Five-Year Network Assessment 

Ambient Air Monitoring Program 

Air Quality Bureau 

New Mexico Environment Department 

June 2010 

Prepared by 

Terry Hertel, Manager, Ambient Air Monitoring Program 

Air Quality Bureau 

1301-B Siler Road 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507 

www.nmenv.state.nm.us

New Mexico Environment Department 
i

Table of Contents 

1.0 Purpose of 5-Year Assessment ........................................................................................... 1 

2.0 Overview of NMED Air Quality Bureau Air Monitoring Network ................................... 1 

2.1 Network Regions ............................................................................................................ 2 

2.2 Network History.............................................................................................................. 7 

2.3 Air Quality Summary ...................................................................................................... 7 

2.3.1 NAAQS ................................................................................................................... 7 

2.3.2 Air Quality Index and Health Issues ....................................................................... 8 

2.3.2.1 County-to-County Health Comparisons ............................................................. 8 

2.3.2.2 Asthma and Heart Attack Issues ......................................................................... 9 

2.3.3 Air Quality and Environmental Justice ................................................................. 10 

2.4 Population Summary ..................................................................................................... 11

2.4.1 Metropolitan Statistical Areas ............................................................................... 11 

2.4.2 Combined Statistical Areas ................................................................................... 11 

2.4.3 Micropolitan Statistical Areas ............................................................................... 12 

2.4.4 Anticipated Growth ............................................................................................... 13 

2.5 Meteorological Summary.............................................................................................. 13 

2.5.1 Wind Roses ........................................................................................................... 13

2.5.2 Pollution Roses ..................................................................................................... 14 

2.5.3 Upwind Transport ................................................................................................. 14 

2.5.4 Downwind Transport ............................................................................................ 17 

2.5.5 Forecasting ............................................................................................................ 17 

2.6 Uses of Network Data ................................................................................................... 17

3.0 Emissions Inventory Summary ......................................................................................... 17 

4.0 Monitoring Network Ozone Sites ..................................................................................... 19 

4.1 San Juan County ........................................................................................................... 19 

4.1.1 San Juan Substation .............................................................................................. 19 

4.1.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 19 

4.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 19 

4.1.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 19 

4.1.2 Bloomfield ............................................................................................................ 20 

4.1.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 20 

4.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 20 

4.1.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 20 

4.1.3 Navajo Lake .......................................................................................................... 20

4.1.3.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 20 

4.1.3.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 20 

4.1.3.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 20 

4.2 Santa Fe County ............................................................................................................ 21 

4.2.1 Santa Fe Airport .................................................................................................... 21 

4.2.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 21 

4.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 21 

4.2.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 21 

4.3 Sandoval County ........................................................................................................... 21 
ii

4.3.1 Bernalillo............................................................................................................... 21 

4.3.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 21 

4.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 21 

4.3.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 21 

4.4 Valencia County............................................................................................................ 22 

4.4.1 Los Lunas .............................................................................................................. 22 

4.4.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 22 

4.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 22 

4.4.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 22 

4.5 Southeastern New Mexico ............................................................................................ 22 

4.5.1 Carlsbad ................................................................................................................ 22 

4.5.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 22 

4.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 22 

4.5.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 23 

4.5.2 Hobbs .................................................................................................................... 23 

4.5.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 23 

4.5.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 23 

4.5.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 23 

4.6 Las Cruces ..................................................................................................................... 23 

4.6.1 Solano ................................................................................................................... 23 

4.6.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 23 

4.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 23 

4.6.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 24 

4.7 Paso del Norte ............................................................................................................... 24 

4.7.1 Chaparral ............................................................................................................... 24 

4.7.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 24 

4.7.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 24 

4.7.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 24 

4.7.2 Desert View .......................................................................................................... 24

4.7.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 24 

4.7.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 25 

4.7.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 25 

4.7.3 La Union ............................................................................................................... 25 

4.7.3.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 25 

4.7.3.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 25 

4.7.3.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 25 

4.7.4 Santa Teresa .......................................................................................................... 25 

4.7.4.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 25 

4.7.4.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 26 

4.7.4.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 26 

4.7.5 Sunland Park ......................................................................................................... 26

4.7.5.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 26 

4.7.5.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 26 

4.7.5.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 26 

4.8 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 26 

4.8.1 Deming Airport ..................................................................................................... 26 
iii

4.8.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 26 

4.8.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 27 

4.8.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 27 

4.8.2 Hurley ................................................................................................................... 27 

4.8.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 27 

4.8.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 27 

4.8.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 27 

5.0 Monitoring Network Nitrogen Dioxide Sites ................................................................... 27 

5.1 San Juan County ........................................................................................................... 28 

5.1.1 San Juan Substation .............................................................................................. 28 

5.1.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 28 

5.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 28 

5.1.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 28 

5.1.2 Bloomfield ............................................................................................................ 28 

5.1.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 28 

5.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 28 

5.1.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 28 

5.1.3 Navajo Lake .......................................................................................................... 29

5.1.3.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 29 

5.1.3.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 29 

5.1.3.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 29 

5.2 Southeastern New Mexico ............................................................................................ 29 

5.2.1 Carlsbad ................................................................................................................ 29 

5.2.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 29 

5.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 29 

5.2.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 29 

5.2.2 Hobbs .................................................................................................................... 30 

5.2.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 30 

5.2.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 30 

5.2.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 30 

5.3 Paso del Norte ............................................................................................................... 30 

5.3.1 Desert View .......................................................................................................... 30

5.3.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 30 

5.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 30 

5.3.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 31 

5.3.2 Santa Teresa .......................................................................................................... 31 

5.3.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 31 

5.3.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 31 

5.3.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 31 

5.4 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 31 

5.4.1 Deming Airport ..................................................................................................... 31 

5.4.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 31 

5.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 31 

5.4.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 32 

6.0 Monitoring Network Sulfur Dioxide Sites ........................................................................ 32 

6.1 San Juan County ........................................................................................................... 32 
iv

6.1.1 San Juan Substation .............................................................................................. 32 

6.1.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 32 

6.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 32 

6.1.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 32 

6.1.2 Bloomfield ............................................................................................................ 33 

6.1.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 33 

6.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 33 

6.1.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 33 

6.1.2.3.2......................................................................................................................... 33 

6.2 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 33 

6.2.1 Hurley ................................................................................................................... 33 

6.2.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 33 

6.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 33 

6.2.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 33 

7.0 Monitoring Network Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5 Sites ............................... 34 

7.1 San Juan County ........................................................................................................... 34 

7.1.1 Farmington Office ................................................................................................. 34 

7.1.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 34 

7.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 34 

7.1.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 34 

7.2 Santa Fe County ............................................................................................................ 34 

7.2.1 Runnels Building Roof ......................................................................................... 34 

7.2.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 34 

7.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 35 

7.2.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 35 

7.3 Southeastern New Mexico ............................................................................................ 35 

7.3.1 Hobbs .................................................................................................................... 35 

7.3.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 35 

7.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 35 

7.3.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 35 

7.3.2 Roswell ................................................................................................................. 36 

7.3.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 36 

7.3.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 36 

7.3.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 36 

7.4 Las Cruces ..................................................................................................................... 36 

7.4.1 Las Cruces Office Roof ........................................................................................ 36 

7.4.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 36 

7.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 36 

7.4.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 36 

7.5 Paso del Norte ............................................................................................................... 37 

7.5.1 Sunland Park City Yard ........................................................................................ 37 

7.5.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 37 

7.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 37 

7.5.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 37 

7.6 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 37 

7.6.1 Silver City ............................................................................................................. 37 
v

7.6.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 37 

7.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 37 

7.6.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 38 

8.0 Monitoring Network Continuous PM2.5 Sites ................................................................... 38 

8.1 Design Requirements .................................................................................................... 38

8.1.1 Spatial Scale .......................................................................................................... 38 

8.1.2 Setbacks ................................................................................................................ 38 

9.0 Monitoring Network FRM PM10 Sites .............................................................................. 38 

9.1 San Juan County ........................................................................................................... 38 

9.1.1 Farmington Office ................................................................................................. 38 

9.1.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 38 

9.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 38 

9.1.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 39 

9.2 Santa Fe County ............................................................................................................ 39 

9.2.1 Runnels Building .................................................................................................. 39 

9.2.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 39 

9.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 39 

9.2.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 39 

9.3 Sandoval County ........................................................................................................... 39 

9.3.1 Bernalillo City Hall ............................................................................................... 39 

9.3.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 39 

9.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 40 

9.3.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 40 

9.4 Southeastern New Mexico ............................................................................................ 40 

9.4.1 Roswell ................................................................................................................. 40 

9.4.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 40 

9.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 40 

9.4.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 40 

9.4.2 Hobbs .................................................................................................................... 41 

9.4.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 41 

9.4.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 41 

9.4.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 41 

9.5 Paso del Norte ............................................................................................................... 41 

9.5.1 Anthony................................................................................................................. 41 

9.5.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 41 

9.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 41 

9.5.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 41 

9.5.2 Sunland Park ......................................................................................................... 42

9.5.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 42 

9.5.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 42 

9.5.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 42 

9.6 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 42 

9.6.1 Deming .................................................................................................................. 42 

9.6.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 42 

9.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 42 

9.6.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 42 
vi

9.6.2 Hurley ................................................................................................................... 43 

9.6.2.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 43 

9.6.2.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 43 

9.6.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 43 

9.6.3 Silver City ............................................................................................................. 43 

9.6.3.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 43 

9.6.3.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 43 

9.6.2.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 44 

9.7 Taos County .................................................................................................................. 44 

9.7.1 Taos Fire Station ................................................................................................... 44 

9.7.1.1 Design Values ................................................................................................... 44 

9.7.1.2 Pollutant Trends ................................................................................................ 44 

9.7.1.3 Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 44 

10.0 Monitoring Network Continuous PM10 Sites .................................................................... 44 

10.1 Las Cruces ..................................................................................................................... 44 

10.1.1 Holman Road ........................................................................................................ 44 

10.1.1.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 45 

10.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 45 

10.1.1.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 45 

10.1.2 West Mesa ............................................................................................................. 45 

10.1.2.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 45 

10.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 45 

10.1.2.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 45 

10.2 Paso del Norte ............................................................................................................... 46 

10.2.1 Chaparral ............................................................................................................... 46 

10.2.1.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 46 

10.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 46 

10.2.1.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 46 

10.2.2 Desert View .......................................................................................................... 46 

10.2.2.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 46 

10.2.2.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 46 

10.2.2.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 46 

10.2.3 Sunland Park ......................................................................................................... 47 

10.2.3.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 47 

10.2.3.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 47 

10.2.3.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 47 

10.2.4 Anthony................................................................................................................. 47 

10.2.4.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 47 

10.2.4.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 47 

10.2.4.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 47 

10.3 Southwestern New Mexico ........................................................................................... 48 

10.3.1 Deming .................................................................................................................. 48 

10.3.1.1 Design Values ............................................................................................... 48 

10.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends ............................................................................................ 48 

10.3.1.3 Design Requirements .................................................................................... 48 

11.0 Monitoring Network Quality Assurance Checks .............................................................. 48 
vii

12.0 Monitoring Network’s New Monitoring Requirements ................................................... 48 

12.1 Lead (Pb) ....................................................................................................................... 48 

12.2 Nitrogen Dioxide .......................................................................................................... 49 

12.3 Sulfur Dioxide ............................................................................................................... 49 

12.4 Ozone ............................................................................................................................ 49 

13.0 Technology ....................................................................................................................... 50 

13.1 Monitors ........................................................................................................................ 50 

13.1.1 Ozone .................................................................................................................... 50 

13.1.2 Nitrogen Dioxide .................................................................................................. 50 

13.1.3 Sulfur Dioxide ....................................................................................................... 50 

13.1.4 PM2.5 Continuous .................................................................................................. 50 

13.1.5 PM2.5 Non-Continuous .......................................................................................... 50 

13.1.5 PM10 Continuous ................................................................................................... 50 

13.1.5 PM10 Non-Continuous .......................................................................................... 50 

13.2 Field Calibrators............................................................................................................ 51 

13.3 Field Zero Air Sources .................................................................................................. 51 

13.4 Ozone Transfer Standards ............................................................................................. 51 

13.5 Airflow Transfer Standards ........................................................................................... 51 

13.6 Gas Mixers .................................................................................................................... 51 

13.7 Analog Data Loggers .................................................................................................... 51 

t HYPERLINK \l "_Toc265677688" 13.8Data Acquisition

13.9 Gas Cylinder Standards ................................................................................................. 52 

13.10 Meteorological Equipment........................................................................................ 52 

13.11 Sampling Manifolds .................................................................................................. 52 

14.0 Cross-cutting Network Considerations ............................................................................. 52 

14.1 Other Monitoring Program Participation ...................................................................... 52 

14.1.1 National Atmospheric Deposition Program, National Trends Network ............... 52 

14.1.2 National Atmospheric Deposition Program, Mercury Deposition Network ........ 52 

14.1.3 EPA RadNet .......................................................................................................... 52

17.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 54 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Map of New Mexico Monitoring Regions.......................................................................2 

Figure 2. Map of San Juan County Monitoring Sites......................................................................3 

Figure 3. Map of Taos County Monitoring Sites.............................................................................3 

Figure 4. Map of Santa Fe County Monitoring Sites.......................................................................4 

Figure 5. Map of Sandoval County Monitoring Sites......................................................................4 

Figure 6. Map of Valencia county Monitoring Sites.......................................................................5 

Figure 7. Map of Southeastern New Mexico Monitoring Sites.......................................................5 

Figure 8. Map of Las Cruces Monitoring Sites................................................................................6 

Figure 9. Map of Paso del Norte Monitoring Sites..........................................................................6 

Figure 10. Map of Southwestern New Mexico Monitoring Sites....................................................7 

Figure 11. NOAA HYSPLIT Trajectories for the Four Corners Area ..........................................15 

Figure 12. NOAA HYSPLIT Trajectories for Southwestern New Mexico ...................................16 
viii

Figure 13. State-wide Emissions Trend 2004 through 2008 ..........................................................18 

Figure 14. Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions Trend 2004 through 2008 ...............................................18 

Figure 15. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Trend 2004 through 2008 ...................................................19 

Appendices 

Available online at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/library.htm

Appendix 1. Network Elements File and Maps 

Appendix 2. Site History 

Appendix 3. Air Now Healthy Days County Comparisons 

Appendix 4. Air Now Healthy Days County Histories 

Appendix 5. New Mexico MSA and CSA Data 

Appendix 6. New Mexico Micropolitan Areas 

Appendix 7. Wind Roses for Carlsbad, Navajo Lake, and Sunland Park 

Appendix 8. Wind Roses for Other New Mexico Sites 

Appendix 9. Pollution Roses 

Appendix 10. Transport Files 

Appendix 11. Emissions Inventory Files and Graphs 

Appendix 12. Ozone Design Values and Pollution Trends 

Appendix 13. Nitrogen Dioxide Design Values and Pollution Trends 

Appendix 14. Sulfur Dioxide Design Values and Pollution Trends 

Appendix 15. FRM PM2.5 Design Values and Pollution Trends 

Appendix 16. FRM PM10 Design Values and Pollution Trends 

Appendix 17. TEOM PM10 Design Values and Pollution Trends 

Appendix 18. Annual QA Reports 
1

1.0 Purpose of 5-Year Assessment 

The purpose of the 5-year assessment as per 40 CFR 58.10 is to “determine, at a minimum, if the 

network meets the monitoring objectives defined in appendix D to this part, whether new sites 

are needed, whether existing sites are no longer needed and can be terminated, and whether new 

technologies are appropriate for incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network. The 

network assessment must consider the ability of existing and proposed sites to support air quality 

characterization for areas with relatively high populations of susceptible individuals (e.g., 

children with asthma), and, for any sites that are being proposed for discontinuance, the effect on 

data users other than the agency itself, such as nearby States and Tribes or health effects studies. 

For PM2.5, the assessment also must identify needed changes to population-oriented sites.” 

“The network assessment should include (1) re-evaluation of the objectives and budget for air 

monitoring, (2) evaluation of a network’s effectiveness and efficiency relative to its objectives 

and costs, and (3) development of recommendations for network reconfigurations and 

improvements.” 1 

The rationale for an assessment is that ambient air monitoring objectives have shifted over time 

because air quality has changed, populations and their behaviors have changed, and new air 

quality objectives have been established. 

2.0 Overview of NMED Air Quality Bureau Air Monitoring Network 

The mission of the New Mexico Environment Department’s (NMED) Air Quality Bureau (AQB) 

is to protect the inhabitants and natural beauty of New Mexico by preventing the deterioration of 

air quality. This includes strategic planning to ensure that all air quality standards are met and 

maintained, issuing air quality Construction and Operating Permits, and enforcing air quality 

regulations and permit conditions. 

The Air Quality Bureau has authority over air quality in all New Mexico except Bernalillo 

County, which includes Albuquerque, and Tribal Lands. 

The NMED/AQB network is a State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) network. The 

purpose of the network is to support the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). It 

is designed to: 

 determine highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the network 

 determine representative concentrations in areas of high population density 

 determine the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant sources or source 

categories 

 determine general background concentration levels. 
2

2.1 Network Regions 

The NMED/AQB air monitoring network is comprised of nine regions. These regions are: 

 San Juan County 

 Taos County 

 Santa Fe County 

 Sandoval County 

 Valencia County 

 Southeastern New Mexico 

 Las Cruces 

 Paso del Norte 

 Southwestern New Mexico. 

Each region has one or more monitoring sites with continuous and/or non-continuous monitors. 

Depending on the site, parameters monitored are ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, PM10, 

and PM2.5. The continuous monitoring sites also monitor meteorological data. Pertinent site 

information can be found in the “Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. Maps of these areas and 

their respective sites are found in Appendix 1. The public can retrieve hourly data from the 

continuous sites at the following link: http://air.nmenv.state.nm.us. 

 Figure 1 Map of New Mexico Monitoring Regions
3

Figure 2 Map of San Juan County Monitoring Sites 

Figure 3 Map of Taos County Monitoring Sites 
4

Figure 4 Map of Santa Fe County Monitoring Sites 

Figure 5 Map of Sandoval County Monitoring Sites 
5

 

Figure 6 Map of Valencia County Monitoring Sites 

Figure 7 Map of Southeastern New Mexico Monitoring Sites 

 
6

Figure 8 Map of Las Cruces Monitoring Sites 

Figure 9 Map of Paso del Norte Monitoring Sites
7

Figure 10 Map of Southwestern New Mexico Monitoring Sites

2.2 Network History 

Some of the active sites in the network have been operational since 1974. Most of the sites that 

have been in operation the longest are PM sites. Exceptions are: 

 Sulfur dioxide monitoring at Substation, which commenced in 1974 to determine the 

impact of the power plants in the area. 

 Ozone monitoring at La Union, which commenced in 1979. 

 Sulfur dioxide monitoring at Hurley, which commenced in 1997 to determine the 

impact of local copper smelter. 

The history of the network’s active sites is found in Appendix 2.

2.3 Air Quality Summary 

2.3.1 NAAQS 

The major NAAQS concerns for the network have been ozone and PM10. 

Sunland Park was officially designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in a 

Federal Register announcement published June 12, 1995. The nonattainment area included the 

communities of Sunland Park, Santa Teresa, and La Union. Exceedances of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS occurred at both the Sunland Park City Yards and La Union monitoring sites. 
8

Due to the revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone in 2005, EPA required that all areas that 

were currently nonattainment for the 1-hour NAAQS, but in attainment for the new 8-hour 

NAAQS for ozone, conduct an analysis to re-designate those nonattainment areas to 

attainment/maintenance status. An attainment plan was submitted to EPA for the Sunland Park 

area in June 2007. NMED is still waiting for EPA approval of the attainment plan. 

All other counties in New Mexico under NMED jurisdiction have been in attainment for ozone. 

Anthony was designated “non-attainment” for PM10 in 1991 due to high-wind exceedances, and 

it is still in “non-attainment” due to low-wind exceedances in 2004. None of the other counties 

in southern New Mexico are considered to be in “non-attainment”; however, the New Mexico 

Air Quality Bureau has recorded exceedances of PM10 in Doña Ana and Luna County. In 

response to these recorded exceedances of the standard for PM10, Natural Events Action Plans 

(NEAP) for Doña Ana and Luna County have been prepared and submitted to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Although the sulfur dioxide NAAQS has not been a concern, Hurley’s sulfur dioxide monitor has 

been “under maintenance” since 2003. 

2.3.2 Air Quality Index and Health Issues 

2.3.2.1 County-to-County Health Comparisons 

The health of citizens in New Mexico is affected by the quality of the air, which can be 

interpreted using the Air Quality Index (AQI). Although Las Cruces is the only MSA in New 

Mexico under NMED jurisdiction that is listed in the U.S. EPA’s AirNow AQI website, there are 

county-to-county comparisons listed on the site that can be used by the general public. These 

comparisons are used to show which criteria pollutants affect certain sub-groups of the 

population. The sub-groups and pollutants affecting them are: 

 Groups with asthma or lung disease: Ozone, PM, and Sulfur Dioxide 

 Groups with heart disease: PM and Carbon Monoxide 

 Children: Ozone and PM 

 Older Adults: Ozone and PM 

 Groups engaging in Outdoor Activities: Ozone and Sulfur Dioxide 

The county-to-county comparisons for 2009 are shown in Appendix 3 for: 

 Chaves County 

 Dona Ana County 

 Eddy County 

 Grant County 

 Lea County 

 Luna County 

 San Juan County 

 Sandoval County 

 Santa Fe County 
9

A 2000 to 2009 history for each county and its respective sub-groups is shown in Appendix 4. 

2.3.2.2 Asthma and Heart Attack Issues 

While New Mexico’s overall asthma rate is similar to the national rate, there are significant 

regional, racial/ethnic, gender, and age group variations within the state, including a profound 

regional disparity. 

Although the New Mexico 2004-2006 age-adjusted first-listed asthma hospitalization rate was 

10.2 per 10,000 standard population, the asthma hospitalization rate (21.0) in the southeast 

region of New Mexico was more than double the state rate. All other geographic regions had 

rates ranging from 7.7 to 9.2. 

Among youth under age 15, Lea County had an asthma hospitalization rate (118.2) which was 

more than five times higher than the state rate (21.7).2

 for this age group. 

In addition to the monitored presence of asthma antagonists (ozone and PM) in southeastern New 

Mexico, there is a presence of hydrogen sulfide, which also seems to affect certain population 

sub-groups. 

The executive summary of a World Health Organization report states: “Since the respiratory tract 

is the major target organ of hydrogen sulfide toxicity, humans with asthma, the elderly, and 

young children with compromised respiratory function represent sensitive subpopulations.”3

New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH) has expressed concerns about the possible 

influence of hydrogen sulfide on asthma statistics. Although there is no NAAQS for hydrogen 

sulfide, the NMED/AQB standard for areas outside of municipalities in the Permian Basin is 

0.100 ppm as a 1⁄2-hour average. For municipalities, the standard is 0.030 ppm. Because there 

are no NAAQS for hydrogen sulfide, NMED / AQB does not conduct any monitoring for H2S at 

this time. 

The NMDOH’s Epidemiology Bureau analyzed hospitalizations for heart attack in the state. 

After incorporating hospitalizations among residents who were seen in Texas (data from Texas 

Department of State Health Services), the highest rates were among counties in the southeast 

portion of New Mexico. For example, the state age-adjusted rate in 2006 was 15 heart attack 

hospitalizations per 10,000 population. In comparison, the rate for Eddy County in the same 

year was 24.6 heart attack hospitalizations per 10,000. Similarly, Lea County had a rate of 23 

per 10,000. Increasingly, investigators both in the United States and abroad have shown 

significant relationships between air pollutants and increased risk for heart attack and other 

forms of coronary heart disease. 

Models have demonstrated increases in heart attack hospitalization rates in relation to fine 

particles (PM2.5), particularly in sensitive sub-populations such as the elderly, patients with preexisting heart disease, survivors of heart attack, or those with chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease (COPD). 
10

 

An increase of 10 ug PM2.5 /m3 was associated with a 4.5% elevation in risk of unstable angina 

(chest pain) and heart attack. 

Mortality statistics have been linked for a 16-year period to chronic exposure to multiple air 

pollutants in 500,000 adults who resided across all 50 states. 

2.3.3 Air Quality and Environmental Justice 

The EPA defines environmental justice as: 

“Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless 

of race, color, national origin, culture, education, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair 

Treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, 

should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from 

industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and 

tribal environmental programs and policies. Meaningful Involvement means that: (1) potentially 

affected community residents have an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a 

proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public's contribution 

can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) the concerns of all participants involved will 

be considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision-makers seek out and facilitate 

the involvement of those potentially affected.”4

In addressing the “fair treatment” aspect, NMED/AQB received a grant from the EPA to conduct 

a six-month study to investigate the causes of low-wind PM10 exceedances in the northern end of 

the Paso del Norte air shed surrounding Sunland Park, New Mexico, including adjacent areas of 

Colonia Anapra, Mexico. 

This area of perhaps greater than 10,000 population has very little infrastructure and very few 

paved roads. As a result, particulate matter probably consisting of smoke from burning for 

cooking and heating and vehicle-generated dust is persistent. 

As stated before, PM has an impact on populations with asthma and heart disease, children, and 

older adults. 

NMED/AQB established a partnership with the Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos 

Naturales (SEMARNAT), Mexico's environmental ministry, and Ciudad Juarez Direccion de 

Normatividad Ambiental (DNA), the local regulatory agency, to design, implement and operate a 

temporary particulate monitoring network in the Colonia of Anapra, Mexico. After the study, six 

of the particulate monitors obtained with the grant funds were given to DNA. 

A report of the study was prepared by Desert Research Institute for NMED/AQB. Copies of the 

report may be obtained from Terry Hertel at the New Mexico Environment Department, Air 

Quality Bureau, 1301 Siler Road, Building B, Santa Fe, NM 87507, email 
11

terry.hertel@state.nm.us, phone (505) 476-4316. The reports are posted at 

www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/library.htm. 

2.4 Population Summary 

This section addresses the breakdown of overall and Core-Based Statistical Areas in the state of 

New Mexico. 

There are two Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs), four Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), 

and 15 Micropolitan Statistical Areas (μSAs) in the State of New Mexico.5

2.4.1 Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

The four MSAs in New Mexico are Albuquerque, Farmington, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe. The 

MSAs are defined as follows: 

Albuquerque MSA 

Bernalillo County 

Sandoval County 

Torrance County 

Valencia County 

Farmington MSA 

San Juan County 

Las Cruces MSA 

Doña Ana County 

Santa Fe MSA 

Santa Fe County 

The Albuquerque MSA has seen a population increase of 17.58% from 2000 to 2009. In the 

Albuquerque MSA, NMED/AQB only has monitors in Sandoval and Valencia counties. The City 

of Albuquerque’s air monitoring program covers the rest of this MSA. The Farmington MSA 

has seen a population increase of 9.08% from 2000 to 2009. The Las Cruces MSA has seen a 

population increase of 18.17% from 2000 to 2009. The Santa Fe MSA has seen a population 

increase of 14.11% from 2000 to 2009. The U. S. Census Bureau 2000-2009 population change 

data of these MSAs is shown in Appendix 5.

2.4.2 Combined Statistical Areas 

The two CSAs in New Mexico are Clovis-Portales and Santa Fe-Espanola. The CSAs are 

defined as follows: 

Clovis-Portales CSA 

Clovis Micropolitan Statistical Area 

Curry County 
12

Portales Micropolitan Statistical Area 

Roosevelt County 

Santa Fe-Espanola CSA 

Santa Fe Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Santa Fe County 

Espanola Micropolitan Statistical Area 

Rio Arriba County 

The Clovis-Portales CSA has seen a population increase of 0.26% from 2000 to 2009. The 

NMED/AQB does not operate any monitors in this CSA. The Santa Fe-Espanola CSA has seen a 

population increase of 10.40% from 2000 to 2009. The NMED/AQB does not operate any 

monitors in Rio Arriba County. The U. S. Census Bureau 2000-2009 population change data of 

these CSAs is also shown in Appendix 5.

2.4.3 Micropolitan Statistical Areas 

The fifteen μSAs in New Mexico are defined as follows: 

Alamogordo μSA*** 

Otero County 

 

Carlsbad-Artesia μSA 

Eddy County 

Clovis μSA*** 

Curry County 

 

Deming μSA 

Luna County 

Espanola μSA*** 

Rio Arriba County 

 

Gallup μSA*** 

McKinley County 

Grants μSA*** 

Cibola County 

 

Hobbs μSA 

Lea County 

Las Vegas μSA*** 

San Miguel County 

 
13

Los Alamos μSA*** 

Los Alamos County 

 

Portales μSA*** 

Roosevelt County 

 

Roswell μSA 

Chaves County 

 

Ruidoso μSA*** 

Lincoln County 

Silver City μSA 

Grant County 

 

Taos μSA 

Taos County 

*** The NMED/AQB does not operate any monitors in these μSAs. 

The U. S. Census Bureau 2000-2009 population change data of these μSAs is shown in 

Appendix 6. 

2.4.4 Anticipated Growth 

The growth of these 2 Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs), 4 Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

(MSAs), and 15 Micropolitan Statistical Areas (μSAs) is anticipated to maintain a similar trend 

over the next several years. 

 

2.5 Meteorological Summary 

2.5.1 Wind Roses 

Wind roses were generated for monitoring sites in counties where the NAAQS for ozone and 

nitrogen dioxide may potentially be an issue. 

As a general rule, wind patterns (annual and seasonal) have remained similar for the sites over 

the three-year period of 2006 through 2008. Three sites were chosen to illustrate this fact. The 

sites are: 

 Sunland Park in Dona Ana County 

 Navajo Lake in San Juan County 

 Carlsbad in SE New Mexico 

Plots of these wind patterns are shown in Appendix 7. Wind roses for the remaining sites in New 

Mexico are shown in Appendix 8. 
14

2.5.2 Pollution Roses 

Pollution roses were generated for monitoring sites in counties where the NAAQS for ozone and 

nitrogen dioxide may potentially be an issue. Pollution roses for these sites are shown in 

Appendix 9. The ozone and NOx pollution roses for the Substation site seem to show an 

influence from the power plant that is located immediately to the east of the site. 

2.5.3 Upwind Transport 

Transport of pollutants is becoming more of an issue. In many cases, it is evident that ozone 

transport from outside of the network takes place. Figure 1 shows this influence for the San Juan 

County ozone sites. The NOAA HYSPLIT model shows transport coming from south eastern 

Arizona for the hours between 9 PM MDT 10/04/09 and 1 AM MDT 10/05/09. Figure 2 shows 

transport from Mexico affecting the Deming and Hurley sites on 01/22/10. Other transport 

examples are shown in Appendix 10. 
15

Bloomfield 10PM 10/04/09 

Navajo Lake 1AM 10/05/09 

Substation 9PM 10/04/09 

Figure 11 NOAA HYSPLIT Trajectories for Four Corners Area 
16

 Deming Midnight MST 01/22/10 

 Hurley Midnight MST 01/22/10 

Figure 12 NOAA HYSPLIT Back Trajectories for Southwestern New Mexico 
17

2.5.4 Downwind Transport 

Just as the NMED/AQB network is affected by upwind transport from areas outside of the 

network, certain areas in the network can have downwind impacts on other networks and states. 

Emissions from the power plants in San Juan County can impact the adjoining states in the Four 

Corners area. Emissions from vehicle traffic and particulate emissions from housing 

developments in Sandoval County can impact the city of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. 

Particulates generated by the burning of pecan tree cuttings in Dona Ana County can impact the 

Paso del Norte area in Texas and Mexico. 

2.5.5 Forecasting 

NMED/AQB does not have any assigned forecasters, so upper air and stagnation data are not 

used. 

2.6 Uses of Network Data 

Data collected by the NMED/AQB network has various end uses. Data is submitted to AQS, 

which in turn determines whether or not network site monitors are in compliance with the 

NAAQS. AIRNow uses PM and ozone data to generate Air Quality Index forecasts. The Four 

Corners Air Quality Group reviews air quality data to learn about current conditions which 

assists in reviewing progress on mitigation of air quality impacts. The New Mexico Department 

of Health uses data to conduct health outcome modeling. 

3.0 Emissions Inventory Summary 

NMED/AQB conducts point source emissions inventories for counties in New Mexico, including 

the following pollutants: 

 Nitrogen Dioxide 

 Sulfur Dioxide 

 PM10

 PM2.5

The inventories evaluated are for the years 2004, 2006, and 2008. Figure 3 shows the state-wide 

emissions trend for the three years. Over the past five years, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide 

emissions have decreased. As a result, background concentrations have also decreased. PM10 

emissions have remained fairly stable. PM2.5 emissions for 2006 and 2008 were higher than 

those of 2004 because in 2004 the point sources had not calculated and reported PM2.5 properly. 
18

 Figure 13 State-wide Emissions Trend 2004 through 2008 

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show emissions data for counties with the most significant nitrogen 

dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions. Inventory files and graphs are found in Appendix 11. 

 Figure 14 Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions Trend 2004 through 2008 
19

 Figure 15 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Trend 2004 through 2008 

4.0 Monitoring Network Ozone Sites 

NMED/AQB operates sixteen ozone monitors in eight regions. With the exception of Desert 

View, the 2006 to 2008 design values for all sites were below the NAAQS of 0.075 ppm. 

4.1 San Juan County 

4.1.1 San Juan Substation 

4.1.1.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Substation was 0.071 ppm, which was below the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data is shown in Appendix 12. 

4.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Substation has been at or below the NAAQS since 2001. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.1.1.3 Design Requirements 

4.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 
20

4.1.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.1.2 Bloomfield 

4.1.2.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Bloomfield was 0.065 ppm, which was below the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Bloomfield has been at or below the NAAQS since 2003. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.1.2.3 Design Requirements 

4.1.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.1.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.1.3 Navajo Lake 

4.1.3.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Navajo Lake was 0.075 ppm, which was right at the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.1.3.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Navajo Lake has been at or below the NAAQS since 2008. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.1.3.3 Design Requirements 

4.1.3.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 
21

4.1.3.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.2 Santa Fe County 

4.2.1 Santa Fe Airport 

4.2.1.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Santa Fe Airport was 0.064 ppm, which was below the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Santa Fe Airport has been at or below the NAAQS since 2007. 

The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.2.1.3 Design Requirements 

4.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.2.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.3 Sandoval County 

4.3.1 Bernalillo 

4.3.1.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Bernalillo was 0.061 ppm, which was below the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Bernalillo has been at or below the NAAQS since 1990. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.3.1.3 Design Requirements 

4.3.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 
22

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.3.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.4 Valencia County 

4.4.1 Los Lunas 

4.4.1.1 Design Values 

There is no 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Los Lunas because the site was started in 2009. 

4.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

There is no pollution trend data for Los Lunas because the site was started in 2009. 

4.4.1.3 Design Requirements 

4.4.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.4.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.5 Southeastern New Mexico 

4.5.1 Carlsbad 

4.5.1.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Carlsbad was 0.069 ppm, which was below the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Carlsbad has been at or below the NAAQS since 1997. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.
23

4.5.1.3 Design Requirements 

4.5.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.5.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.5.2 Hobbs 

4.5.2.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Hobbs was 0.068 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. 

The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.5.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Hobbs has been at or below the NAAQS since 2004. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.5.2.3 Design Requirements 

4.5.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.5.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.6 Las Cruces 

4.6.1 Solano 

4.6.1.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Solano was 0.065 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. 

The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends 
24

The pollutant trend for ozone at Solano has been at or below the NAAQS since 2004. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.6.1.3 Design Requirements 

4.6.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.6.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.7 Paso del Norte 

4.7.1 Chaparral 

4.7.1.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Chaparral was 0.069 ppm, which was below the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.7.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Chaparral has been at or below the NAAQS since 1991. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.1.3 Design Requirements 

4.7.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.7.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.7.2 Desert View 

4.7.2.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Desert View was 0.076 ppm, which was above the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 
25

4.7.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

With the exception of 2004, the pollutant trend for ozone at Desert View has been at or above the 

NAAQS since 1996. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12. 

4.7.2.3 Design Requirements 

4.7.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.7.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.7.3 La Union 

4.7.3.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for La Union was 0.070 ppm, which was below the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.7.3.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at La Union has been at or below the NAAQS since 2004. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.3.3 Design Requirements 

4.7.3.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.7.3.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.7.4 Santa Teresa 

4.7.4.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Santa Teresa was 0.072 ppm, which was below the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 
26

4.7.4.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Santa Teresa has been at or below the NAAQS since 2004. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.4.3 Design Requirements 

4.7.4.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.7.4.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.7.5 Sunland Park 

4.7.5.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Sunland Park was 0.069 ppm, which was below the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.7.5.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Sunland Park has been at or below the NAAQS since 2004. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.7.5.3 Design Requirements 

4.7.5.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.7.5.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.8 Southwestern New Mexico 

4.8.1 Deming Airport 

4.8.1.1 Design Values 
27

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Deming Airport was 0.058 ppm, which was below the 

NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.8.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Deming Airport has been at or below the NAAQS since 2006. 

The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.8.1.3 Design Requirements 

4.8.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.8.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

4.8.2 Hurley 

4.8.2.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 ozone design value for Hurley was 0.064 ppm, which was below the NAAQS. 

The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 12. 

4.8.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for ozone at Hurley has been at or below the NAAQS since 2005. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 12.

4.8.2.3 Design Requirements 

4.8.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

4.8.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

5.0 Monitoring Network Nitrogen Dioxide Sites 
28

NMED/AQB operates eight nitrogen dioxide monitors in four regions. The 2007 to 2008 design 

values for all sites were below the “highest annual average 1-hour concentration during the most 

recent two years” NAAQS of 0.053 ppm. 

5.1 San Juan County 

5.1.1 San Juan Substation 

5.1.1.1 Design Values 

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Substation was 0.0104 ppm, which was 

below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 13. 

5.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Substation has been well below the NAAQS since 

1997. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.1.1.3 Design Requirements 

5.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

5.1.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

5.1.2 Bloomfield 

5.1.2.1 Design Values 

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Bloomfield was 0.0159 ppm, which 

was below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 13. 

5.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Bloomfield has been well below the NAAQS since 

1997. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.1.2.3 Design Requirements 

5.1.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 
29

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

5.1.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

5.1.3 Navajo Lake 

5.1.3.1 Design Values 

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Navajo Lake was 0.0103 ppm, which 

was below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 13. 

5.1.3.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Navajo Lake has been well below the NAAQS since 

2006. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.1.3.3 Design Requirements 

5.1.3.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

5.1.3.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

5.2 Southeastern New Mexico 

5.2.1 Carlsbad 

5.2.1.1 Design Values 

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Carlsbad was 0.0031 ppm, which was 

below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 13. 

5.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Carlsbad has been well below the NAAQS since 

1998. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.2.1.3 Design Requirements 
30

5.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

5.2.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

5.2.2 Hobbs 

5.2.2.1 Design Values 

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Hobbs was 0.0065 ppm, which was 

below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 13. 

5.2.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Hobbs has been well below the NAAQS since 2005. 

The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.2.2.3 Design Requirements 

5.2.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

5.2.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

5.3 Paso del Norte 

5.3.1 Desert View 

5.3.1.1 Design Values 

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Desert View was 0.0094 ppm, which 

was below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 13. 

5.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Desert View has been well below the NAAQS since 

1996. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.
31

5.3.1.3 Design Requirements 

5.3.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

5.3.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

5.3.2 Santa Teresa 

5.3.2.1 Design Values 

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Santa Teresa was 0.0046 ppm, which 

was below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 13. 

5.3.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Santa Teresa has been well below the NAAQS since 

1999. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.3.2.3 Design Requirements 

5.3.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

5.3.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

5.4 Southwestern New Mexico 

5.4.1 Deming Airport 

5.4.1.1 Design Values 

The 2007 to 2008 nitrogen dioxide design value high for Deming Airport was 0.0054 ppm, 

which was below the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 13. 

5.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends 
32

The pollutant trend for nitrogen dioxide at Deming Airport has been well below the NAAQS 

since 2007. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 13.

5.4.1.3 Design Requirements 

5.4.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

5.4.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

6.0 Monitoring Network Sulfur Dioxide Sites 

NMED/AQB operates three sulfur dioxide monitors in two regions. The 2007 to 2008 annual 

design values for all sites were below the annual NAAQS of 0.03 ppm and the 24-hour design 

values were below the 24-hour NAAQS of 0.14 ppm. 

6.1 San Juan County 

6.1.1 San Juan Substation 

6.1.1.1 Design Values 

The 2007 to 2008 sulfur dioxide annual design value high for Substation was 0.002 ppm, which 

was below the annual NAAQS. The 2007 to 2008 sulfur dioxide 24-hour design value high for 

Substation was 0.0084 ppm, which was below the 24-hour NAAQS. The design value and 

associated data are shown in Appendix 14. 

6.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for sulfur dioxide at Substation has been well below the NAAQS since 1990. 

The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 14.

6.1.1.3 Design Requirements 

6.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

6.1.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 
33

6.1.2 Bloomfield 

6.1.2.1 Design Values 

The 2007 to 2008 sulfur dioxide annual design value high for Bloomfield was 0.001 ppm, which 

was below the annual NAAQS. The 2007 to 2008 sulfur dioxide 24-hour design value high for 

Substation was 0.0017 ppm, which was below the 24-hour NAAQS. The design value and 

associated data are shown in Appendix 14. 

6.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for sulfur dioxide at Bloomfield has been well below the NAAQS since 

1996. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 14.

6.1.2.3 Design Requirements 

6.1.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

6.1.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

6.2 Southwestern New Mexico 

6.2.1 Hurley 

6.2.1.1 Design Values 

The 2007 to 2008 sulfur dioxide annual design value high for Hurley was 0.001 ppm, which was 

below the annual NAAQS. The 2007 to 2008 sulfur dioxide 24-hour design value high for 

Substation was 0.0013 ppm, which was below the 24-hour NAAQS. The design value and 

associated data is shown in Appendix 14. 

6.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for sulfur dioxide at Hurley has been well below the NAAQS since 1998. 

The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 14.

6.2.1.3 Design Requirements 

6.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 
34

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

6.2.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

7.0 Monitoring Network Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5 Sites 

 

NMED/AQB operates seven Partisol FRM PM2.5 monitors in six regions. The 2006 to 2008 

design values for all sites were below the NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter. 

7.1 San Juan County 

7.1.1 Farmington Office 

7.1.1.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM2.5 for the Farmington Office was 6.0 micrograms 

per cubic meter, which was below the annual NAAQS. The design value and associated data are 

shown in Appendix 15. 

7.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM2.5 for the Farmington Office has been well below the NAAQS since 

2000. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.1.1.3 Design Requirements 

7.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

7.1.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

7.2 Santa Fe County 

7.2.1 Runnels Building Roof 

7.2.1.1 Design Values 
35

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM2.5 for the Runnels Building was 4.8 micrograms 

per cubic meter, which was below the annual NAAQS. The design value and associated data are 

shown in Appendix 15. 

7.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM2.5 for the Runnels Building has been well below the NAAQS since 

2000. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.2.1.3 Design Requirements 

7.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

7.2.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

7.3 Southeastern New Mexico 

7.3.1 Hobbs 

7.3.1.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM2.5 for Hobbs was 6.7 micrograms per cubic meter, 

which was below the annual NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in 

Appendix 15. 

7.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM2.5 for Hobbs has been well below the NAAQS since 2005. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.3.1.3 Design Requirements 

7.3.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

7.3.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 
36

7.3.2 Roswell 

7.3.2.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM2.5 for Roswell was 6.4 micrograms per cubic 

meter, which was below the annual NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in 

Appendix 15. 

7.3.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM2.5 for Roswell has been well below the NAAQS since 2000. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.3.2.3 Design Requirements 

7.3.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

7.3.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

7.4 Las Cruces 

7.4.1 Las Cruces Office Roof 

7.4.1.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM2.5 for the Las Cruces Office was 6.3 micrograms 

per cubic meter, which was below the annual NAAQS. The design value and associated data are 

shown in Appendix 15. 

7.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM2.5 for the Las Cruces Office has been well below the NAAQS since 

2001. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.4.1.3 Design Requirements 

7.4.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 
37

7.4.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

7.5 Paso del Norte 

7.5.1 Sunland Park City Yard 

7.5.1.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM2.5 for Sunland Park was 10.5 micrograms per 

cubic meter, which was below the annual NAAQS. The design value and associated data are 

shown in Appendix 15. 

7.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM2.5 for Sunland Park has been well below the NAAQS since 2000. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.

7.5.1.3 Design Requirements 

7.5.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

7.5.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

7.6 Southwestern New Mexico 

7.6.1 Silver City 

7.6.1.1 Design Values 

The 2006 to 2008 annual design value for PM2.5 for Silver City was 5.4 micrograms per cubic 

meter, which was below the annual NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in 

Appendix 15. 

7.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM2.5 for Silver City has been well below the NAAQS since 2000. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 15.
38

7.6.1.3 Design Requirements 

7.6.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

7.6.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

8.0 Monitoring Network Continuous PM2.5 Sites 

NMED/AQB operates eleven continuous TEOM PM2.5 monitors in six regions. No EPA design 

value data or pollution trend data are available. 

8.1 Design Requirements 

8.1.1 Spatial Scale 

All site locations are suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

8.1.2 Setbacks 

The setbacks of these sites meet the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

9.0 Monitoring Network FRM PM10 Sites 

NMED/AQB operates eleven Wedding FRM PM10 monitors in seven regions. Two sites are colocated in Farmington. 

9.1 San Juan County 

9.1.1 Farmington Office 

9.1.1.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for the Farmington Office met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are 

shown in Appendix 16. 

9.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends 
39

The pollutant trend for PM10 for the Farmington Office has been well below the NAAQS since 

1990. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.1.1.3 Design Requirements 

9.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

9.1.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

9.2 Santa Fe County 

9.2.1 Runnels Building 

9.2.1.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for the Runnels Building met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data is shown 

in Appendix 16. 

9.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM10 for the Runnels Building has been well below the NAAQS since 

1990. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.2.1.3 Design Requirements 

9.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

9.2.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

9.3 Sandoval County 

9.3.1 Bernalillo City Hall 

9.3.1.1 Design Values 
40

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for the Bernalillo City Hall met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data is 

shown in Appendix 16. 

9.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM10 for the Bernalillo City Hall has been well below the NAAQS since 

1990. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.3.1.3 Design Requirements 

9.3.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

9.3.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

9.4 Southeastern New Mexico 

9.4.1 Roswell 

9.4.1.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for the Roswell City Office met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are 

shown in Appendix 16. 

9.4.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM10 for the Roswell City Office has been well below the NAAQS since 

1999. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.4.1.3 Design Requirements 

9.4.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

9.4.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 
41

9.4.2 Hobbs 

9.4.2.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Hobbs met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 

16. 

9.4.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM10 for Hobbs has been well below the NAAQS since 1999. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16. 

9.4.2.3 Design Requirements 

9.4.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

9.4.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

9.5 Paso del Norte 

9.5.1 Anthony 

9.5.1.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Anthony did not meet the NAAQS. The design value and associated data is shown in 

Appendix 16. 

9.5.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM10 for Anthony exceeded the NAAQS in 2003 and 2006. 

The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.5.1.3 Design Requirements 

9.5.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 
42

9.5.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

9.5.2 Sunland Park 

9.5.2.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Sunland Park did not meet the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are 

shown in Appendix 16. 

9.5.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM10 for Sunland Park exceeded the NAAQS in 2003. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.5.2.3 Design Requirements 

9.5.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

9.5.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

9.6 Southwestern New Mexico 

9.6.1 Deming 

9.6.1.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Deming met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 

16. 

9.6.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM10 for Deming exceeded the NAAQS in 2003. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.6.1.3 Design Requirements 

9.6.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 
43

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

9.6.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

9.6.2 Hurley 

9.6.2.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Hurley met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in Appendix 

16. 

9.6.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM10 for Hurley has been well below the NAAQS. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.6.2.3 Design Requirements 

9.6.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

9.6.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

9.6.3 Silver City 

9.6.3.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Silver City met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in 

Appendix 16. 

9.6.3.2 Pollutant Trends 

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM10 for Silver City has been well below the NAAQS. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.
44

9.6.2.3 Design Requirements 

9.6.3.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

9.6.3.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

9.7 Taos County 

9.7.1 Taos Fire Station 

9.7.1.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for the Taos Fire Station met the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown 

in Appendix 16. 

9.7.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The 1990-2008 pollutant trend for PM10 for the Taos Fire Station was well below the NAAQS. 

The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 16.

9.7.1.3 Design Requirements 

9.7.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

9.7.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

10.0 Monitoring Network Continuous PM10 Sites 

NMED/AQB operates seven continuous TEOM PM10 monitors in three regions. 

10.1 Las Cruces 

10.1.1 Holman Road 
45

10.1.1.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Holman Road did not meet the NAAQS. 

The design value and associated data is shown in Appendix 17. 

10.1.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM10 for Holman Road has been above the NAAQS since 1996, with the 

exception of 2005. The pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 17.

10.1.1.3 Design Requirements 

10.1.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

10.1.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

10.1.2 West Mesa 

10.1.2.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for West Mesa did not meet the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown 

in Appendix 17. 

10.1.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM10 for West Mesa exceeded the NAAQS in 2004 and 2008. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 17.

10.1.2.3 Design Requirements 

10.1.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

10.1.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 
46

10.2 Paso del Norte 

10.2.1 Chaparral 

10.2.1.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Chaparral did not meet the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in 

Appendix 17. 

10.2.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM10 for Chaparral has been above the NAAQS since 2005. The pollutant 

trend plot is shown in Appendix 17. 

10.2.1.3 Design Requirements 

10.2.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

10.2.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

10.2.2 Desert View 

10.2.2.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Desert View did not meet the NAAQS. 

The design value and associated data is shown in Appendix 17. 

10.2.2.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM10 for Desert View exceeded the NAAQS in 2008. The pollutant trend 

plot is shown in Appendix 17. 

10.2.2.3 Design Requirements 

10.2.2.3.1 Spatial Scale 
47

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

10.2.2.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

10.2.3 Sunland Park 

10.2.3.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Sunland Park did not meet the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are 

shown in Appendix 17. 

10.2.3.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM10 for Sunland Park exceeded the NAAQS in 1990 and 2003. The 

pollutant trend plot is shown in Appendix 17.

10.2.3.3 Design Requirements 

10.2.3.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

10.2.3.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

10.2.4 Anthony 

10.2.4.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Anthony did not meet the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in 

Appendix 17. 

10.2.4.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM10 for Anthony exceeded the NAAQS in 2003 and 2006. The pollutant 

trend plot is shown in Appendix 17.

10.2.4.3 Design Requirements 
48

10.2.4.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

10.2.4.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. 

10.3 Southwestern New Mexico 

10.3.1 Deming 

10.3.1.1 Design Values 

Based on the new EPA “exceedance-based” standard, the 2006 to 2008 annual design value for 

PM10 for Deming did not meet the NAAQS. The design value and associated data are shown in 

Appendix 17. 

10.3.1.2 Pollutant Trends 

The pollutant trend for PM10 for Deming exceeded the NAAQS in 2008. The pollutant trend plot 

is shown in Appendix 17.

10.3.1.3 Design Requirements 

10.3.1.3.1 Spatial Scale 

The site location is suitable to measure the appropriate spatial scale, which is denoted in the 

“Network Elements” file in Appendix 1. 

10.3.1.3.2 Setbacks 

The setback of this site meets the requirements of Appendix E of 40 CFR 58.

11.0 Monitoring Network Quality Assurance Checks 

All required quality assurance checks for the network are conducted routinely at the required 

schedules. The annual “255” reports for 2007, 2008, and 2009 can be found in Appendix 18. 

12.0 Monitoring Network’s New Monitoring Requirements 

12.1 Lead (Pb) 

Two criteria have been set up for Pb monitoring: 
49

 Source-oriented – for sources over 0.5 tons per year. 

 “Non-source”-oriented in every urban area with a population of 500,000 or more. 

Based on these criteria, no Pb monitors are required in regions under NMED/AQB jurisdiction. 

12.2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

Two criteria have been set up for NO2 monitoring: 

 Near-road NO2 monitoring; 1 micro-scale site would be required in CBSAs >= 350,000 

at a location of expected highest hourly NO2 concentrations sited near a major road with 

high AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) counts. 

 Community-wide; required in CBSAs >= 1 million at a location of expected highest NO2 

concentrations representing neighborhood or larger (urban) spatial scale. 

Based on these criteria, no new NO2 monitors are required in regions under NMED/AQB 

jurisdiction. 

12.3 Sulfur Dioxide 

Two criteria have been set up for SO2 monitoring: 

 Based on population per Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) and amount of 

SO2 emissions within that CBSA (Population Weighed Emissions Index) 

 Based on individual state contribution to national SO2 inventory (2005 NEI) 

Based on the PWEI criteria, NMED/AQB does not need to deploy any new monitors. 

Based on the 2005 NEI criteria, NMED/AQB would need one monitor. This requirement is 

already being met by the presence of the Substation site. 

12.4 Ozone 

Three criteria have been set up for ozone monitoring: 

 One monitor in a Micropolitan Statistical Area (10,000-<50,000). 

Three sites already meet this criteria; Hobbs, Deming, and Carlsbad. 

 One monitor in an area of high ozone concentration outside of currently monitored MSAs 

and Micropolitan areas. 

NMED/AQB is working with the US Forest Service to commission a site at the Coyote 

Ranger Station on the Santa Fe National Forest. 
50

 1 monitor in an area set aside to conserve scenic value and the natural vegetation and 

wildlife within such area. 

The existing Navajo Lake site (close to Navajo Lake State Park) fulfills this requirement. 

13.0 Technology 

13.1 Monitors 

13.1.1 Ozone 

NMED/AQB operates Thermo Scientific 49C and 49i monitors. Plans are in place to replace all 

49C models with the newer 49i models. 

13.1.2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

 NMED/AQB operates Thermo Scientific 42C and 42i NO2 monitors. Plans are in place to 

replace all 42C models with the newer 42i models. 

13.1.3 Sulfur Dioxide 

NMED/AQB operates two Thermo Scientific 43C and one 43A SO2 monitors. Plans are in place 

to replace these models with the newer 43i models. 

13.1.4 PM2.5 Continuous 

NMED/AQB utilizes R&P 1440 AB and AT TEOM models for PM2.5 sampling. As resources 

become available, newer models will be purchased. 

13.1.5 PM2.5 Non-Continuous 

NMED/AQB utilizes R&P 2025A Partisol models for PM2.5 sampling. As resources become 

available, newer models will be purchased. 

13.1.5 PM10 Continuous 

NMED/AQB utilizes R&P 1440 AB and AT TEOM models for PM10 sampling. As resources 

become available, newer models will be purchased. 

13.1.5 PM10 Non-Continuous 

NMED/AQB utilizes the Wedding PM10 samplers. Impending changes in PM NAAQS will 

require the purchase of new PM10 monitors. 
51

13.2 Field Calibrators 

All NMED/AQB ozone, NO2, and SO2 sites have Sabio model 4010 gas dilution calibrators, 

which are capable of gas dilution, ozone, and Gas Phase Titration calibration. These calibrators 

are prompted by the data acquisition software at each site to automatically perform 2-point 

calibrations on Thursdays and 3-point calibrations on Sundays. 

13.3 Field Zero Air Sources 

Each NMED/AQB ozone, NO2, and SO2 site utilizes a Sabio model 1001 zero air source that 

operates in conjunction with the Sabio calibrator. 

13.4 Ozone Transfer Standards 

Operators and auditors in the network use dated Dasibi model 1008 and 1003 ozone transfer 

standards. Plans are underway to replace these old units with new transfer standards. 

13.5 Airflow Transfer Standards 

Operators and auditors in the network use BIOS airflow standards. Models include the DC2 base 

with high and low flow cells, the DC Lite and the BIOS Defender. 

13.6 Gas Mixers 

Operators and auditors in the network use five dated CSI model 1700 and one dated Thermo 

Scientific model 146 gas mixers. As resources become available, newer models will be 

purchased. 

13.7 Analog Data Loggers 

All of the sites that have meteorological (Met) capability have dated Campbell Scientific analog 

data loggers to retrieve Met data. As resources become available, newer models will be 

purchased. 

13.8 Data Acquisition 

All of the continuous monitoring sites have DR Das data acquisition systems. This system 

retrieves data from the ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and TEOM PM monitors via 

RS232 serial connections. Analog Met data is retrieved and converted to digital form. The data 

from each site is polled hourly by a server in the Quality Assurance (QA) lab. This data can be 

accessed on the Bureau’s air monitoring website at: http://air.nmenv.state.nm.us. 

In addition to data collection, another system allows personnel to remotely perform diagnostics 

on the site gaseous monitors via “iPort” Thermo Scientific software. RP Comm software by 

Thermo allows remote diagnostics on the TEOM monitors. 
52

13.9 Gas Cylinder Standards 

Nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide EPA protocol standards are used at the respective sites for 

the bi-weekly auto-calibrations. QA auditors use their own protocol standards for scheduled 

audits and precision checks. No trace-level or MDL standards are required in the network, 

therefore they are not used. 

13.10 Meteorological Equipment 

Anemometers and temperature probes are purchased from RM Young. Solar sensors are 

purchased from LiCor. Met audits are performed bi-annually to calibrate all sensors and to 

replace worn equipment and bearings. 

13.11 Sampling Manifolds 

All manifolds, both glass and Teflon, meet the “<20 second” criteria. All probes and inlets are at 

acceptable heights. 

14.0 Cross-cutting Network Considerations 

14.1 Other Monitoring Program Participation 

14.1.1 National Atmospheric Deposition Program, National Trends Network 

NMED/AQB funds one National Trends Network (NTN) sampling site at Capulin, New Mexico. 

The site is maintained by the National Park Service. NMED/AQB funds and maintains a second 

NTN site in the Gila Wilderness. 

14.1.2 National Atmospheric Deposition Program, Mercury Deposition Network 

NMED/AQB funds and maintains a Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) site at the Navajo 

Lake air monitoring site. The site is a wet-deposition site. 

In addition to maintaining the MDN site, NMED/AQB is participating in a passive reactive 

gaseous mercury sampling program. Sampling is being conducted at Navajo Lake, Substation, 

and the Farmington airport. 

14.1.3 EPA RadNet 

NMED/AQB maintains two RadNet sites; one at the Carlsbad air monitoring site, and one at the 

Navajo Lake air monitoring site. 
53

15.0 Conclusions 

Does the NMED network of SLAMS meet the six minimum objectives put forth in 40 CFR 

Part 58? Yes. 

1. The monitoring locations are appropriately sited to determine highest concentrations 

expected to occur. See the Network Elements spreadsheet (Appendix 1), 

2. The existing network includes monitors in the areas of high population density: Santa, Fe 

Dona Ana County, and Sandoval County. 

3. The monitors in the network are sited to determine the impact on ambient pollution levels 

of significant sources and source categories, in particular, those in San Juan County, a 

region of concentrated energy development and generation. 

4. The network includes sites that adequately measure general background concentrations, 

including sites in San Juan County, Artesia and Carlsbad. 

5. The current network is capturing data that enables NMED to determine the extent of 

regional pollutant transport among populated areas. The Navajo Lake site serves this 

purpose for transport between San Juan Count New Mexico and Southwestern Colorado. 

6. Data gathered from the current network of monitoring sites can be used to determine 

welfare-related impacts in rural and remote areas. Data from the network is being used 

by citizen groups in both the Four Corners region and the Border Region of New 

Mexico/US and Mexico. 

Are new sites needed? - One new site is required to meet the federal rules for rural monitoring 

and that is the new proposed ozone site at the US Forest Service’s Coyote Ranger Station in Rio 

Arriba County. NMED is in the process of relocating the Rio Rancho site in Sandoval County to 

a location that meets federal siting criteria. No other new monitoring sites are required by the 

new EPA rules. Above and beyond meeting minimum requirements, to increase its knowledge 

and understanding, NMED would like to add additional sites, both temporary and long-term, as 

recommended in the following section of this assessment. 

Can any sites be terminated? No. All of the data is being used at this time. NMED plans to 

keep all of it active sites operational. 

Are new technologies appropriate for incorporation into the network? NMED’s monitoring 

sites use aging equipment. The effort required to repair and adjust this equipment in order to 

maintain compliance with federal requirements for continuous data capture is steadily increasing. 

The assessment has resulted in the following additional conclusions: 

 With the exception of Sunland Park’s nonattainment status for ozone, all network ozone 

monitors meet the NAAQS. All work monitors meet the NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide. With 

the exception of Anthony’s nonattainment designation for PM10, all network monitors meet 

the NAAQS. All network monitors meet the NAAQS for PM2.5. All network monitors 

meet the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide. 
54

 Network design requirements comply with Appendix E of 40 CFR 58 in terms of setbacks 

and spatial scale. 

 Some counties in southeastern New Mexico show higher incident rates for asthma and heart 

attacks than other counties in the state. Monitoring for PM2.5 and H2S in that region could 

help the NMDOH in its analysis of this situation. 

 Ozone transport is becoming more of an issue in the Four Corners Region and the US 

Mexico border. 

 Point-source emissions have declined overall since 2006. 

16.0 Recommendations

To improve its understanding of air quality issues in New Mexico, the NMED recommends the 

following projects, with the understanding that all of them will require additional resources to 

implement. The NMED has collaborated with other agencies on air monitoring and data analysis 

projects, including the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest 

Service. It will continue to seek partners for these projects. 

 Conduct a one-year study of the impact of hydrogen sulfide on air quality in southeastern 

New Mexico. 

 Conduct further research and analysis of the Paso del Norte air shed regarding ozone. 

 Increase monitoring of PM in the Las Cruces area and the northern and southern areas of the 

Mesilla Valley, (Don Ana Cuonty) where open burning is part of agricultural practices. 

 Expand ozone monitoring in northwestern New Mexico, where historically there have been 

elevated levels of ozone. 

 Increase PM2.5 monitoring to assess the impact of agricultural development, particularly 

confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in eastern New Mexico. 

 Update the equipment of the permanent monitoring stations and the equipment used by the 

Quality Assurance auditors. 

17.0 References 

1. Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment Guidance, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC EPA-454/D-07-001, February 2007, Raffuse et al. 

2. Brad Whorton, Ph.D. NMDOH. The Burden of Asthma in New Mexico 

April 2009. Page 7. 
55

3. World Health Organization. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 53. 

Hydrogen Sulfide: Human Health Aspects. Dr C.-H. Selene J. Chou. 

4. EPA’s Environmental Justice Link:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/index.html

5. "Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties of New Mexico: April 1, 2000 

to July 1, 2009" (CSV). 2009 Population Estimates. United States Census Bureau, 

Population Division. 2010-03-23. http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/COEST2009-01-35.csv. Retrieved 2010-03-28.