectively, for the Class I area sites in the Colorado 

Plateau region. 

Table 4.4 presents the differences between the 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, and 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 species at each Class I area site in the Colorado 

Plateau region are presented in Table 4.6. As in Section 3.4.3, only trends for aerosol species trends 

with p-value statistics less than 0.15 (85% confidence level) are presented in the table here, with 

increasing slopes in red and decreasing slopes in blue. 

Some general observations for the current visibility conditions and the difference between current 

and baseline conditions are listed below: 

 The largest contributors to aerosol extinction at the Colorado Plateau sites were 

particulate organic matter, ammonium sulfate, and coarse mass. 

 For all sites, the 5-year average as measured in the deciview metric decreased for the 

best days between the baseline and first progress period. 

 For most sites, the 5-year average as measured in the deciview metric decreased for 

the worst days between the baseline and first progress period. 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. 

o The increase at GRCA2 was due to increases in ammonium sulfate, elemental 

carbon, particulate organic matter 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 events in June and August 

of 2009. No statistically significant increasing annual 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. Increases in coarse mass, soil, and 

ammonium sulfate were offset by decreases in particulate organic matter, 

elemental carbon, and ammonium nitrate. 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 largest contributor to increases was 

particulate organic matter 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 4.4 presents a plot of the annual averages for all 

Colorado Plateau sites, showing the high 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 Pollutant for First Progress Period Average (2005 – 2009) for 20% 

Best Days 
New 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 Extinction 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 Extinction 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 average 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 baseline 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 insignificant trend (<85% confidence level). Annual averages and complete trend statistics for all 

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 Concentrations for the 20% Worst Days as Measured at the 

Colorado Plateau CIA IMPROVE Sites. 

Similar to 308 requirements, Section 309 states are required to address how total state emissions 

have changed over the past 5 years (51.309(d)(10)(i)(D)). Emission inventory summaries using 

2002 and 2008 inventories to represent changes between the baseline and progress periods are 

described in detail for the entire state in Section 3.5. 

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.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 intended to represent a region from which clean air transport 

influences many of the clean air days at Grand Canyon National Park. 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 Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program, the participating states (and 

county) identified SO2 emissions milestones, where a milestone is a maximum level of annual 

emissions for a given year. WRAP supports the Section 309 states with the submittal of annual 

regional SO2 and emission milestone reports (Appendix B) which compare actual emissions 

estimates to the pre-defined milestones.7 Figure 4.5 presents a plot from the most recent SO2

milestone report, showing the 3-year average of current emissions through 2010, which indicated 

that actual emissions were below the SO2 milestone. Additionally, SO2 emissions specific to EGU 

sources are presented in Figure 3.19 on an annual basis showing changes 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 comprehensive emission 

tracking strategies for clean-air corridors to ensure that the visibility does not degrade on the least-impaired days at any of the 16 Class I areas.” 

7

 Annual regional SO2 emissions and milestone reports are 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 SO2 emissions for New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming and the city of 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County as compared to the Section 309 SIP SO2 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

Appendix A
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 IMPROVE 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 Hawaii 3-21

3.3 The WRAP TSS 3-23

3.3.1 Data Updates 3-23

3.3.2 Class 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 Monitoring 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 Colorado 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 Monitoring 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 Nevada 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 Monitoring 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 Monitoring 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 nitrate (NH4NO3): Ammonium nitrate is formed in the atmosphere from reactions 

involving nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 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 sulfate ((NH4)2SO4): Ammonium sulfate is formed in the atmosphere from 

reactions involving sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Anthropogenic sources include coalburning 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 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 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 controls on an already existing air 

pollution source. 

Baseline period: The baseline 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 RHR implementation plan purposes, the baseline is the average 

visibility impairment as measured by IMPROVE monitors during the 2000-2004 5-year 

period. 

Biogenic emissions: Biogenic emissions are based on the activity fluxes modeled from biogenic 

land use data, which characterizes 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. 

Clean 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. Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

established 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 mass (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 conditions: 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 progress 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 deciviews) 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. Windblown dust includes 

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

Elemental carbon (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 Protection 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 (bext): 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).

Fine soil: Particulate matter composed of pollutants 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 agricultural and 

prescribed fires.

First progress period: 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 Act established the Commission to advise the EPA on strategies for protecting 

visual air quality on the Colorado Plateau. 

Haze Index (HI): The Haze Index (measured in deciviews) is used to track regional haze in the 

RHR. It was designed to be linear with respect 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 average 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 visibility 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 through 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 NO2), and the atmospheric light extinction (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 twenty 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 terms of light extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration. 

Off-road mobile sources: 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 uses. 

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 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.

On-road mobile sources: Vehicular sources that travel on roadways. 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 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 (NOX): 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 NOX gases. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is yellowish 

brown, and thus contributes directly to haze. All the NOX gases react in the air to form 

haze-causing aerosols and smog. 

Particulate organic aerosol (POA): Particulate organic aerosol represents organic aerosols that 

are emitted directly as particles, as opposed to gases.

Particulate organic mass (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. Man-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 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 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 NOX and SO2. 

Examples of non-EGU point sources include chemical manufacturers 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 visibility 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 national 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 temperature, expressed as a percentage.

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

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. 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2): SO2 gas is associated with emissions from processes such as burning 

fuels, manufacturing paper, or smelting rock. SO2 is converted in the air to other sulfur 

oxides (SOX) 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 implementation plans are 

collections of the regulations used by a state to reduce air pollution. Plans devised by 

states and tribes to carry out their responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. SIPs and TIPs 

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 quality of the view, or scene, in daylight with respect to color 

rendition and contrast definition. 

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).

Volatile organic compound (VOC): A carbon-containing material that evaporates, such as 

gasoline, some paints, solvents, dry cleaning fluids, and the like. VOCs 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 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States 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 manmade impairment, 

by the year 2064. States were required to submit initial RHR implementation 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 states 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 improves 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 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,”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

between 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 visibility 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 Amendments. 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 reasonable 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

 See 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 the 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 implementation 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. Specific regulatory 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 emissions 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 federal CIAs affected by the state, to meet all 

established reasonable progress goals?

Visibility impairment is tracked using a Haze Index (HI) in units of deciviews (dv), 

which is related to the cumulative sum of visibility impairment from individual aerosol species 

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, differences 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 

inventory 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 than changes in actual emissions. Characterizations here focus 

more on differences in the actual monitored data, which are thought to be more reflective of 

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document xii
progress than differences between the emission inventories. Some notable results were as 

follows: 

• Analysis 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 in 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 

affected 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 comparisons which showed large decreases in oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 

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 implemented for mobile sources. 

• In many of the plains states, the 5-year average of ammonium sulfate increased, but 

annual averages showed decreasing trends. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 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. Possible 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 several coastal sites. State emissions inventory comparisons did not 

reflect these increases, but marine vessel emissions were not quantified for summaries 

here. 

• Also, in northeastern Montana and northwestern North Dakota, increasing ammonium 

sulfate trends were evident at several sites. State emissions inventory 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 SO2 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 

indicated 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 developed cooperatively with 

representatives from each state in the WRAP region. This 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 informing 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 visibility 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 conditions goal, or conditions without any man-made 

influences, by the year 2064. Each state 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 plans (SIPs) 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 SIPs were due in 2007 and were required to identify a 

baseline starting point using the average of monitoring data for the 2000-2004 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, where 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 Air 

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 states. 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 2005-2009 period. Changes in visibility impairment are characterized 

using aerosol measurements from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE) network, and the differences between emissions inventory years representing 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 their 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 states and tribes; it 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 1-2 

 
2.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

In regulatory context, Section 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 Class I areas 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 state 

implementation plans (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 condition visibility impairment 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 implementation 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 periodic 

progress reports evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goals defined the SIPs. 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 guidance 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 “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,”12 and 

suggests assessing changes using a rolling 5-year period average. The new EPA guidance was 

released as this report and analysis were finalized and, per 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 See 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 references 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 Are 

the 2018 Interim Goal and Successive 5-Year Progress Periods.

2.1 SECTION 308 

Section 51.308(g) of the RHR contains the requirements for periodic progress reports. 

Each state is required to submit a report evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress 

goals outlined in its regional haze state, or in some cases federal, implementation plan (SIP or 

FIP).13 These state 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. Monitoring and emissions summary 

requirements for progress reports include the following: 

• How has visibility changed at the CIAs in 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 collected by the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network.

14

For monitoring data summaries, baseline visibility conditions are defined as the average 

deciview values for the 20% most impaired, or worst, and 20% least impaired, or best, days 

averaged over the 2000-2004 5-year period. Current visibility 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 requirements, 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 represent 

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 SIPs 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. Specific 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 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 related 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 CIAs (51.308(g)(5))? 

- As noted previously, emissions 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 impeded 

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 any changes in the state’s visibility monitoring plan 

necessary (51.308(g)(7))? 

• Based on the state’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 state 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 federal land managers (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 Mexico, 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 

initial 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 

National 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 National 

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 basis.

• How has visibility changed at the CIAs in 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 and 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 (51.309(d)(10)(i)(D))?

2.2.2 SIP Evaluation Requirements

Section 309 of the RHR requires that progress reports include a determination 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 support 

document, but monitoring and emissions data summaries presented here have been designed to 

help states with their evaluation of current or proposed implementation plan elements and 

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 2-5 
strategies. Specific 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 referenced 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 measures (51.309(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 related 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 (51.309(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 SO2 emissions 

milestones have been met (51.309(d)(4)(i)). Note that the WRAP has supported 

work addressing the SO2 milestone requirements for 309 states. These annual 

regional SO2 emissions and milestone reports are located on the WRAP website at 

http://www.wrapair2.org/reghaze.aspx. 

• Based on the state’s assessment of the adequacy of the existing monitoring plan, the 

state is also required to take one of the following actions (51.309(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 state must take 

steps to develop additional strategies to address the plans deficiencies 

((51.309(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 2000-2004 baseline 

period and the nominal natural conditions goal year in 2064.17 With each 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 estimates18 and the revised natural 

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 differences between 

baseline and current progress period aerosol measurements and emissions inventories are 

provided here as the technical basis for use by states to determine if they are on track to meet or 

exceed their individual reasonable progress goals towards natural conditions.

2.4 TRIBAL CONSIDERATIONS 

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 plans (TIPs). 

Also, as sovereign nations, Indian tribes 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 Tribe does not seek authority to implement an RHR TIP, it may be desirable for 

a Tribe to participate in the regional planning efforts to address visibility and to consult with 

neighboring states as they develop their regional haze SIPs. Tribes, along with states and federal 

agencies, are full partners in the WRAP, having equal representation on the WRAP Board as 

states. Several Tribal nations in the United States have been classified as CIAs, and IMPROVE 

visibility monitors are located in 4 tribal CIAs in the WRAP. Because 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 states 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 

Visibility 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_NaturalConditionsII_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 inventories previously developed by the 

WRAP to represent baseline 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. Detailed 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 aerosol species that are related to visibility impairment. The aerosol species collected 

for regional haze purposes include: 

• Ammonium Sulfate: Ammonium sulfate is formed in the atmosphere from reactions 

involving sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Anthropogenic sources include coalburning 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 reactions 

involving nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 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. Man-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 fine 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 than 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 Network. 

• 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. 

These 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 scattering light. Some particle species, 

including ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, will absorb water as relative humidity 

increases, which effectively increases the size and the light scattering efficiencies of these 

particles. 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 extinction 

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 guidance, 

was revised 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 summary 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, it 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 described 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 (bext) – 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 (dv) – This is the metric used for tracking regional haze in the RHR. The 

Haze Index (measured in deciviews) 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. 

• 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 for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 

Rule22 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 2000-2004 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 (ammonium 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 baseline 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 Guidance 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 

Sierra 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 similar 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 Utah and 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 because 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 baseline 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 

continues to improve, and that visibility on the 20% least impaired, or best, days does not get 

worse, as measured in units of deciviews, calculated using data measured at IMPROVE 

monitoring sites. As described previously, progress for this report is measured for discreet 5-year 

average increments, beginning with the 2000-2004 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 conditions 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 Section 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 and 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 annual 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, the 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 Appendices. 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. The 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 more 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 years, 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-Year 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. 

Generally, 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 this 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 (SACR1) IMPROVE site (16.7 Mm-1 to 18.9 

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 characteristics 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. Annual Averages, Period Averages and Trend Statistics for Ammonium Sulfate 

Measured at the SACR1 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 (bext), e.g. dv=10ln(bext/10), 

where bext 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 contributes to regional haze can have different sources and control options. 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 presented 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 bext Averages With Increasing deciview Averages

Averaging Periods Extinction

(Mm-1) 

Deciviews (dv)

10×ln(bext/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 Deciview 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 INVENTORIES 

To demonstrate RHR progress, states 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 states affecting visibility at each 

Federal CIA 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 conditions. 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. 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 complicated 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, rather 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 

methodologies 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 NOX and 

SO2. Examples of non-EGU point 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 vehicular sources that travel on roadways. 

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 emissions factors and activity data, such as vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT). Examples of on-road mobile sources include light-duty gasoline vehicles and 

heavy-duty diesel vehicles.

• Off-Road Mobile Sources: 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. 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 biogenic land use data, which characterizes 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.

• 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. 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 windblown 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 agricultural 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 current 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 California). 

Development of the plan02 inventories were a cooperative effort sponsored by the WRAP in 

cooperation with WRAP states. This effort built upon 2002 emissions reported by states, and 

included work with contractors and WRAP workgroups, in consultation 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 descriptions 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 focused on understanding current and evolving regional air quality issues in the western 

states. Methods 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 

(WestJumpAQMS) and Deterministic and Empirical Assessment of Smoke’s Contribution to 

Ozone (DEASCO3) study, which are described 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 DEASCO3 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 affects 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, regional and state summary sections in this report include annual averages 

tracking changes in regional and state totals for SO2 and NOX 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/). 

Table 3.2-1

Emissions Inventory Descriptions 

Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory 

Sector

2002 Baseline Inventory

(Plan02c/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 

their initial SIP. 

These inventories were 

generated using hourly EPA 

CAMD CEM data for EGUs. 

Other point were developed in 

consultation with states by the 

ERG contractor.

Note that the 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 (Plan02c 

and Plan02d). Plan02 

emissions are summarized 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 

point sources are from the 

2008 NEI v2. 

Note that point 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. 

Note that baseline conditions 

presented here represent a 5-

year average for EGUs, while 

progress period conditions are 

represented with 2008 data.

In addition to inventory 

changes for these two years, 

year-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

 
Table 3.2-1

Emissions Inventory Descriptions 

Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory 

Sector

2002 Baseline Inventory

(Plan02c/Plan02d) 31

2008 Progress Period 

Inventory

(WRAP WestJump08) 32

Comments

Area 

Sources

Most WRAP states used the 

Plan02d point source 

inventories, while California 

used the 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 offroad inventory). To reflect 

these changes, EPA now refers 

to the 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 “offroad” 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/2008inventory.html. 

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 3-15

 
Table 3.2-1

Emissions Inventory Descriptions 

Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory 

Sector

2002 Baseline Inventory

(Plan02c/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 

emissions 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 

III emissions methodologies. 

Where WRAP Phase III 

emissions were not available, 

area source oil and gas 

emissions as reported by the 

state were used. Phase III 

emissions process estimated 

for 2008 included: 

These inventories used 2008 

production data, which was

updated with State-reported 

data in some 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

• Flaring

• 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:

• Regulatory changes specific 

to each state may have 

required more sources to be 

reported in 2008 than were 

reported in 2002.

• New and/or revised 

estimation methodologies, 

especially for VOC 

emissions rates, were used 

for more source categories 

in Phase III. 

• Phase III estimates included 

surveys which provided 

detailed information about 

specific sources (e.g. counts 

by device type such as lowbleed vs. high-bleed) among 

other improvements to 

activity data. These sources 

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 highquality 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
Table 3.2-1

Emissions Inventory Descriptions 

Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory 

Sector

2002 Baseline Inventory

(Plan02c/Plan02d) 31

2008 Progress Period 

Inventory

(WRAP WestJump08) 32

Comments

On-Road 

Mobile

The 2002 inventory for most 

WRAP states used the EPA 

MOBILE6 model as applied 

by ENVIRON using inputs 

from states.

California provided emissions 

separately using their

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 ENVIRON using 

inputs from states.

California provided emissions 

separately. 

The 2008 off-road mobile 

inventory was obtained from 

the NEIv2.0 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.

California supplied non-road 

emissions calculations using a 

California state-specific offroad model.

The off-road models include 

both emission factors and 

default county-level population 

and activity data.

One important methodology 

change was the reclassification of some sources 

previously labeled off-road as 

non-point (area) sources in 

2008.

35Additional Phase 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

 
Table 3.2-1

Emissions Inventory Descriptions 

Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory 

Sector

2002 Baseline Inventory

(Plan02c/Plan02d) 31

2008 Progress Period 

Inventory

(WRAP WestJump08) 32

Comments

Offshore For the baseline inventories, 

off-Shore emissions were 

treated as a region rather than a 

source category. 

For the 2008 inventories, 

specific SCCs do 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 emissions were not 

comparable, as baseline 

emissions were presented as a 

region, and not explicitly 

associated with any of the 

coastal 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 vegetative 

scavenging factors were 

applied pre-processing at the 

county level, as opposed to 

grid-level for 2008 data.

These emissions were 

extracted 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 calculate and report 

paved road dust.

For 2008, note that vegetative 

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 Plan02d inventories, 

but are combined for summary 

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
Table 3.2-1

Emissions Inventory Descriptions 

Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory 

Sector

2002 Baseline Inventory

(Plan02c/Plan02d) 31

2008 Progress Period 

Inventory

(WRAP WestJump08) 32

Comments

Windblown 

Dust 

Generated using WRAP 

Windblown Dust Model and 

2002 MM5 meteorology, at 

36km grid cell resolution.

Vegetative scavenging factors 

were applied pre-processing at 

the county level. 

Generated using WRAP 

Windblown Dust Model and 

2008WRF 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 differences between 

the inventories include: 

• Different meteorological 

models; MM5 (2002) vs. 

WRF (2008) met models

• Higher resolution of grid 

cells in 2008, which led to 

higher average wind speeds 

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 error in 2002 WBD 

model was corrected where 

rainfall in centimeters 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 meteorological 

years and models (2002 

MM5 vs. 2008 WRF).

• Higher temporal and spatial 

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
Table 3.2-1

Emissions Inventory Descriptions 

Contiguous WRAP States

Inventory 

Sector

2002 Baseline Inventory

(Plan02c/Plan02d) 31

2008 Progress Period 

Inventory

(WRAP WestJump08) 32

Comments

Fires

(Natural 

and 

Anthropogenic)

Baseline estimates used the 

WRAP Phase III fire 

inventory, which represent a 

2000-2004 5-year average of 

fire activity. Inventories 

included both anthropogenic 

and natural emissions.

2008 estimates use DEASCO3

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, 

differences between

methodologies will affect 

comparisons of inventories 

used for 2002 and 2008 

estimates.

36 Additional details regarding fire inventory descriptions for development of the DEASCO3 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 Control (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 inventory37 Provided by Alaska DEC 

Area 2002 emissions from the Alaska DEC “Big 

3” 38 Criteria Inventories and

2005 emission from the Alaska DEC Rural 

Inventory39

2008 WestJump40

On-Road and

Off-Road Mobile

NEI2008v341

Aviation WRAP 2002 Aviation Report42

Commercial 

Marine Pechan Report43

Fire WRAP 2003 Phase III Inventory44 Alaska Interagency Coordination Center

(AICC) Incident Support Website45

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/region10/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 Aviation 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).

For 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 except for 

area source SO2 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/region9/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 an 

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 

western air quality analysis and management needs. The TSS has recently been updated to 

support the first RHR progress reports, providing 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 

applicable 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 

FED47 database, and emissions data were updated with county and state level emission from the 

WestJumpAQMS 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 progress 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 TOOLS

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 and 2002 data under the “Emissions Review Tool” link. Only 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 

emissions 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 increased at 

several sites. Particulate organic mass concentration was the largest contributing 

factor to increases 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 sites, with the largest decreases 

in northern Oregon and southern California. Emissions inventories indicate that 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) are mostly due to on-road mobile, off-road mobile, and 

point source emissions. Decreasing ammonium nitrate measurements were consistent 

with comparisons between baseline and progress period inventories, and tracking of 

annual averages electric generating units (EGU) emissions, which showed decreasing

inventory totals for NOX in most Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) states.

• A number of sites measured increases in 5-year average ammonium sulfate 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 (SO2) emissions in the 

western states are dominated by point sources, and comparisons between baseline and 

progress period inventories, and tracking of annual averages EGU emissions, show

decreasing SO2 emissions for most WRAP states. 

• While most 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 SO2. Increases at 

other WRAP sites do not appear to be reflected in the emissions inventory totals. 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 eastern 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 

windblown 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 

continues 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, progress is measured in 5-year average increments 

beginning with the 2000-2004 baseline average, and proceeding with each subsequent 5-year 

average (e.g. 2005-2009, 2010-2014, etc.).

50 This section addresses changes as measured 

between the baseline period and the most recent successive progress period available, or 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 worse, 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, does 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 impacts 

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 maps 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 representing 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 IMPROVE 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 United States and Alaska is 

generally industrial activities such as coal burning power plants, while natural volcanic activity 

contributes to the high measured ammonium sulfate at Hawaii sites.

Figure 4.1-3. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollutant for Baseline Period 

Average (2000-2004) 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 (2005-2009) 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 species 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 2000-2004 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 deciview 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 western 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 Alaska, 

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 Between 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 Between 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 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.

Annual trends were calculated for the years 2000-2009, with 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 aerosol species trends with 

p-value statistics less than 0.15 (85% confidence level). Trends for all significance levels at all 

sites are also included in state specific appendices provided with this report. 

Figures 4.1-7 presents 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, data 

were available through 2010,

52 but trends presented 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 

large 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 worst 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. 

51Theil 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) 

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 identification 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. Slightly increasing 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 coarse mass 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 sea 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 Sulfate Extinction Trends for 20% Worst 

Days at CIA IMPROVE Sites in the WRAP Region. 

Figure 4.1-8. 10-Year Annual Average 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 WRAP 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 Sites 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 Sites 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 affect 

the 5-year average metrics. 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 United 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 indexes 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 fire detections 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 fire 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, 

2008, where high measurements spanned most of the state of California. Figure 4.1-24 presents a 

map from the WRAP FETS 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 measured fine soil, including correlation with 

manganese (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, 2008, 

representing a more typical dust event in the west, with high measurements spanning most of 

Arizona. 

Figure 4.1-29 presents an abnormally 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 Committee meeting, where it was noted that airmass characteristics and 

back-trajectories pointed 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 sea 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 measurements 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 Most 

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 

IMPROVE 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 inventory 

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 and Deterministic and Empirical Assessment of Smoke’s Contribution to 

Ozone (DEASCO3) modeling 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 inventories, 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 largest 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 these 

states are not included 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.gov/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 (SO2) emission totals by source category for the 

contiguous and Figure 4.2-3 presents the differences for SO2 for each category by state. Figures 

4.2-4 and 4.2-5 present similar charts for oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and subsequent figures 

(Figures 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 SO2 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 SO2 scrubbers installed at point sources and required use 

of low sulfur diesel fuel.

• Inventories show that NOX 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 NOX

related to combustion 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, as opposed to the entire 2005-2009 progress 

period represented in monitored data. In 2008, large fire events occurred in 

California, so fire emissions inventory totals increased in California, but decreased 

for other WRAP states.

• For fine soil and coarse mass, emissions inventories indicate that windblown and 

fugitive dust are the largest contributors to these haze species, with some contribution 

to fine soil from area and fire sources. 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 inventories, 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. Differences 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 4-27
WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 4-28 

Figure 4.2-6. Comparison for 2002 and 2008 Ammonia Emission Inventory Totals for the 

Contiguous WRAP States (2008 minus 2002). 

Figure 4.2-7. Differences between 2008 and 2002 Ammonia Emission Inventory Totals for the 

Contiguous WRAP States (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 WRAP 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 Emission 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 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 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 

attention to certain major stationary sources, including EGUs, built between 1962 and 1977. 

Figure 4.2-18 presents a sum of annual NOX and SO2 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 chart shows steady declines for both 

SO2 and NOX. 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010

Annual EGU Emissions

WRAP Region 1996-2010

SO2 (tpy)

NOX (tpy)

 Figure 6.2-18. Sum of EGU Emissions of SO2 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, some states in the Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) qualify for Section 309 requirements 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 nine western states originally eligible for Section 309 RHR 

implementation, only the states 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 these

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 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. 

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

CAPI1 CANY1

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 continues 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 2000-2004 baseline, and 

proceeding with each subsequent 5-year average (e.g. 2005-2009, 2010-2014, 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 visibility 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 colors represent the relative contribution of the pollutants which are 

measured by the IMPROVE Network. 

Tables 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 each 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 were 

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 period. 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 events in June and August of 2009. 

No 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 ammonium 

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 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) 

62 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 5-4 

 
and ammonium nitrate. Trend statistics showed an increasing coarse mass trend at 

the BALD1 and PEFO1 sites in eastern 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 averages 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 5-5 
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

Figure 5.1-1. Regional Average of Aerosol Extinction by Pollutant for the First Progress 

Period Average (2005-2009) 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 (2005-2009) 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 SeaSalt

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 increases in 

extinction and values in blue indicate decreases.

 

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 SeaSalt

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 increases in 

extinction and values in blue indicate decreases.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 5-10
Table 5.1-5 

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 SeaSalt

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 (51.309(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 these 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 treatment of clean-air corridors, “the plan must describe and provide for

implementation of comprehensive emission tracking strategies for clean-air corridors to ensure that the visibility 

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 county) are required to 

identify sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions milestones, where a milestone is a maximum level of 

annual emissions for a given year (51.309(d)(4)(i)). In general, SO2 emissions are specified in 

Section 309 because they are more instructive to track than most other pollutants, as they are 

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 SO2 and emission milestone reports for the 309 

states which compare actual emissions estimates to the pre-defined milestones.

64 Figure 5.1-4 

presents a plot from the most recent WRAP SO2 milestone report, showing the 3-year average of 

current emissions through 2010, which indicated that actual emissions were below SO2

milestone. Additionally, SO2 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 SO2 emissions for New Mexico, Utah, 

and Wyoming and the city of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County as compared to the 

309 SIP SO2 Milestones.

64 Annual regional SO2 emissions and milestone 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 (CIAs). 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 with the technical information they need to determine if 

current RHR implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to meet all established 

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 

continues to improve at each Federal Class I area (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 in 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 assessments 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 that 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 GICL1, 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 either 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 state-wide 

emissions totals and annual tracking of EGU emissions showed decreases in SO2, due 

mostly to decreases in point, area and mobile sources.

• For the worst days, all sites except BOAP1 measured a decrease in 5-year average 

ammonium nitrate, and annual average ammonium 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 

NOX, due mostly to point and off-road mobile sources. Annual EGU emissions totals 

also showed decreases in NOX. 

• 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. The current emissions inventory 

indicates 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 inventories 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 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.

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 regional data presented in Section 4.0 and by 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 tracking haze 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, what are the current visibility conditions 

for the most impaired and least impaired days (40 CFR 51.309(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% least 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 (17.5 dv) was measured at the SACR1 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 WHPE1 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. (See 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 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 (WHPE1) to 7.3 deciview (SACR1). 

• 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 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

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 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

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. 11.8dv 4.2 13.4 5.8 12.5 2.7 15.9 5.4 17.5 7.39.9 1.0 13.2

3.3

9.1

0.9

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 WHPE1

Extinction* (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, what is the difference between current 

visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility 

conditions (40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C))? Included here are comparisons between the 5-year 

average baseline 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 progress 

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 best 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 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 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: 

• Ammonium 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 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 SeaSalt

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 increases in 

extinction and values in blue indicate decreases.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6-215
Table 6.9-5 

New Mexico 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-

2004

Baseline

Period

2005-

2009

Progress

Period

Change 

in dv*

Amm. 

Sulfate

Amm. 

Nitrate POM EC Soil CM SeaSalt

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 increases in 

extinction and values in blue indicate decreases.

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6-216
12.2dv

11.8

13.8

13.4

13.1

12.5

17.2

15.9

18.0

17.5

10.2

9.9

13.7

13.2

10.4

9.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

BP

BP

BPBPBPBPBPBP

BAND1 BOAP1 GICL1 GUMO1 SACR1 SAPE1 WHIT1 WHPE1

Extinction* (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 Area IMPROVE Sites.

Δdv = -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 WHPE1

Change 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 6-217 
5.0dv

4.2

6.3

5.8

3.3

2.7

5.9

5.4

7.8

7.3

1.5

1.0

3.6

3.3

1.2

0.9

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 WHPE1

Extinction* (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 Extinction for Best (Least 

Impaired) Days Measured at New Mexico Class I Area IMPROVE Sites. 

Δdv = -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 WHPE1

Change 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 statistics 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, this appendix includes plots 

depicting 5-year, annual, monthly and daily average extinction for each site. These 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 deciview 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 impairment 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 nitrate 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 

statistically significant decreasing annual average trends were measured at the 

BAND1, 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 state 

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 aerosol 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 

(SO2) 

Ammonium 

Sulfate

Point Sources;

On- and OffRoad Mobile 

Sources

SO2 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

(NOX) 

Ammonium 

Nitrate

On- and OffRoad Mobile 

Sources;

Point Sources;

Area Sources

NOX 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

(NH3) 

Ammonium

Sulfate

and 

Ammonium 

Nitrate

Area Sources;

On-Road 

Mobile Sources

Gaseous NH3 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 

reflective 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- and OffRoad 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 

PM2.5. 

Coarse 

Mass 

(PMC)

Coarse 

Mass

Windblown 

Dust;

Fugitive Dust

Coarse mass is reported by the IMPROVE Network as the 

difference between PM10 and PM2.5 mass measurements. Coarse 

mass is not separated by species in the same way that PM2.5 is 

speciated, but these measurements are generally associated with 

crustal components. Similar to crustal PM2.5, natural windblown 

dust is often the largest 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 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D))? For these summaries, emissions during the 

baseline years are represented using a 2002 inventory, which was developed with support 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 and DEASCO3 modeling 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 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 (SO2) inventories by source category. Tables 6.9-9 and Figure 6.9-8 present data for 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 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 (NH3), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), primary organic aerosol (POA), elemental 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 SO2, NOX, and 

VOCs. Note that this is consistent with the summary of annual EGU emissions as 

included in Section 6.9.2.2, showing decreases in SO2 and NOX emissions. 

• Area source inventories showed decreases in SO2 and VOCs and increases in NOX

and NH3. 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 SO2, NH3, and 

VOCs, but increases in most other parameters, including NOX. 

• Off-road mobile source inventories showed decreases in NOX, SO2, 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 NOX 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 only 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 increased for the windblown dust inventory comparisons 

and the combined fugitive/road dust inventories. Large variability in changes in 

windblown 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

(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 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 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 6.9-8. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, 

for Oxides of Nitrogen 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

(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 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

(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 6.9-10. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory 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

(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%)

*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

(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%)

*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

(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%)

*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

(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%)

*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. 

Figure 6.9-17 presents a sum of annual NOX and SO2 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 SO2 and NOX 

emissions, with a steeper decline in SO2. 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010

Annual EGU Emissions

New Mexico 1996-2010

SO2 (TPY)

NOX (TPY)

Figure 6.9-17. Sum of EGU Emissions of SO2 and NOX reported between 1996 and 2010 for 

New Mexico. 

WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6-234
2011 Regional SO2 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: 801-536-4248

Fax: 801-536-0085

cdelaney@utah.gov

New Mexico

Rhonda Payne

New Mexico Environment Department 

Air Quality Bureau 

1301 Siler Rd., Bldg. B

Santa Fe, NM 87507

Phone: 505-476-4329

Fax: 505-476-4375

rhonda.payne@state.nm.us

Albuquerque-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

Appendix B

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 SO2 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 SO2

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 (SO2) 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 2011 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 SO2 emissions for the calendar year 2011. 

The total emissions increased to 117,976 tons of 

SO2 after making adjustments to account for 

changes in monitoring and calculation methods. 

The adjustments result in an additional 502 tons of 

SO2 emissions. The adjusted emissions values for 

2009 and 2010 were 143,704 tons and 131,124 tons, respectively. The average of 2009, 2010, 

and 2011 adjusted emissions is 130,935 tons. 

 Based on this average annual emissions estimate, the Section 309 states determined that 

emissions in 2011 are below the regional SO2 milestone for 2011. 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 2010 to 2011 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 2011 Regional Milestones and Emissions for Section 309 Participating States* 

2011 Sulfur Dioxide Milestones

Regional 2011 Milestone** .................................................................................................................... 200,722 tons

Adjusted 2011 Milestone ........................................................................................................................ 200,722 tons

2011 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

Reported 2011 Emissions ....................................................................................................................... 117,474 tons

Adjustments***

Emission Monitoring and Calculation Methods .............................................................................. 502 tons

Adjusted 2011 Emissions (rounded number) .......................................................................................... 117,976 tons

Average Sulfur Dioxide Emissions (2009, 2010, &2011)

Adjusted 2011 Emissions ....................................................................................................................... 117,976 tons

Adjusted 2010 Emissions ....................................................................................................................... 131,124 tons

Adjusted 2009 Emissions ........................................................................................................................ 143704 tons

Average of, 2009, 2010, & 2011 Adjusted Emissions ........................................................................... 130,935 tons

Comparison of Emissions to Milestone

Average of 2009, 2010, & 2011 Adjusted Emissions .............................................................................130,935 tons

Adjusted Three-State 2010 Milestone..................................................................................................... 200,722 tons

Difference (Negative Value = Emissions < Milestone) ..........................................................................-69,788 tons

2009 – 2011 Emissions Average as Percent of 2011 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. 
2011 Milestone Report 

February 20, 2013 

1

2011 Regional SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 

SO2 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. 
2011 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 SO2 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. 
2011 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 SO2 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 SO2 

emissions in order to ensure the SO2 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 

2011 emissions against the milestones for the states and city that have submitted Section 309 

SIPs to EPA. 

What Elements Must the Regional SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2

milestone has either been met or exceeded. The draft determination is then submitted for public 

review and comment during the first part of 2013, culminating in a final report sent to EPA by 

March 31, 2013. 

 
2011 Milestone Report 

February 20, 2013 

4

1.2 Report Organization 

 This report presents the regional SO2 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 SO2 Emissions in 2011; 

● 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 SO2 Emissions and Milestone Source Inventory. 

2.0 Reported SO2 Emissions in 2011 

 All stationary sources with reported emissions of 100 tons or more per year in 2000 or 

any subsequent year are required to report annual SO2 emissions. Table 1 summarizes the annual 

reported emissions from applicable sources in each state. The 2011 reported SO2 emissions for 

each applicable source are in Appendix A, Table A-1. 

Table 1. Reported 2011 SO2 Emissions by State 

State Reported 2011 SO2 Emissions (tons/year)

New Mexico 19,904

Utah 24,564

Wyoming 73,007

TOTAL 117,474
2011 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 2011 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 

2011 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Adjusted 

2011 SO2

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

 
2011 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 the 

two previous years) will be calculated to compare with the milestone. The average of the threeyears' emissions from 2009 to 2011 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 SO2 Emissions (tons/year)

2009 143,704

2010 131,124

2011 117,976

Three-Year Average (2009, 2010, 2011) 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 

2011. 

6.0 Quality Assurance

The states provided 2011 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 SO2 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; 
2011 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 2010 – 2011 that are 

greater than 20%. Plants with variations greater than 20%, but reported emissions of less than 20 

tons in both 2010 and 2011, 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 2010 report. 
2011 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 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Reported 

2011 SO2

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 maintennce 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
2011 Milestone Report 

February 20, 2013 

9

State 

County 

FIPS

State 

Facility 

Identifier Plant Name

Reported 

2010 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Reported 

2011 SO2

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. The 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. 
2011 Milestone Report 

February 20, 2013 

10

State 

County 

FIPS

State 

Facility 

Identifier Plant Name

Reported 

2010 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Reported 

2011 SO2

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 on 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.
2011 Milestone Report 

February 20, 2013 

11

State 

County 

FIPS

State 

Facility 

Identifier Plant Name

Reported 

2010 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Reported 

2011 SO2

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 curtailment 

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 emissions 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 emission 

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 PacifiCorp -- Jim Bridger Plant 13,654 9,689 Unit 3 Sulfur Dioxide had a decrease of more than 20% emissions 

from 2010 to 2011due to the installation of Flue Gas 

Desulfurization system upgrades per Air Quality permit MD-1552 

on Unit 3.

WY 5 46 PacifiCorp -- 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.
2011 Milestone Report 

February 20, 2013 

12

State 

County 

FIPS

State 

Facility 

Identifier Plant Name

Reported 

2010 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Reported 

2011 SO2

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 Emissions 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.
2011 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 

2011. 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 dataa.

 

a The reported emissions for Pacificorp’s Naughton Plant in WY contain an extra 21 tons of SO2 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 SO2 emissions due to emission points that are not included in the acid rain 

data. 
2011 Milestone Report 

February 20, 2013 

14

7.0 Preliminary Milestone Determination 

 The Section 309 state 2011 milestone is 200,722 tons SO2, 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 SO2. Therefore, the 

participating states have met the 200,722 tons SO2 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

2011 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 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Adjusted 

2011 SO2 

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 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Adjusted 

2011 SO2 

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 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Adjusted 

2011 SO2 

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 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Adjusted 

2011 SO2 

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 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Adjusted 

2011 SO2 

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 PacifiCorp - Dave Johnston Plant 4911 221112 11,306 11,306

WY 37 1002 8066 PacifiCorp -- 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 SO2

Emissions 

(tons)

Adjusted 

2011 SO2 

Emissions 

(tons)

2011 General New 

Monitoring 

Calculation 

Method 

Adjustment (tons)

WY 23 4 4162 PacifiCorp -- Naughton Plant 4911 221112 20,461 20,461

WY 5 46 6101 PacifiCorp -- 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 Class 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 

 

Appendix C
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% least 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 depicting annual and period averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.1-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% 

most impaired days are presented.

 Figure I.1-4: 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.1-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored 

Days: Line graphs depicting monthly averages 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 averages 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 the baseline period are 

presented.

 Figure I.1-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked 

bar charts depicting daily averages by year 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)

Best 20% Days 4.9 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%

Worst 20% Days 14.6 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%

All Days 9.1 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)

Best 20% Days 16.4 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%

Worst 20% Days 67.6 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%

All Days 31.4 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)

Best 20% Days 2.4 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%

Worst 20% Days 7.6 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%

All Days 5.0 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)

Best 20% Days 0.8 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%

Worst 20% Days 2.8 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%

All Days 1.6 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)

Best 20% Days 2.0 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%

Worst 20% Days 38.1 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%

All Days 11.1 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)

Best 20% Days 0.9 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%

Worst 20% Days 6.8 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%

All Days 2.6 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)

Best 20% Days 0.3 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%

Worst 20% Days 0.9 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%

All Days 0.5 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)

Best 20% Days 1.0 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%

Worst 20% Days 2.4 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%

All Days 1.6 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)

Best 20% Days 0.0 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%

Worst 20% Days 0.1 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%

All Days 0.0 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

10

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

11.8 12.2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

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.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 2009

Extinction (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 2009

Extinction (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 - '042 - '043 - '044 - '045 - '046 - '047 - '048 - '049 - '04

10 - '0411 - '0412 - '04

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 - '002 - '003 - '004 - '005 - '006 - '007 - '008 - '009 - '00

10 - '0011 - '0012 - '00

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 - '012 - '013 - '014 - '015 - '016 - '017 - '018 - '019 - '01

10 - '0111 - '0112 - '01

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 - '022 - '023 - '024 - '025 - '026 - '027 - '028 - '029 - '02

10 - '0211 - '0212 - '02

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 - '032 - '033 - '034 - '035 - '036 - '037 - '038 - '039 - '03

10 - '0311 - '0312 - '03

Extinction (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 - '092 - '093 - '094 - '095 - '096 - '097 - '098 - '099 - '09

10 - '0911 - '0912 - '09

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '052 - '053 - '054 - '055 - '056 - '057 - '058 - '059 - '05

10 - '0511 - '0512 - '05

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '062 - '063 - '064 - '065 - '066 - '067 - '068 - '069 - '06

10 - '0611 - '0612 - '06

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '072 - '073 - '074 - '075 - '076 - '077 - '078 - '079 - '07

10 - '0711 - '0712 - '07

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '082 - '083 - '084 - '085 - '086 - '087 - '088 - '089 - '08

10 - '0811 - '0812 - '08

Extinction (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-01

Extinction (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-00

Extinction (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-02

Extinction (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-04

Extinction (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-03

Extinction (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-06

Extinction (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-05

Extinction (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-07

Extinction (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-09

Extinction (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-08

Extinction (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% least 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 depicting annual and period averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.2-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% 

most impaired days are presented.

 Figure I.2-4: 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.2-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored 

Days: Line graphs depicting monthly averages 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 averages 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 the baseline period are 

presented.

 Figure I.2-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked 

bar charts depicting daily averages by year 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

10

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

13.4 13.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

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.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 2009

Extinction (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 2009

Extinction (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 - '042 - '043 - '044 - '045 - '046 - '047 - '048 - '049 - '04

10 - '0411 - '0412 - '04

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '002 - '003 - '004 - '005 - '006 - '007 - '008 - '009 - '00

10 - '0011 - '0012 - '00

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '012 - '013 - '014 - '015 - '016 - '017 - '018 - '019 - '01

10 - '0111 - '0112 - '01

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '022 - '023 - '024 - '025 - '026 - '027 - '028 - '029 - '02

10 - '0211 - '0212 - '02

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '032 - '033 - '034 - '035 - '036 - '037 - '038 - '039 - '03

10 - '0311 - '0312 - '03

Extinction (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 - '092 - '093 - '094 - '095 - '096 - '097 - '098 - '099 - '09

10 - '0911 - '0912 - '09

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '052 - '053 - '054 - '055 - '056 - '057 - '058 - '059 - '05

10 - '0511 - '0512 - '05

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '062 - '063 - '064 - '065 - '066 - '067 - '068 - '069 - '06

10 - '0611 - '0612 - '06

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '072 - '073 - '074 - '075 - '076 - '077 - '078 - '079 - '07

10 - '0711 - '0712 - '07

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '082 - '083 - '084 - '085 - '086 - '087 - '088 - '089 - '08

10 - '0811 - '0812 - '08

Extinction (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-01

Extinction (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-00

Extinction (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-02

Extinction (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-04

Extinction (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-03

Extinction (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-06

Extinction (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-05

Extinction (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-07

Extinction (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-09

Extinction (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-08

Extinction (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% least 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 depicting annual and period averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.3-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% 

most impaired days are presented.

 Figure I.3-4: 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.3-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored 

Days: Line graphs depicting monthly averages 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 averages 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 the baseline period are 

presented.

 Figure I.3-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked 

bar charts depicting daily averages by year 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

10

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

12.5 13.1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

0

5

10

15

20

25

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.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 2009

Extinction (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 2009

Extinction (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 - '042 - '043 - '044 - '045 - '046 - '047 - '048 - '049 - '04

10 - '0411 - '0412 - '04

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 - '002 - '003 - '004 - '005 - '006 - '007 - '008 - '009 - '00

10 - '0011 - '0012 - '00

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 - '012 - '013 - '014 - '015 - '016 - '017 - '018 - '019 - '01

10 - '0111 - '0112 - '01

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 - '022 - '023 - '024 - '025 - '026 - '027 - '028 - '029 - '02

10 - '0211 - '0212 - '02

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 - '032 - '033 - '034 - '035 - '036 - '037 - '038 - '039 - '03

10 - '0311 - '0312 - '03

Extinction (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 - '092 - '093 - '094 - '095 - '096 - '097 - '098 - '099 - '09

10 - '0911 - '0912 - '09

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '052 - '053 - '054 - '055 - '056 - '057 - '058 - '059 - '05

10 - '0511 - '0512 - '05

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '062 - '063 - '064 - '065 - '066 - '067 - '068 - '069 - '06

10 - '0611 - '0612 - '06

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '072 - '073 - '074 - '075 - '076 - '077 - '078 - '079 - '07

10 - '0711 - '0712 - '07

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '082 - '083 - '084 - '085 - '086 - '087 - '088 - '089 - '08

10 - '0811 - '0812 - '08

Extinction (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-01

Extinction (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-00

Extinction (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-02

Extinction (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-04

Extinction (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-03

Extinction (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-06

Extinction (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-05

Extinction (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-07

Extinction (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-09

Extinction (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-08

Extinction (Mm-1

)
I.4. GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NP AND CARLSBAD CAVERNS NP (GUMO1) 

The following tables and figures are presented 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% least 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 depicting annual and period averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.4-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% 

most impaired days are presented.

 Figure I.4-4: 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.4-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored 

Days: Line graphs depicting monthly averages 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 averages 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 the baseline period are 

presented.

 Figure I.4-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked 

bar charts depicting daily averages by year 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)

Best 20% Days 6.3 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%

Worst 20% Days 17.1 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%

All Days 11.6 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)

Best 20% Days 18.8 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%

Worst 20% Days 56.1 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%

All Days 34.5 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)

Best 20% Days 3.9 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%

Worst 20% Days 16.6 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%

All Days 9.6 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)

Best 20% Days 0.9 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%

Worst 20% Days 5.4 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%

All Days 2.7 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)

Best 20% Days 1.9 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%

Worst 20% Days 7.4 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%

All Days 4.2 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)

Best 20% Days 0.9 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%

Worst 20% Days 2.0 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%

All Days 1.4 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)

Best 20% Days 0.5 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%

Worst 20% Days 2.4 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%

All Days 1.4 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)

Best 20% Days 1.6 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%

Worst 20% Days 13.2 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%

All Days 6.1 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)

Best 20% Days 0.1 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%

Worst 20% Days 0.1 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%

All Days 0.1 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

10

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

15.9

17.2

0

5

10

15

20

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

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.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 2009

Extinction (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 2009

Extinction (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 - '042 - '043 - '044 - '045 - '046 - '047 - '048 - '049 - '04

10 - '0411 - '0412 - '04

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '002 - '003 - '004 - '005 - '006 - '007 - '008 - '009 - '00

10 - '0011 - '0012 - '00

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '012 - '013 - '014 - '015 - '016 - '017 - '018 - '019 - '01

10 - '0111 - '0112 - '01

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '022 - '023 - '024 - '025 - '026 - '027 - '028 - '029 - '02

10 - '0211 - '0212 - '02

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '032 - '033 - '034 - '035 - '036 - '037 - '038 - '039 - '03

10 - '0311 - '0312 - '03

Extinction (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 - '092 - '093 - '094 - '095 - '096 - '097 - '098 - '099 - '09

10 - '0911 - '0912 - '09

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '052 - '053 - '054 - '055 - '056 - '057 - '058 - '059 - '05

10 - '0511 - '0512 - '05

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '062 - '063 - '064 - '065 - '066 - '067 - '068 - '069 - '06

10 - '0611 - '0612 - '06

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '072 - '073 - '074 - '075 - '076 - '077 - '078 - '079 - '07

10 - '0711 - '0712 - '07

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '082 - '083 - '084 - '085 - '086 - '087 - '088 - '089 - '08

10 - '0811 - '0812 - '08

Extinction (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-01

Extinction (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-00

Extinction (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-02

Extinction (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-04

Extinction (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-03

Extinction (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-06

Extinction (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-05

Extinction (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-07

Extinction (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-09

Extinction (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-08

Extinction (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% least 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 depicting annual and period averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.5-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% 

most impaired days are presented.

 Figure I.5-4: 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.5-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored 

Days: Line graphs depicting monthly averages 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 averages 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 the baseline period are 

presented.

 Figure I.5-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked 

bar charts depicting daily averages by year 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

10

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

18.0 17.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

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.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 2009

Extinction (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 2009

Extinction (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 - '042 - '043 - '044 - '045 - '046 - '047 - '048 - '049 - '04

10 - '0411 - '0412 - '04

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '002 - '003 - '004 - '005 - '006 - '007 - '008 - '009 - '00

10 - '0011 - '0012 - '00

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '012 - '013 - '014 - '015 - '016 - '017 - '018 - '019 - '01

10 - '0111 - '0112 - '01

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '022 - '023 - '024 - '025 - '026 - '027 - '028 - '029 - '02

10 - '0211 - '0212 - '02

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '032 - '033 - '034 - '035 - '036 - '037 - '038 - '039 - '03

10 - '0311 - '0312 - '03

Extinction (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 - '092 - '093 - '094 - '095 - '096 - '097 - '098 - '099 - '09

10 - '0911 - '0912 - '09

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '052 - '053 - '054 - '055 - '056 - '057 - '058 - '059 - '05

10 - '0511 - '0512 - '05

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '062 - '063 - '064 - '065 - '066 - '067 - '068 - '069 - '06

10 - '0611 - '0612 - '06

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '072 - '073 - '074 - '075 - '076 - '077 - '078 - '079 - '07

10 - '0711 - '0712 - '07

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '082 - '083 - '084 - '085 - '086 - '087 - '088 - '089 - '08

10 - '0811 - '0812 - '08

Extinction (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-01

Extinction (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-00

Extinction (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-02

Extinction (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-04

Extinction (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-03

Extinction (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-06

Extinction (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-05

Extinction (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-07

Extinction (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-09

Extinction (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-08

Extinction (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% least 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 depicting annual and period averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.6-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% 

most impaired days are presented.

 Figure I.6-4: 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.6-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored 

Days: Line graphs depicting monthly averages 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 averages 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 the baseline period are 

presented.

 Figure I.6-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked 

bar charts depicting daily averages by year 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

10

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

10.2 9.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

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.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 2009

Extinction (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 2009

Extinction (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 - '042 - '043 - '044 - '045 - '046 - '047 - '048 - '049 - '04

10 - '0411 - '0412 - '04

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '002 - '003 - '004 - '005 - '006 - '007 - '008 - '009 - '00

10 - '0011 - '0012 - '00

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '012 - '013 - '014 - '015 - '016 - '017 - '018 - '019 - '01

10 - '0111 - '0112 - '01

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '022 - '023 - '024 - '025 - '026 - '027 - '028 - '029 - '02

10 - '0211 - '0212 - '02

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '032 - '033 - '034 - '035 - '036 - '037 - '038 - '039 - '03

10 - '0311 - '0312 - '03

Extinction (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 - '092 - '093 - '094 - '095 - '096 - '097 - '098 - '099 - '09

10 - '0911 - '0912 - '09

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '052 - '053 - '054 - '055 - '056 - '057 - '058 - '059 - '05

10 - '0511 - '0512 - '05

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '062 - '063 - '064 - '065 - '066 - '067 - '068 - '069 - '06

10 - '0611 - '0612 - '06

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '072 - '073 - '074 - '075 - '076 - '077 - '078 - '079 - '07

10 - '0711 - '0712 - '07

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '082 - '083 - '084 - '085 - '086 - '087 - '088 - '089 - '08

10 - '0811 - '0812 - '08

Extinction (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-01

Extinction (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-00

Extinction (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-02

Extinction (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-04

Extinction (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-03

Extinction (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-06

Extinction (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-05

Extinction (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-07

Extinction (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-09

Extinction (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-08

Extinction (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% least 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 depicting annual and period averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.7-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% 

most impaired days are presented.

 Figure I.7-4: 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.7-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored 

Days: Line graphs depicting monthly averages 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 averages 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 the baseline period are 

presented.

 Figure I.7-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked 

bar charts depicting daily averages by year 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

10

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

13.2 13.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

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.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 2009

Extinction (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

13% 64%

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 2009

Extinction (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 - '042 - '043 - '044 - '045 - '046 - '047 - '048 - '049 - '04

10 - '0411 - '0412 - '04

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '002 - '003 - '004 - '005 - '006 - '007 - '008 - '009 - '00

10 - '0011 - '0012 - '00

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '012 - '013 - '014 - '015 - '016 - '017 - '018 - '019 - '01

10 - '0111 - '0112 - '01

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '022 - '023 - '024 - '025 - '026 - '027 - '028 - '029 - '02

10 - '0211 - '0212 - '02

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '032 - '033 - '034 - '035 - '036 - '037 - '038 - '039 - '03

10 - '0311 - '0312 - '03

Extinction (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 - '092 - '093 - '094 - '095 - '096 - '097 - '098 - '099 - '09

10 - '0911 - '0912 - '09

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '052 - '053 - '054 - '055 - '056 - '057 - '058 - '059 - '05

10 - '0511 - '0512 - '05

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '062 - '063 - '064 - '065 - '066 - '067 - '068 - '069 - '06

10 - '0611 - '0612 - '06

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '072 - '073 - '074 - '075 - '076 - '077 - '078 - '079 - '07

10 - '0711 - '0712 - '07

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - '082 - '083 - '084 - '085 - '086 - '087 - '088 - '089 - '08

10 - '0811 - '0812 - '08

Extinction (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-01

Extinction (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-00

Extinction (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-02

Extinction (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-04

Extinction (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-03

Extinction (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-06

Extinction (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-05

Extinction (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-07

Extinction (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-09

Extinction (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-08

Extinction (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% least 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 depicting annual and period averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.8-3: 20% Most Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component for the 20% 

most impaired days are presented.

 Figure I.8-4: 20% Least Impaired Visibility Days: Pie charts depicting period 

averages and stacked bar charts depicting annual averages by component are 

presented.

 Figure I.8-5: 2000-2004 Monthly Average Aerosol Extinction, All Monitored 

Days: Line graphs depicting monthly averages 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 averages 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 the baseline period are 

presented.

 Figure I.8-8: 2000-2004 Progress Period Extinction, All Sampled Days: Stacked 

bar charts depicting daily averages by year 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

10

Deciveiw (dv)

Deciview

Period Average

9.1

10.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Deciveiw (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* 2009

Extinction (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* 2009

Extinction (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 - '042 - '043 - '044 - '045 - '046 - '047 - '048 - '049 - '04

10 - '0411 - '0412 - '04

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '002 - '003 - '004 - '005 - '006 - '007 - '008 - '009 - '00

10 - '0011 - '0012 - '00

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '012 - '013 - '014 - '015 - '016 - '017 - '018 - '019 - '01

10 - '0111 - '0112 - '01

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '022 - '023 - '024 - '025 - '026 - '027 - '028 - '029 - '02

10 - '0211 - '0212 - '02

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 - '032 - '033 - '034 - '035 - '036 - '037 - '038 - '039 - '03

10 - '0311 - '0312 - '03

Extinction (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 - '092 - '093 - '094 - '095 - '096 - '097 - '098 - '099 - '09

10 - '0911 - '0912 - '09

Extinction (Mm-1

)

Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea Salt

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 - '052 - '053 - '054 - '055 - '056 - '057 - '058 - '059 - '05

10 - '0511 - '0512 - '05

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 - '062 - '063 - '064 - '065 - '066 - '067 - '068 - '069 - '06

10 - '0611 - '0612 - '06

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 - '072 - '073 - '074 - '075 - '076 - '077 - '078 - '079 - '07

10 - '0711 - '0712 - '07

Extinction (Mm-1

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 - '082 - '083 - '084 - '085 - '086 - '087 - '088 - '089 - '08

10 - '0811 - '0812 - '08

Extinction (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-01

Extinction (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-00

Extinction (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-02

Extinction (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-04

Extinction (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-03

Extinction (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-06

Extinction (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-05

Extinction (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-07

Extinction (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-09

Extinction (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-08

Extinction (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 ENVIRONMENTAL 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 the 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 revision 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 Progress Report. 40 CFR § 51.309 

requires states to develop regional haze progress report 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 from 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 requirements, with an emphasis on stationary source sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) 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 and 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 the 60-day comment period, the December 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 requested, 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 during 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 accordance 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 opportunity at the hearing to submit relevant evidence, data, 

views and arguments, orally or in writing, to introduce exhibits, and to examine witnesses. Persons 
wishing 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 intends to present and state the qualifications of the 

witness, including a description of their education and work background; 

(3) include a copy of the direct 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 hearing. No prior notification 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 convene 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”) tendrá, 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 considerar 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 meta de progreso razonable para cada área de Clase I situada dentro del 

estado y en cada área de Clase I situada fuera del estado 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 Ambiental 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 Sección 309 SIP del 2003 y revisiones posteriores 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 (SO2) de fuentes inertes y un enfoque en mejorar la visibilidad en el altiplano de 

Colorado. La Sección 309(g) SIP del 2011 aborda los requisitos y mejoras de visibilidad 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 Reglamentación – 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 incluyan 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 está 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, Sección, 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 verbal 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 intención. 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 descripción 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 cualquier modificación recomendada a las regulaciones propuestas nuevas y 

revisadas. 

 

Las notificaciones de intención para la audiencia deben ser recibidas 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 intención 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 testificar 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 tanto 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 declaración 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,

We 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 Conservation 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 established 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 mentioned above and below to 

 1

 p. 39.
Page 2 of 10

ensure that the Class I areas within its borders and in the 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 visibility 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 states 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 the 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, Idaho, 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 determined 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 implementation plan is sufficient to achieve its established goals for 

visibility improvement and emissions reductions. 40 CFR §51.309(d)(10)(ii)(A)-(D). In coming 
Page 3 of 10

to this conclusion, each Transport Region State must address, at a minimum, the following 

elements:

(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 the 

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 

impairment 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 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 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 meet 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 Transport 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 emissions 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 Haze 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 proposes 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 this 
Page 4 of 10

time.2 However, as the following sections will show, the proposed Progress Report fails to 

adequately address all the required 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 guidance 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”). Among 

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 Report 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 SIPs. 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 articulating 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 from 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 progress 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 reductions. 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 very 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 

visibility 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.

Because 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, allowing 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 parameters “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. While 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 September 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 outside 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” should “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 include: 

- 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 experiencing 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 impacts.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 Progress: 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 

2008. 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 

provides 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 available 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 necessary, 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 comparison.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 in 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 outside 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 anthropogenic 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 emissions 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 unexpected 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 Texas 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 clearly 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 Progress 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 under 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 SIP 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 those 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 

51.308(d)(1)(B)(vi). In promulgating the FIP, therefore, EPA 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 PSAT 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 anthropogenic. 22 p. 36. 
Page 10 of 10

Given that neither 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 under §51.309(d)(10)(ii). Therefore, the data presented in the 

5-year Progress Report is not sufficient to support AQB’s conclusion that the proposed SIP 

makes adequate progress toward the regional haze program’s reasonable progress requirements. 

The New Mexico progress 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 Class 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 back 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 SERVICE 

Air Resources Division 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, CO 80225-0287 

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 Resources 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 Progress 

Summary Report 1 to demonstrate that visibility is improving on the 20% best and 20% worst 

days at all Class I areas in New Mexico. AQB has demonstrated that ammonium sulfate, 

particulate organic matter, and coarse mass are the largest contributors to visibility impairment 

on the 20% worst and 20% best visibility clays at Class I areas in New Mexico. AQB has 

demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides have decreased. 

AQB asserts that all emissions control measures used by New Mexico to set 2018 reasonable 

progress goals are being implemented and that New Mexico is not impeding other states from 

meeting their 2018 reasonable progress goals. The only exception is that tlte final determination 

of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for San Juan Generating Station is still pending. 

New Mexico is the first of the western states to prepare a regional haze progress report. The 

following recommendations would improve AQB's submittal to EPA: 

• Section 1. Introduction briefly discusses BART for San Juan Generating Station. Please 

update this discussion to report the BART decision by the New Mexico Environmental 

Improvement Board in September 2013. EPA review of this decision is still pending. 

Please also discuss BART in more detail in Section 3.5 Emissions lnventory including 

final permitted BART emission limits for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, assumed 

1 http://www. wrapair2.org/documents/Fuii%20Report/WRAP _RHRPR_Fuii_Report_ without_Appendices.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 long-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 averages2. The 

rolling average has the advantage of considering the most currently available IMPROVE 

monitoring data. It also reduces the importance of any single year on the overall 

visibility trend. 

In addition to the detailed technical analyses in 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 2007-20113. As an example, 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), April 2013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

3 WRAP Technical Support System website (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/HazePlanning.aspx). 
3

 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 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. In years with high influence from 

wildfires, particulate organic matter dominates the 20% worst visibility days, and 

ammonium sulfate has a lower contribution. Conversely, in years with low fire activity, 

particulate organic matter was lower and ammonium sulfate had a comparatively higher 

contribution on the 20% worst days. Please discuss this interdependency between 

pollutants to account for what otherwise would appear to be an increase in ammonium 

sulfate contributions since the 2000-2004 baseline. The dominant role of fire also points

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, 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 annual 

average trends be updated beyond 2009. 

 Section 3.5 Emissions Inventory: Tables 3.7 and 3.8 demonstrate that anthropogenic 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions have been reduced by 43% and anthropogenic nitrogen 

oxide (NOx) emissions have been reduced by 28% between the 2002 WRAP inventory 

and the 2008 WESTJUMP inventory. Figure 3.20 indicates additional SO2 and NOx

emissions reductions in 2009-2010 from Electric Generating Units (EGU). Please

discuss the controls that were implemented for specific EGU to accomplish these SO2

and NOx emission reductions. EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division EGU data tracks

emissions and controls by unit, facility, and state. Will additional SO2 and NOx 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 in 2010 SO2 emissions in New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming were below 309 

milestones. Are additional SO2 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 copied from the WRAP Technical Support System to illustrate 

that SO2 emission reductions from 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 

these plots for neighboring Class I areas to support 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 guidance1 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 S02 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. Conversely, an increase in ammonium sulfate, largely an anthropogenic 

pollutant, was documented at each site. 

NMED incorporated a discussion on the interdependency 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 dominated by fire. However, in the 

absence of fire, the 20% worst days 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 SO2 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 emissions inventory to present SO2 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 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 in the future. 

SJGS consent decree controls were completed in 2009. Additional controls at SJGS will be 

implemented upon EPA approval of the revised BART determination submitted in October 2013. 
These will result in approximately 62% reduction 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 revised progress report that 

shows reductions in emission 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 state’s regional commitments for emission 

reductions. The emission reductions 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 further 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 propose either approval or denial of that 

submittal no later than April 30, 2014 (135 days following completeness determination on 

December 17, 2013). The submitted SIP revision would require decreases of NOx emissions by 

62 percent, SO2 by 67 percent, and PM by 50 percent at San Juan Generating Station. Although 

the compliance deadline in the Federal Implementation Plan currently remains in effect, EPA 

has agreed that it will take action to withdraw that plan 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. 

Section 1. Introduction briefly discusses BART for San Juan Generating Station. Please update 

this discussion to report the BART decision by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement 

Board in September 2013. EPA review of this decision is still pending. Please also discuss 

BART in more detail in Section 3.5 Emissions Inventory including final permitted BART 

emission limits for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, assumed 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 Regional 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 Implementation Plans. Please summarize major control 

measures. 

NMED has incorporated a summary of the major source long-term strategies in the 2013 RH 

Progress Report in Section 3.2. 

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 averages2. The rolling average has the 

advantage of considering the most currently available IMPROVE monitoring data. It also 

reduces the importance of any single year on the overall visibility trend. 

In addition to the detailed technical analyses in 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 2007-20113. 

As an example, 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.

NMED has incorporated tables showing rolling averages and references 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 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. 

In years with high influence from wildfires, particulate organic matter dominates the 20% worst 

visibility days, and ammonium sulfate has a lower contribution. Conversely, in years with low 

fire activity, particulate organic matter was lower and ammonium sulfate had a comparatively 
higher contribution on the 20% worst days. Please discuss this interdependency between 

pollutants to account for what otherwise would appear to be an increase in ammonium sulfate 

contributions since the 2000-2004 baseline. The dominant role of fire also points to the difficulty 

in predicting future visibility trends using the 20% worst days as the indicator of progress. 

NMED has incorporated discussion on the interdependency of pollutants in the 2013 RH 

Progress Report in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. 

Section 3.4.3 Annual Average Visibility Trend: AQB demonstrated that annual average visibility 

impairment decreased for all pollutant species, 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 annual average trends be updated beyond 2009. 

Thank you for your comment. 

Section 3.5 Emissions Inventory: Tables 3.7 and 3.8 demonstrate that anthropogenic sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions have been reduced by 43% and anthropogenic nitrogen oxide (NOx) 

emissions have been reduced by 28% between the 2002 WRAP inventory and the 2008 

WESTJUMP inventory. Figure 3.20 indicates additional SO2 and NOx emissions reductions in 

2009-2010 from Electric Generating Units (EGU). Please discuss the controls that were 

implemented for specific EGU to accomplish these SO2 and NOx emission reductions. EPA’s 

Clean Air Markets Division EGU data tracks emissions and controls by unit, facility, and state. 

Will additional SO2 and NOx 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 in 2010 SO2 emissions in New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming were below 

309 milestones. Are additional SO2 reductions expected in New Mexico? 

The reductions in EGU SO2 and NOx emissions were largely as a result of controls installed in 

compliance with a 2005 consent decree between Grand Canyon Trust, the Sierra Club, NMED 

and PNM for San Juan Generating Station. Control 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 Generating Station and install selective 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 SO2 and 50 percent reduction of PM by 2018. 

In addition to the San Juan Generating Station existing controls and planned controls, El Paso 

Electric in Sunland Park, NM installed Flue Gas Regeneration in 2010. 

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 copied from the WRAP Technical Support System to illustrate that 

SO2 emission reductions from 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 these 

plots for neighboring Class I areas to support AQB’s conclusion that NM is not impeding other 

states meeting their reasonable progress goals. 
Other states relied on WRAP modeling to show reasonable progress at their Class I areas. With 

the BART determination of a 2 unit 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 meeting their reasonable progress goals, and is, in fact, decreasing 

more than was anticipated in the WRAP modeling for both NOx and SO2. 
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 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. 

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. 309(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 309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires A summary of the emissions 

reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of the measures described in 

paragraph (d)(10)(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. 

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 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 2011. 

We note that the WRAP TSS website provides summaries of rolling 5-yr averages including data for 

2011 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. 

NMED incorporated tables showing 5-year rolling averages in Section 3.4.1 of the 2013 RH 

Progress Report.

4. 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 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 in 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 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 2011 NM RH SIP. This comparison is 

useful in tracking progress towards emission reductions 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 of NM RH SIP submittals that large increases in projected 

area source emissions for SO2 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 SO2 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 

EGUs 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. 

NMED has provided additional information on SO2 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 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. 

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 recommend 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. 

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 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. 
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 ("'Board1') 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.1l): 

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