Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0083-0642
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-08-26T04:00Z

Arizona
Air
Quality
Designations
Boundary
Recommendations
for
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
Air
Quality
Division
Arizona
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Janet
Napolitano,
Governor
Stephen
A.
Owens,
Director
July
21,
2003
i
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
................................................................
ES­
1
I.
BACKGROUND
AND
REGULATORY
HISTORY.........................................................
1
II.
AREA
DESIGNATION
CRITERIA
......................................................................
2
III.
AREA
DESIGNATION
CRITERIA
ANALYSIS
..............................................................
3
III.
A
FOR
THOSE
AREAS
RECOMMENDED
FOR
ATTAINMENT/
UNCLASSIFIABLE.....................................................................
3
III.
B
FOR
THOSE
AREAS
RECOMMENDED
FOR
NONATTAINMENT
......................................................................
7
III.
B.
1.
Emissions
and
Air
Quality
in
Adjacent
Areas
.............................................
8
III.
B.
2.
Population
Density
and
Degree
of
Urbanization
Including
Commercial
Development.........................................................
11
III.
B.
3.
Monitoring
Data
Representing
Ozone
Concentrations
in
Local
Areas
and
Larger
Areas
...............................................................
15
III.
B.
4.
Location
of
Emissions
Sources..................................................................
19
III.
B.
5.
Traffic
and
Commuting
Patterns................................................................
20
III.
B.
6.
Expected
Growth
....................................................................
22
III.
B.
7.
Meteorology
....................................................................
27
III.
B.
8.
Geography/
Topography
....................................................................
30
III.
B.
9.
Jurisdictional
Boundaries
....................................................................
31
III.
B.
10.
Level
of
Control
of
Emissions
Sources...................................................
33
III.
B.
11.
Regional
Emission
Reductions................................................................
36
IV.
AREA
DESIGNATION
RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................
36
IV.
A
ATTAINMENT/
UNCLASSIFIABLE
AREAS.....................................................
36
IV.
B
NONATTAINMENT
AREA
....................................................................
37
ii
LIST
OF
FIGURES
Page
ES1
8­
Hour
Nonattainment
Area
Recommendation
.................................................
ES­
4
III.
B.
a
Recommended
8­
Hour
Nonattainment
Area
...........................................................
7
III.
B.
1.
a
Emissions
Density
estimates
from
SMOKE
for
Oxides
of
Nitrogen
......................
8
III.
B.
1.
b
Emissions
Density
estimates
from
SMOKE
for
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
......................................................................
9
III.
B.
2.
a
Population
Density
in
2000
....................................................................
11
III.
B.
2.
b
Commercial
Land
Use
....................................................................
12
III.
B.
2.
c
Employment
Centers
....................................................................
13
III.
B.
2.
d
Study
Area
Land
Ownership
....................................................................
14
III.
B.
2.
e
Current
Residential
Land
Use
 
Maricopa
and
Pinal
County
Area
.......................
15
III.
B.
3.
a
Phoenix
Area
Ozone
Monitoring
Sites
1995­
2002................................................
17
III.
B.
3.
b
Ozone
trends
in
the
Phoenix
Area
....................................................................
18
III.
B.
4
Current
Land
Use
and
VOC
Emissions
.................................................................
19
III.
B.
5.
a
Study
Area
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic
............................................................
21
III.
B.
5.
b
Population
and
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Projections..............................................
22
III.
B.
6.
a
Change
in
Population
2000­
2018
....................................................................
23
III.
B.
6.
b
Current
and
Future
Residential
Land
Use..............................................................
24
III.
B.
6.
c
Study
Area
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic
(
excluding
city
center)
......................
25
III.
B.
6.
d
Pinal
County
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic
.........................................................
26
III.
B.
6.
e
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic
Count
 
City
Center..............................................
27
III.
B.
7.
a
Morning
Downslope
Winds
July
12,
2002
............................................................
28
III.
B.
7.
b
Transition
Winds
for
July
12,
2002
....................................................................
29
III.
B.
7.
c
Afternoon
Upslope
Winds
July
12,
2002...............................................................
29
III.
B.
9
Recommended
8­
Hour
Nonattainment
Area
with
Area
A
and
the
1­
Hour
Ozone
Nonattainment
Area
....................................................................
32
IV.
B
8­
Hour
Nonattainment
Area
Recommendation
.....................................................
38
LIST
OF
TABLES
Page
ES1
Recommended
Attainment/
Unclassifiable
and
Nonattainment
Areas
for
Arizona
................................................................
ES­
5
I
Comparison
of
Ozone
Standards
......................................................................
1
III.
A.
1
2000­
2002
8­
Hour
Ozone
Design
Values
for
Arizona
Counties
(
except
Maricopa
County)
......................................................................
4
III.
A.
2
1999
Arizona
State
and
County
Emissions
Data
.....................................................
5
III.
A.
3
2002
Arizona
Population
Data
......................................................................
6
III.
B.
3
2000­
2002
8­
Hour
Ozone
Design
Values
for
MSA
..............................................
15
III.
B.
5
2006
VMT
Estimates
for
the
MAG
Planning
Area
(
1,000)
..................................
20
III.
B.
10
Existing
Control
Measures
....................................................................
33
IV.
B
Recommended
Attainment/
Unclassifiable
and
Nonattainment
Areas
for
Arizona
....................................................................
39
iii
APPENDICES
Initial
Reference
Page
1.
Memo
from
John
Seitz
to
EPA
Air
Directors,
"
Boundary
Guidance
on
Air
Quality
designations
for
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS
or
Standard)",
March
28,
2000............................................................
2
2.
Arizona
Monitoring
Sites
Map
as
of
July
1,
2003
..............................................................
3
3.
Annual
Fourth
Highest
8­
Hour
Ozone
Concentrations
.......................................................
3
4.
Three­
Year
Average
of
the
Annual
Fourth
Highest
8­
Hour
Ozone
Concentrations
...........
3
5.
Phoenix­
Mesa
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
Map
..............................................................
7
6.
Presentation
from
June
17,
2003,
Stakeholder
Meeting
......................................................
7
7.
EPA's
January
19,
2001
and
July
2,
2003
Letters
...............................................................
7
8.
Presentation
from
May
21,
2003,
Stakeholder
Meeting
on
CMAQ
Modeling
and
Inventory
Development
......................................................................
8
9.
Summaries
of
WRAP
1996
and
MAG's
1999
Emissions
Inventories
................................
8
10.
Presentation
from
May
21,
2003,
Stakeholder
Meeting
on
Socioeconomic
Information
....................................................................
11
11.
Memo
from
Jeffrey
R.
Holmstead
to
EPA
Regional
Administrators,
"
Schedule
for
8­
Hour
Designations
and
its
Effect
on
Early
Action
Compacts,"
November
14,
2002
....................................................................
15
12.
MAG
Regional
Freeway
Bottleneck
Study,
May
7,
2002.................................................
20
ES­
1
Arizona
Air
Quality
Designations
Boundary
Recommendations
for
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Arizona
recommends
the
majority
of
the
State
be
designated
attainment/
unclassifiable
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
(
NAAQS).
The
one
recommended
nonattainment
area
consists
of
the
greater
Phoenix
metropolitan
area,
including
from
the
west,
the
power
plants
near
Tonopah
and
Palo
Verde,
Surprise
and
Buckeye,
and
continuing
east
and
north,
covering
the
rest
of
eastern
Maricopa
County.

This
recommendation
follows
a
stakeholder
process
that
began
in
May
2002,
the
purpose
of
which
was
to
develop
an
understanding
of
the
new
ozone
standard,
requirements
for
designation
of
nonattainment
areas,
and
options
available
to
the
State
for
implementing
the
standard.
One
of
the
primary
intents
was
to
avoid
a
nonattainment
area
boundary
based
on
EPA's
default
area
definition,
which
is
the
metropolitan
statistical
area
(
MSA).
For
the
metropolitan
Phoenix
area,
this
would
be
the
Phoenix­
Mesa
MSA,
which
includes
all
of
Maricopa
and
Pinal
Counties,
large
portions
of
which
are
rural
and
sparsely
populated.
The
recommendation
also
addresses
EPA's
concern
that
the
current
1­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
boundary
is
inadequate
for
implementing
the
8­
hour
average
ozone
standard.

Although
tribal
representatives
participated
in
the
Arizona
Department
of
Environmental
Quality's
(
ADEQ's)
stakeholder
process,
Arizona
is
not
making
a
recommendation
for
any
tribal
lands
located
in
the
described
geographical
area,
as
tribal
lands
are
not
within
the
State's
jurisdiction
for
air
quality
purposes.
ADEQ
respects
tribal
sovereignty
and
has
worked
to
develop
cooperative
relationships
with
tribal
air
quality
programs
throughout
the
State.
Nothing
in
this
analysis
should
be
interpreted
to
affect
the
designation
of
Indian
Country.

Background
On
March
28,
2000,
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
issued
guidance
for
states
to
use
as
they
developed
their
recommendations
­
"
Boundary
Guidance
on
Air
Quality
Designations
for
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards."
In
addition,
Section
107(
d)(
1)(
A)(
i)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
defines
a
nonattainment
area
as
" 
any
area
that
does
not
meet
(
or
that
contributes
to
ambient
air
quality
in
a
nearby
area
that
does
not
meet)
the
national
primary
or
secondary
ambient
air
quality
standard
for
the
pollutant "

The
March
28,
2000,
guidance
stated
metropolitan
statistical
areas
(
MSAs)
would
be
the
presumptive
default
nonattainment
areas.
The
U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census
defines
MSAs.
In
order
to
avoid
the
default,
a
state
must
address
the
following
eleven
criteria
listed
in
the
guidance:
ES­
2
1.
Emissions
and
air
quality
in
adjacent
areas
(
including
adjacent
C/
MSAs),
2.
Population
density
and
degree
of
urbanization
including
commercial
development
(
significant
difference
from
surrounding
areas),
3.
Monitoring
data
representing
ozone
concentrations
in
local
areas
and
larger
areas
(
urban
or
regional
scale),
4.
Location
of
emission
sources
(
emission
sources
and
nearby
receptors
should
generally
be
included
in
the
same
nonattainment
area),
5.
Traffic
and
commuting
patterns,
6.
Expected
growth
(
including
extent,
pattern
and
rate
of
growth),
7.
Meteorology
(
weather/
transport
patterns),
8.
Geography/
topography
(
mountain
ranges
or
other
air
basin
boundaries),
9.
Jurisdictional
boundaries
(
e.
g.,
counties,
air
districts,
existing
1­
hour
nonattainment
areas,
Reservations,
etc.),
10.
Level
of
control
of
emission
sources,
11.
Regional
emission
reductions
(
e.
g.,
NOx
SIP
call
or
other
enforceable
regional
strategies).

The
Phoenix
Mesa
MSA
Is
Not
an
Appropriate
Nonattainment
Area
Boundary
The
Phoenix
Mesa
MSA
includes
a
total
of
14,502
square
miles,
with
Maricopa
County
accounting
for
9,222
square
miles
and
Pinal
County
with
5,380
square
miles.
Approximately
70%
of
the
MSA
includes
large
expanses
of
undeveloped
desert
or
agricultural
development,
and
isolated
rural
communities.
A
major
portion
of
Pinal
County
includes
two
surface
water
basins
that
are
relatively
isolated
from
the
greater
Phoenix
area.
In
addition,
vast
tracts
of
undeveloped
desert
and
agricultural
areas
in
the
south
and
southeastern
part
of
Pinal
County
predominate,
and
are
not
a
significant
source
of
ozone
precursors.
Finally,
prevailing
winds
during
the
ozone
season
greatly
limit
the
impact
of
emissions
from
the
urbanized
Phoenix
area
on
these
nonurbanized
portions
of
Pinal
County.
Southwestern
Maricopa
County
is
largely
undeveloped,
and
although
in
the
same
hydrologic
basin
as
the
western
portion
of
the
greater
Phoenix
area,
is
neither
a
receptor
of
ozone
pollution
nor
includes
significant
sources
of
ozone
precursors.

The
air
quality
record
for
the
MSA
demonstrates
that
areas
where
exceedances
of
the
eight­
hour
ozone
standard
are
measured
are
concentrated
in
the
urban
core
and
areas
to
the
north
and
east.
With
respect
to
the
boundaries
of
the
MSA,
this
area
is
confined
to
the
north
and
central
portion
of
the
MSA.
The
one
exception
is
the
Hillside
monitor,
located
approximately
eighty
miles
northwest
as
the
crow
flies,
from
central
Phoenix.
With
the
data
currently
available,
it
is
not
possible
to
determine
whether
concentrations
measured
at
Hillside
are
influenced
by
ozone
precursors
from
the
greater
Phoenix
area
or
from
sources
located
outside
of
the
State.

Sources
of
ozone
precursors
are
located
in
the
most
heavily
urbanized
part
of
the
MSA,
which
is
also
in
its
north
central
area.
The
highest
emission
densities
are
collocated
with
the
densest
residential
and
commercial
development.
While
biogenic
emissions
of
ozone
precursors
are
distributed
throughout
the
MSA
and
other
anthropogenic
sources
may
be
found
in
association
with
rural
communities
and
industrial
sources,
ozone
modeling
has
demonstrated
that
these
ES­
3
sources
are
considerably
less
important
than
anthropogenic
emissions
in
contributing
to
exceedances
of
the
eight­
hour
ozone
standard
measured
in
the
MSA.

Land
ownership
patterns
have
greatly
influenced
development
patterns
in
the
MSA
and
are
expected
to
continue
to
do
so.
Only
29%
of
Maricopa
County
and
26%
of
Pinal
County
are
privately
owned.
Indian
reservations
as
well
as
State
and
federal
lands
create
barriers
to
contiguous
expansion
of
the
urbanized
core
beyond
the
north
central
portion
of
the
MSA.
As
a
result,
the
majority
of
the
MSA
is
expected
to
remain
as
neither
a
source
nor
a
receptor
of
ozone
pollution.

Recommended
Alternative
Eight­
Hour
Ozone
Nonattainment
Area
Boundary
The
nonattainment
area
recommended
by
Arizona
is
smaller
than
the
MSA,
but
still
meets
the
definition
in
Section
107(
d)(
1)(
A)(
i)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
addresses
the
criteria
identified
in
EPA's
March
2000
guidance.
The
recommended
area
encompasses
the
existing
one­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area,
the
growing
area
to
the
west
where
several
new
power
plants
are
located
and
substantial
residential
growth
is
planned,
and
to
the
north
and
east
of
the
urban
area
where
monitors
are
violating
the
8­
hour
standard
or
have
experienced
exceedances
in
recent
history.
The
recommended
area
excludes
the
Gila
River
Indian
Community,
Salt
River
Pima
Maricopa
Indian
Community
and
the
Fort
McDowell
Yavapai
Nation.

In
the
absence
of
conclusive
air
quality
modeling
and
additional
monitoring,
it
is
not
possible
at
this
time
to
determine
the
precise
extent
of
nonattainment
beyond
the
Maricopa
County
line.
Arizona's
alternative
recommendation
includes
an
attainment/
unclassifiable
designation
for
the
rest
of
the
State,
as
explained
in
Section
IV.
A.

Figure
ES1
illustrates
the
recommended
8­
hour
nonattainment
area.
Table
ES1
describes
by
county
and
township
the
areas
of
the
State
recommended
for
Attainment/
Unclassifiable
and
Nonattainment.
ES­
4
Figure
ES1:
8­
Hour
Nonattainment
Area
Recommendation
0
20
40
1
0
M
ile
s
Source:
ADEQ,
USGS,
Arizona
Land
Resource
Information
Systems
ES­
5
Table
ES1:
Recommended
Attainment/
Unclassifiable
and
Nonattainment
Areas
for
Arizona
Arizona­
Ozone
(
8­
Hour
Standard)

Designated
Area
Designation
Type
Classification
Type
Phoenix
Area:
Maricopa
County
(
part)       ..

T1N,
R1E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T1N,
R2E
T1N,
R3E
T1N,
R4E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T1N,
R5E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T1N,
R6E
T1N,
R7E
T1N,
R1W
T1N,
R2W
T1N,
R3W
T1N,
R4W
T1N,
R5W
T1N,
R6W
T2N,
R1E
T2N,
R2E
T2N,
R3E
T2N,
R4E
T2N,
R6E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T2N,
R7E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T2N,
R8E
T2N,
R9E
T2N,
R10E
T2N,
R11E
T2N,
R12E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T2N,
R13E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T2N,
R1W
T2N,
R2W
T2N,
R3W
T2N,
R4W
T2N,
R5W
T2N,
R6W
T2N,
R7W
Nonattainment
ES­
6
Designated
Area
Designation
Type
Classification
Type
T3N,
R1E
T3N,
R2E
T3N,
R3E
T3N,
R4E
T3N,
R5E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T3N,
R6E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T3N,
R7E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T3N,
R8E
T3N,
R9E
T3N,
R10E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T3N,
R11E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T3N,
R12E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T3N,
R1W
T3N,
R2W
T3N,
R3W
T3N,
R4W
T3N,
R5W
T3N,
R6W
T4N,
R1E
T4N,
R2E
T4N,
R3E
T4N,
R4E
T4N,
R5E
T4N,
R6E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T4N,
R7E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T4N,
R8E
T4N,
R9E
T4N,
R10E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T4N,
R11E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T4N,
R12E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T4N,
R1W
T4N,
R2W
T4N,
R3W
T4N,
R4W
T4N,
R5W
T4N,
R6W
T5N,
R1E
T5N,
R2E
T5N,
R3E
T5N,
R4E
T5N,
R5E
ES­
7
Designated
Area
Designation
Type
Classification
Type
T5N,
R6E
T5N,
R7E
T5N,
R8E
T5N,
R9E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T5N,
R10E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T5N,
R1W
T5N,
R2W
T5N,
R3W
T5N,
R4W
T5N,
R5W
T6N,
R1E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T6N,
R2E
T6N,
R3E
T6N,
R4E
T6N,
R5E
T6N,
R6E
T6N,
R7E
T6N,
R8E
T6N,
R9E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T6N,
R10E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T6N,
R1W
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T6N,
R2W
T6N,
R3W
T6N,
R4W
T6N,
R5W
T7N,
R1E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T7N,
R2E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T7N,
R3E
T7N,
R4E
T7N,
R5E
T7N,
R6E
T7N,
R7E
T7N,
R8E
T7N,
R9E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T7N,
R1W
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T7N,
R2W
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)

T8N,
R2E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T8N,
R3E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T8N,
R4E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T8N,
R5E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
ES­
8
Designated
Area
Designation
Type
Classification
Type
T8N,
R6E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T8N,
R7E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T8N,
R8E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
and
Gila
Counties)
T8N,
R9E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
and
Gila
Counties)

T1S,
R1E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T1S,
R2E
(
except
that
portion
in
Pinal
County
and
in
Indian
Country)
T1S,
R3E
T1S,
R4E
T1S,
R5E
T1S,
R6E
T1S,
R7E
T1S,
R1W
T1S,
R2W
T1S,
R3W
T1S,
R4W
T1S,
R5W
T1S,
R6W
T2S,
R1E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T2S,
R5E
T2S,
R6E
T2S,
R7E
T2S,
R1W
T2S,
R2W
T2S,
R3W
T2S,
R4W
T2S,
R5W
T3S,
R1E
T3S,
R1W
T3S,
R2W
T3S,
R3W
T3S,
R4W
T3S,
R5W
T4S,
R1E
T4S,
R1W
T4S,
R2W
T4S,
R3W
ES­
9
Designated
Area
Designation
Type
Classification
Type
T4S,
R4W
T4S,
R5W
Rest
of
State
(
except
those
portions
in
Indian
Country) .           .  
Apache
County
Cochise
County
Coconino
County
Gila
County
Graham
County
Greenlee
County
La
Paz
County
Maricopa
County
(
part)
Remainder
of
County
Mohave
County
Navajo
County
Pima
County
Pinal
County
Santa
Cruz
County
Yavapai
County
Yuma
County
Attainment/
Unclassifiable
1
Arizona
Air
Quality
Designations
Boundary
Recommendations
for
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
I.
BACKGROUND
AND
REGULATORY
HISTORY
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
charged
with
developing
air
quality
standards
for
the
protection
of
human
health
and
welfare.
EPA
is
also
required
to
periodically
evaluate
those
standards
and
revise
them
if
scientific
analyses
indicate
different
standards
would
be
more
protective
of
public
health
and
welfare.
Children
are
considered
among
those
most
at
risk
from
exposure
to
ozone
because
they
are
active
outdoors
when
ozone
concentrations
are
highest.
Adults
who
are
outdoors
and
active
during
the
summer
months,
as
well
as
those
with
asthma
or
respiratory
illnesses,
are
also
at
risk
when
exposed
to
relatively
low
ozone
levels
during
periods
of
moderate
exertion.
Individuals
can
experience
chest
pain
and
cough
or
other
adverse
health
effects
including
increased
asthma
attacks,
chronic
lung
inflammation,
decreased
lung
function,
and
decreased
lung
defenses
against
bacterial
respiratory
infections.
In
1997,
EPA
adopted
a
more
stringent
8­
hour
standard.
The
averaging
time
for
the
new
standard
(
peak
ozone
levels
are
calculated
over
eight
hours
rather
than
over
one
hour)
better
protects
the
public
from
longer
periods
of
exposure
to
ozone
and
helps
ensure
the
protection
of
those
most
vulnerable,
such
as
children
and
the
elderly.

Table
I:
Comparison
of
Ozone
Standards
Standard
Level
Averaging
Time
Form
(
attainment
test)

One­
Hour
0.12
ppm
1
hour
Three
exceedances
at
a
monitor
allowed
in
a
three
year
period;
fourth
exceedance
is
a
violation
Eight­
Hour
0.08
ppm
8
hours
Three­
year
average
of
the
annual
fourth
highest
8­
hour
concentration,
calculated
for
each
monitor*
*
Because
of
the
rounding
convention
used,
0.085
is
considered
the
level
of
a
violation
of
the
standard.

Following
court
challenges,
the
U.
S.
Supreme
Court,
in
February
2001,
affirmed
EPA's
new
ozone
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
(
Whitman
v.
American
Trucking
Associations,
U.
S.
Supreme
Court,
Nos.
99­
1257,
99­
1426,
February
27,
2001)
and
directed
EPA
to
move
forward
with
implementation.
As
part
of
the
process,
states
and
tribes
were
requested
to
recommend
areas
that
do
or
do
not
meet
the
new
standard
by
July
15,
2003.
EPA
must
publish
the
2
designations
for
all
areas
by
April
15,
2004
(
American
Lung
Association,
et
al,
vs.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator,
EPA,
v.
EPA
No.
02­
2239
(
D.
D.
C.)
No.
02­
2239,
filed
November
13,
2002).

II.
AREA
DESIGNATION
CRITERIA
On
March
28,
2000,
EPA
issued
guidance
for
states
to
use
as
they
developed
their
recommendations
­
"
Boundary
Guidance
on
Air
Quality
Designations
for
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards"
(
see
Appendix
1).
In
addition,
Section
107(
d)(
1)(
A)(
i)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
defines
a
nonattainment
area
as
" 
any
area
that
does
not
meet
(
or
that
contributes
to
ambient
air
quality
in
a
nearby
area
that
does
not
meet)
the
national
primary
or
secondary
ambient
air
quality
standard
for
the
pollutant "

The
March
28,
2000,
guidance
stated
metropolitan
statistical
areas
(
MSAs)
would
be
the
presumptive
default
nonattainment
areas.
The
U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census
defines
MSAs.
In
order
to
avoid
the
default,
a
state
must
address
eleven
criteria
listed
in
the
guidance.

1)
Emissions
and
air
quality
in
adjacent
areas
(
including
adjacent
C/
MSAs),
2)
Population
density
and
degree
of
urbanization
including
commercial
development
(
significant
difference
from
surrounding
areas),
3)
Monitoring
data
representing
ozone
concentrations
in
local
areas
and
larger
areas
(
urban
or
regional
scale),
4)
Location
of
emission
sources
(
emission
sources
and
nearby
receptors
should
generally
be
included
in
the
same
nonattainment
area),
5)
Traffic
and
commuting
patterns,
6)
Expected
growth
(
including
extent,
pattern
and
rate
of
growth),
7)
Meteorology
(
weather/
transport
patterns),
8)
Geography/
topography
(
mountain
ranges
or
other
air
basin
boundaries),
9)
Jurisdictional
boundaries
(
e.
g.,
counties,
air
districts,
existing
1­
hour
nonattainment
areas,
Reservations,
etc.),
10)
Level
of
control
of
emission
sources,
11)
Regional
emission
reductions
(
e.
g.,
NOx
SIP
call
or
other
enforceable
regional
strategies).

ADEQ
used
these
factors
in
developing
the
recommended
nonattainment
boundaries,
as
detailed
in
the
following
sections.
3
III.
AREA
DESIGNATION
CRITERIA
ANALYSIS
III.
A
For
Those
Areas
Recommended
For
Attainment/
Unclassifiable
Arizona's
recommendation
for
the
State's
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
is
primarily
based
on
guidance
criteria
related
to
monitoring
data
trends,
jurisdictional
boundaries,
current
and
expected
population
growth,
and
available
emissions
information
from
EPA's
national
emissions
inventory,
as
well
as
that
from
the
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
and
County
Air
Quality
Control
Districts.

Monitoring
Data
Trends
ADEQ,
local
agencies
and
private
industries
currently
operate
monitoring
sites
in
nine
counties
across
Arizona.
Monitor
locations
are
shown
on
the
map
in
Appendix
2.
Using
EPA's
guidance,
monitoring
network
design
values
for
the
8­
hour
standard
were
determined
through
the
following
steps:

1)
State
and
local
agency
daily
ambient
ozone
concentrations
were
recorded
for
each
of
the
monitoring
sites
across
Arizona.
All
data
were
evaluated
for
completeness
as
specified
in
EPA's
Guideline
on
Data
Handling
Conventions
for
the
8­
hour
Ozone
NAAQS
(
U.
S.
EPA,
December
1998);

2)
Daily
maximum
8­
hour
average
ozone
concentrations
were
calculated
for
each
monitor,
the
fourth
highest
values
for
each
year
were
determined,
and
the
three­
year
average
of
the
annual
fourth
highest
values
were
calculated
for
the
2000­
2002
period;

3)
The
design
value
for
each
monitor
was
compared
to
the
NAAQS.
The
design
value
is
the
three­
year
average
of
the
annual
fourth
highest
8­
hour
ozone
concentration
at
the
highest
monitor
(
a
calculated
value
less
than
85
ppb
is
attainment
of
the
standard,
a
calculated
value
of
85
ppb
or
greater
is
a
violation
of
the
standard).

An
examination
of
the
monitored
air
quality
data
shows
that
few
of
the
counties
outside
Maricopa
County
have
recorded
exceedances
and
none
have
recorded
violations
of
the
8­
hour
standard
from
2000
through
2002.
Appendix
3
summarizes
monitored
exceedances
and
Appendix
4
summarizes
violations
of
the
8­
hour
standard
from
1997
through
2002.
The
2000­
2002
design
values
for
recommended
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
are
shown
in
Table
II.
A.
1.
4
Table
III.
A.
1:
2000­
2002
8­
Hour
Ozone
Design
Values
for
Arizona
Counties
(
except
Maricopa
County)
County
Design
Value
(
ppb)
Apache
n/
a
Cochise
69
Coconino
73
Gila
n/
a*
Graham
n/
a
Greenlee
n/
a
La
Paz
n/
a
Mohave
n/
a
Navajo
n/
a*
Pima
73
Pinal
80
Santa
Cruz
n/
a
Yavapai
82
Yuma
69***

*
Monitoring
began
in
Gila
and
Navajo
Counties
in
2002.
**
Value
is
based
on
1999­
2001
data.
The
Yuma
monitoring
site
was
not
operational
in
2002
because
of
a
location
change,
but
is
operational
in
2003.

Jurisdictional
Boundaries
In
its
analysis,
ADEQ
included
consideration
of
existing
political
boundaries,
such
as
county
lines
and
existing
control
measure
applicability
areas,
such
as
the
1­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area
and
areas
where
pollution
control
programs
are
applied
to
address
nonattainment
with
NAAQS
in
the
greater
Phoenix
and
Tucson
areas,
Areas
A
and
B,
respectively
(
See
ARS
§
49­
541).
The
applicability
of
the
Area
A
boundary
for
defining
the
boundaries
of
the
Greater
Phoenix
nonattainment
area
is
addressed
in
Section
III.
B.,
below.

Emissions
Data
Section
107
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
also
requires
that
areas
not
contribute
to
violations
of
ambient
air
quality
in
a
nearby
area.
County
emissions
data
show
that
while
it
is
the
6th
largest
county,
Maricopa
County
sources
emit
approximately
50%
of
the
State's
VOC
and
32%
of
the
NOx.
Pinal
County,
which
comprises
the
remaining
portion
of
the
MSA,
is
10th
out
of
13
in
size,
and
only
3.5%
of
VOCs
and
3.6%
of
NOx
emanates
from
that
County.
Similarly,
as
indicated
in
the
following
table,
none
of
the
other
county
totals
equate
to
Maricopa
County.
5
Table
III.
A.
2:
1999
Arizona
State
and
County
Emissions
Data
County/
State
Size
Ranking
Area
(
square
miles)
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(
VOC)
Emissions
(
tons)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(
NOx)
Emissions
(
tons)
Apache
3
11,216
8,384
45,992
Cochise
8
6,215
9,155
17,509
Coconino
1
18,608
15,848
64,141
Gila
11
4,752
6,301
3,688
Graham
12
4,630
2,759
1,552
Greenlee
14
1,837
1,397
1,572
La
Paz
13
4,518
2,461
3,278
Maricopa
5
9,222
128,043
135,220
Mohave
2
13,479
13,833
12,610
Navajo
4
9,949
18,911
59,180
Pima
6
9,184
39,410
39,486
Pinal
10
5,371
10,210
15,456
Santa
Cruz
15
1,236
3,030
2,232
Yavapai
7
8,125
10,379
17,308
Yuma
9
5,522
8,431
10,171
Arizona
Total
113,864
278,552
429,394
Source:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1999
National
Emission
Trends
(
NET)
Tier
Report
Population
Data
Consistent
with
emissions
patterns,
the
level
of
population
density
is
low
throughout
the
State
with
the
exception
of
Maricopa
County.
Table
3
summarizes
information
on
county
population
and
density,
and
identifies
the
largest
city
for
each
county.
6
Source:
Arizona
Department
of
Commerce
(
ADOC),
County
profiles
(
Area
Data);
Arizona
Department
of
Economic
Security
(
ADES),
Research
Administration,
Population
Statistics
Unit,
mid­
year
2002
population
estimates,
approved
12­
06­
02.
Population
density
was
calculated
from
ADOC
and
ADES
data.
There
are
few
"
urbanized
areas"
in
Arizona.
These
include
Avondale,
Flagstaff,
Phoenix­
Mesa,
Prescott,
Tucson,
and
Yuma
(
67
FR
21962,
May
1,
2002).
An
"
urbanized
area"
is
defined
by
the
U.
S.
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
as
a
continuously
built­
up
area
of
50,000
or
more
and
generally
has
an
overall
population
density
of
at
least
1,000
persons
per
square
mile.

*
This
number
represents
the
Pinal
County
portion
only.
A
very
small
amount
of
acreage
in
Maricopa
County
is
incorporated
within
the
City
of
Apache
Junction.
Table
III.
A.
3:
2002
Arizona
Population
Data
County/
Largest
City
Area
(
square
miles)
County
Population
Largest
City
Population
Population
Density
(
persons
per
square
mile)
Apache
County
11,216
70,105
6.25
Eager
4,105
Cochise
County
6,215
124,040
19.96
Sierra
Vista
40,415
Coconino
County
18,608
125,420
6.74
Flagstaff
59,160
Gila
County
4,752
53,015
11.16
Payson
14,510
Graham
County
4,630
34,070
7.36
Safford
9,395
Greenlee
County
1,837
8,605
4.68
Clifton
2,595
La
Paz
County
4,518
20,365
4.51
Quartzsite
3,430
Maricopa
County
9,222
3,296,250
357.43
Phoenix
1,365,675
Mohave
County
13,479
166,465
12.35
Lake
Havasu
City
46,400
Navajo
County
9,949
101,615
10.21
Winslow
9,450
Pima
County
9,184
890,545
96.97
Tucson
507,085
Pinal
County
5,371
192,395
35.82
Apache
Junction*
33,295
Santa
Cruz
County
1,236
39,840
32.23
Nogales
21,110
Yavapai
County
8,125
180,260
22.19
Prescott
36,375
Yuma
County
5,522
169,760
30.74
Yuma
81,380
Arizona
Total
113,864
5,472,750
48.06
7
III.
B
For
Those
Areas
Recommended
For
Nonattainment
Monitoring
data
trends
from
1997
to
the
present
indicate
that
some
portion
of
the
Maricopa/
Pinal
MSA
would
be
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
(
see
Appendix
5).
In
mid­
2002,
ADEQ
began
a
stakeholder
process
to
review
whether
an
early
action
compact
(
EAC),
a
strategy
to
attain
the
8­
hour
standard
earlier
than
what
would
be
deemed
necessary
as
a
nonattainment
area,
would
be
a
viable
option
for
the
area.
Because
of
timing
(
the
EAC
would
need
to
be
developed
and
submitted
by
the
end
of
2002),
it
was
deemed
not
possible
and
ADEQ's
focus
turned
to
the
work
of
how
to
define
and
defend
a
viable
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area.
In
October
2002,
the
stakeholder
group
began
reviewing
the
eleven
criteria
in
the
March
2000
guidance
and
discussing
ADEQ's
suggested
technical
work
approach.
ADEQ
contracted
with
Arizona
State
University
and
a
consultant,
Air
Pollution
Evaluations
&
Solutions,
to
assist
in
the
analyses,
which
included
an
analysis
of
air
quality
modeling,
land
use,
and
population
growth.
Preliminary
products
were
presented
at
subsequent
stakeholder
meetings
and
two
boundary
options
were
shown
at
the
June
17,
2003,
meeting
(
see
Appendix
6).
ADEQ
received
several
comments
following
that
meeting,
which
it
considered
in
refining
the
recommendation
for
Governor
Napolitano's
consideration.
Figure
III.
B.
a
illustrates
the
area
recommended
by
the
Governor.
The
recommendation
also
addresses
EPA's
concern
(
see
Appendix
7)
that
the
current
1­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
boundary
is
inadequate
for
implementing
the
8­
hour
average
ozone
standard.
What
follows
is
an
explanation
of
how
each
of
the
eleven
criteria
were
addressed
in
the
decision­
making.

Figure
III.
B.
a:
Recommended
8­
Hour
Nonattainment
Area
0
20
40
1
0
M
ile
s
¹
Source:
ADEQ,
USGS,
Arizona
Land
Resource
Information
Systems
8
III.
B.
1.
Criterion
#
1
­
Emissions
and
Air
Quality
in
Adjacent
Areas
(
including
adjacent
C/
MSAs)

Emissions,
meteorological,
and
air
quality
modeling
for
the
greater
Phoenix
area
were
conducted
by
Arizona
State
University
for
two
design
dates,
June
6
and
July
12,
2002.
The
air
quality
modeling
domain
for
these
simulations
was
approximately
350
miles
wide
in
the
east­
west
(
New
Mexico
to
Colorado
River)
and
200
km
in
the
north­
south
(
Flagstaff
to
Nogales)
directions,
with
metropolitan
Phoenix
in
the
center.
This
area
included
all
of
Maricopa,
Pima,
and
Pinal
Counties,
the
most
populous
ones.
A
modeling
domain
of
this
size
ensures
that
emissions
and
air
quality
in
areas
near
greater
Phoenix
are
taken
into
account
in
the
analysis;
as
it
captures
source
and
receptor
areas
and
includes
information
on
boundary
conditions.
ASU's
Environmental
Fluid
Dynamics
Program
did
emissions
and
ozone
photochemical
grid
modeling
for
the
two
design
days.
A
detailed
description
of
the
modeling
analysis
is
included
in
Appendix
8.
The
emissions
modeling
tool
used
was
the
EPA
approved
Sparse
Matrix
Operator
Kernel
Emissions
(
SMOKE)
model
for
anthropogenic
and
biogenic
emissions
of
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs).
The
emissions
data
sources
used
in
the
analysis
were
the
1999
MAG
emissions
inventory
and
1996
WRAP
"
base­
case
scenario"
emissions
inventory
(
see
Appendix
9).
Additional
information
related
to
the
location
of
sources
may
be
found
in
Section
III.
B.
4.
The
figures
below
illustrate
the
results
of
the
emissions
modeling
for
the
two
ozone
precursors
based
on
the
WRAP
base­
case
1996
scenario
emissions
inventory.

Figure
III.
B.
1.
a:
Emissions
Density
estimates
from
SMOKE
for
Oxides
of
Nitrogen
Source:
ASU
Mechanical
and
Aerospace
Engineering
Department,
MAG,
WRAP
Anthropogenic
NOx
Emissions
9
Figure
III.
B.
1.
b:
Emissions
Density
estimates
from
SMOKE
for
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
The
ozone
photochemical
grid
modeling
also
employed
EPA
approved
models,
the
Mesoscale
Meteorological
Model
version
5
(
MM5),
which
was
used
for
the
meteorological
modeling,
and
the
Community
Multiscale
Air
Quality
Modeling
System
(
CMAQ)
model
to
perform
the
ozone
simulations.
In
order
to
establish
boundary
conditions,
MM5
was
modeled
with
nested
domains
of
36
Km,
6
Km
and
2
Km.
CMAQ
was
applied
to
the
two
smaller
nested
domains.
Model
performance,
however
was
nearly
identical
for
the
6
Km
and
2
Km
domains;
as
such,
final
results
were
based
on
6
Km
grid
modeling.
The
input
data
for
the
meteorological
portion
of
the
modeling
came
from
information
gathered
at
wind
sites
in
2002
(
see
Appendix
8,
Simulation
of
8­
hour
Ozone
Concentrations
for
the
State
of
Arizona,
page
6).
Both
the
MM5
and
CMAQ
modeling
results
were
validated
by
comparison
with
measured
meteorological
and
ozone
data,
and
were
found
to
meet
or
exceed
EPA
criteria
for
acceptable
model
performance.
For
each
episode,
the
CMAQ
simulation
was
executed
for
69
hours,
and
the
output
was
analyzed
for
48
hours,
which
encompassed
the
day
of
interest
and
12
hours
ahead
and
behind
of
the
episode
day
(
see
Appendix
8).
Although
the
models
performed
well,
the
winds
predicted
by
MM5
tended
to
be
late
on
the
timing
of
the
daily
wind
shift
from
nighttime
drainage
winds,
generally
from
the
east,
to
upslope
flow,
generally
from
the
southwest.
Usually,
this
shift
actually
occurs
within
a
few
hours
after
sunrise
at
the
beginning
of
the
Source:
ASU
Mechanical
and
Aerospace
Engineering
Department,
MAG,
WRAP
Anthropogenic
VOC
Emissions
12
July
2002
10
daily
ozone
production
period.
For
the
June
6th
case,
however,
due
to
the
prolonged
morning
southeasterly
flow,
and
delayed
transition
to
westerly
flow
that
was
predicted
by
MM5,
CMAQ
over
predicted
the
ozone
concentrations
in
the
northwestern
part
of
the
Valley,
and
slightly
under
predicted
concentrations
in
the
northeastern
part
where
the
Blue
Point
Ridge,
Rio
Verde,
Fountain
Hill,
Humboldt
Mountain
monitoring
sites
are
located
When
averaged
over
an
8­
hour
period,
depending
on
the
meteorological
conditions,
the
central
part
of
the
Maricopa
County
and
its
immediate
surroundings
were
simulated
to
have
8­
hour
ozone
concentrations
higher
than
85
ppb.
The
importance
of
the
modeling
in
determining
nonattainment
area
boundaries,
however,
was
limited.
The
under
predictions
to
the
east
on
June
6
and
to
the
north
on
July
12
provided
no
information
on
the
extent
of
elevated
ozone
concentrations
between
and
beyond
the
monitors
in
this
mountainous
area.
What
the
modeling
did
do,
though,
was
confirm
that
during
ozone
episodes
a
relatively
broad
area
of
metropolitan
Phoenix
is
susceptible
to
elevated
ozone
concentrations.
11
III.
B.
2.
Criterion
#
2
­
Population
Density
and
Degree
of
Urbanization
Including
Commercial
Development
(
significant
difference
from
surrounding
areas)

For
this
criterion
population
density,
commercial
development
and
employment,
and
land
use
and
ownership
were
examined
throughout
the
study
area.
Appendix
10
details
the
process
used
to
obtain
the
following
information.

Population
densities
were
reviewed
for
base
year
2000.
Population
density
is
greatest
in
the
urban
core
of
the
greater
Phoenix
area.
Figure
III.
B.
2.
a
shows
population
density
by
census
tract
based
on
2000
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
data.

Figure
III.
B.
2.
a:
Population
Density
in
2000
Commercial
development
is
one
of
the
surrogate
factors
that
may
serve
as
an
indicator
of
the
levels
of
activities
generating
ozone
precursor
emissions.
The
degree
of
commercial
development
was
examined
using
2002
"
Commercial"
zoning
data
for
the
City
of
Payson,
MAG's
2000
commercial
land
use
data
for
Maricopa
and
Pinal
Counties,
including
Specialty,
Neighborhood,
and
Community
Commercial
land
use
categories,
and
commercial
zoning
data
from
Yavapai
County,
including
neighborhood,
general
sales
and
Source:
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
12
service,
and
minor
industrial
commercial
categories.
Figure
III.
B.
2.
b
was
created
after
converting
the
various
data
to
a
100­
foot
resolution
continuous
surface
representation,
or
"
grid"
to
show
the
existing
percentage
of
commercial
area
per
square
mile.
As
expected,
the
greatest
level
of
commercial
development
closely
follows
the
developed
urban
core
and
major
transportation
corridors
in
the
study
area.

Figure
III.
B.
2.
b:
Commercial
Land
Use
0
20
40
1
0
M
il
e
s
Source:
MAG,
Yavapai
County,
Town
of
Payson
13
0
20
40
1
0
M
il
e
s
¹
A
similar
map
was
created
to
show
the
percent
employment
per
square
mile
in
the
study
area
(
see
Figure
III.
B.
2.
c).
This
map
was
created
using
available
data
from
a
digital
employment
file
for
the
year
2000
from
MAG,
the
City
of
Payson's
zoning
map
from
November
2002,
and
a
Yavapai
County
zoning
digital
file.
Once
again,
the
highest
percent
employment
is
concentrated
in
Maricopa
County,
and
though
dispersed
throughout
the
urban
core,
is
most
concentrated
in
the
centers
of
the
major
cities,
especially
downtown
Phoenix.
Also
note,
that
like
commercial
land
uses,
employment
also
follows
major
transportation
corridors.

Figure
III.
B.
2.
c:
Employment
Centers
Source:
MAG,
Yavapai
County,
Town
of
Payson
14
0
20
40
1
0
M
il
e
s
The
data
for
Figure
III.
B.
2.
d
also
came
from
MAG,
Yavapai
County,
and
Payson
and
shows
the
broad
range
of
land
ownership
in
the
study
area.
Land
ownership
patterns
have
greatly
influenced
development
patterns
in
the
MSA
and
are
expected
to
continue
to
do
so.
Only
29%
of
Maricopa
County
and
26%
of
Pinal
County
are
privately
owned.
Indian
reservations
as
well
as
State
and
federal
lands
create
barriers
to
contiguous
expansion
of
the
urbanized
core
beyond
the
north
central
portion
of
the
MSA.
This
pattern
of
ownership
is
evident
in
the
distribution
of
population
density,
commercial
land
use,
and
employment
centers
as
illustrated
in
Figures
III.
B.
2.
a
through
III.
B.
2.
c
and
again
in
the
distribution
of
current
residential
areas
as
shown
in
Figure
III.
B.
2.
e
below.
The
existence
of
public
lands
and
Indian
reservations
has
directed,
and
is
expected
to
continue
to
direct
where
growth
occurs
in
the
greater
Phoenix
area.

Figure
III.
B.
2.
d:
Study
Area
Land
Ownership
Figure
III.
B.
2.
e
depicts
residential
land
use
in
red.
As
with
other
human
activity
described
above,
residences
are
concentrated
in
the
urban
core
and
follow
major
transportation
corridors.
Source:
MAG,
Yavapai
County,
Town
of
Payson,
Arizona
Land
Resource
Information
Systems
15
0
20
40
1
0
M
iles
¹
Figure
III.
B.
2.
e:
Current
Residential
Land
Use
 
Maricopa
and
Pinal
County
Area
III.
B.
3.
Criterion
#
3
­
Monitoring
Data
Representing
Ozone
Concentrations
in
Local
Areas
and
Larger
Areas
(
urban
or
regional
scale)

In
his
November
14,
2002,
memo,
EPA
Assistant
Administrator,
Jeffrey
Holmstead,
stated
that
state
and
tribal
recommendations
should
generally
(
emphasis
added)
be
based
on
2000­
2002
monitoring
data
(
see
Appendix
11),
updating
the
request
to
use
1998­
2000
data
in
the
Seitz
March
2000
memo.
States
and
EPA
will
work
together
to
review
2003
data
in
anticipation
of
final
designation
action.
For
the
period
2000­
2002,
there
were
three
monitors
with
violations.
The
design
value
of
each
was
calculated
using
the
methodology
described
in
Section
III.
A
and
is
shown
in
the
following
table.

Table
III.
B.
3:
2000­
2002
8­
Hour
Ozone
Design
Values
for
MSA
Monitor
Site
Design
Value
(
ppb)
Humboldt
Mountain
85
North
Phoenix
85
Pinnacle
Peak
85
Note:
Residential
areas
in
Gila
and
Yavapai
Counties
were
not
available
and
are
not
represented
on
this
map.
However,
Table
III.
A.
3
shows
how
sparsely
populated
the
two
counties
are.
Source:
MAG,
Yavapai
County,
Town
of
Payson
16
Maricopa
County,
Pinal
County,
and
ADEQ
operate
an
extensive
network
of
ozone
monitors
in
and
around
the
Greater
Phoenix
Area.
(
see
Figure
III.
B.
3.
a)
Currently,
there
are
26
monitors
in
operation,
mostly
in
the
urbanized
area,
but
three
are
located
in
rural
and
even
remote
locations
as
far
as
80
miles
(
Hillside
monitor)
from
central
Phoenix.
Since
the
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
network,
some
sites
have
been
closed
and
others
moved,
with
EPA's
concurrence,
to
attempt
to
do
a
better
job
of
understanding
the
pollutant.
Appendices
5
and
6
provide
information
for
all
monitors
that
have
been
or
are
in
operation
throughout
the
State.

Over
time,
peak
ozone
concentrations
have
decreased
in
the
Phoenix
area,
as
is
evident
by
the
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
standard
since
1997.
In
looking
at
the
monitoring
record
of
8­
hour
ozone
concentrations
from
1995
through
2002,
though,
data
show
that
ozone
concentrations
decreased
through
1996,
but
the
apparent
downward
trend
has
failed
to
continue.
Figure
III.
B.
3.
b
provides
trend­
lines
for
the
4th­
high
8­
hour
ozone
concentrations
in
the
greater
Phoenix
area.
Because
of
the
large
number
of
ozone
monitoring
sites
and
the
role
of
weather
on
spatial
variation
of
ozone
concentrations,
providing
a
graphic
that
will
allow
the
reader
to
interpret
the
presence
or
absence
of
a
trend
is
best
accomplished
by
averaging
sites
by
area
­
urban
center,
east,
and
far
east
and
north
sites.
This
Figure
indicates
that
no
trend
of
either
improving
or
worsening
8­
hour
average
ozone
concentrations
is
evident.
Therefore,
to
provide
a
more
complete
picture
of
8­
hour
ozone
concentrations
in
the
area,
the
1997­
2002
portion
of
the
monitoring
record
was
used
in
the
development
of
the
recommendation.

The
density
and
distribution
of
ozone
monitors
in
the
urbanized
area
is
adequate
to
determine
compliance
with
the
standard.
However,
in
rural
areas
there
are
relatively
large
distances
between
monitors.
The
extensive
areas
with
mountainous
and
complex
terrain
complicate
the
interpretation
of
the
measurement
data
and
require
the
consideration
of
such
phenomenon
as
plume
impingement
on
high
terrain
and
ozone
shadows
on
the
leeward
side
of
mountains.
The
first
step
in
attempting
to
fill
the
gaps
between
and
beyond
the
rural
monitors
is
to
determine
the
spatial
representation
of
each
monitor.
This
was
accomplished
by
a
careful
review
of
the
measurements
record
of
each
monitor
and
comparisons
between
measurements
at
different
sites.
This
evaluation
was
done
in
the
consideration
of
topographic
influences,
airflow
patterns,
and
ozone
formation
dynamics.
The
results
of
the
photochemical
grid
modeling
and
an
analyses
of
wind
conditions
during
the
two
ozone
episode
periods
in
2002
were
used
in
this
exercise
to
interpret
the
ambient
ozone
data
record
(
see
Appendices
7
and
8).
17
Figure
III.
B.
3.
a:
Phoenix
Area
Ozone
Monitoring
Sites
1995­
2002
Key
to
Monitoring
Site
Abbreviations
on
Map
"
Phoenix
Area
Ozone
Monitoring
Sites"
Abbreviation
Monitoring
Site
Abbreviation
Monitoring
Site
AJ
Apache
Junction
NP
North
Phoenix
BP
Blue
Point
PAVE
Palo
Verde
CG
Casa
Grande
PP
Pinnacle
Peak
CC
Cave
Creek
­
new
8/
01
QUAZ
Queen
Valley
­
new
5/
01
CP
Central
Phoenix
RV
Rio
Verde
CB
Combs
­
new
7/
02
RO
Roosevelt
 
closed
1997
EM
Emergency
Management
­
closed
6/
01
RY
Rye
 
closed
11/
99
FF
Falcon
Field
SRPI
Salt
River
Pima
 
closed
10/
99
FH
Fountain
Hills
SP
South
Phoenix
GL
Glendale
SS
South
Scottsdale
HISD
Hillside
­
new
4/
96
PXSS
Super
Site
HM
Humboldt
Mountain
SU
Surprise
 
new
4/
01
LP
Lake
Pleasant
­
closed
6/
01
TE
Tempe
MCPA
Maricopa
­
new
7/
02
TONO
Tonto
N.
M.
­
new
5/
02
MA
Maryvale
VE
Vehicle
Emissions
 
closed
1997
ME
Mesa
WC
West
Chandler
MO
Mt.
Ord
 
closed
10/
01
WP
West
Phoenix
0
20
40
1
0
M
ile
s
¹
Source:
Maricopa
County,
Pinal
County,
ADEQ,
USGS,
Arizona
Land
Resource
Information
Systems
18
Figure
III.
B.
3.
b:
Ozone
trends
in
the
Phoenix
Area
Ozone
Trends
for
Greater
Phoenix
Area
Multiple
Site
Averages,
1997
­
2002
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Multi­
site
Average
4th
High
Concentration
(
ppb)

Urban
Ctr
Avg
East
Avg
Far
E
&
N
Avg
Sites
Used
to
Generate
Averages
Urban
Center
East
Far
East
and
North
Central
Phoenix
Emergency
Management
Glendale
Maryvale
Mesa
North
Phoenix
South
Phoenix
South
Scottsdale
Super
Site
West
Chandler
West
Phoenix
Apache
Junction
Blue
Point
Falcon
Field
Fountain
Hills
Rio
Verde
Humboldt
Mountain
Mt.
Ord
Pinnacle
Peak
Source:
Maricopa
County,
Pinal
County,
ADEQ
19
III.
B.
4.
Criterion
#
4
­
Location
of
Emissions
Sources
(
emissions
sources
and
nearby
receptors
should
generally
be
included
in
the
same
nonattainment
area)

The
emissions
inventory
data
used
in
addressing
Criterion
#
1
and
the
land
use
data
used
in
addressing
Criterion
#
2
were
reviewed,
in
tandem,
to
identify
where
the
sources
are
located
and
their
potential
for
greatest
impact.
Figure
III.
B.
4.
a
shows
the
anthropogenic
(
i.
e.,
human­
caused)
volatile
organic
compound
(
VOC)
emissions
that
were
produced
by
the
SMOKE
model
overlain
by
current
residential
land
use.
This
verifies
that
emissions
tend
to
be
concentrated
where
people
live
and
work.
This
pattern
is
not
expected
to
change
in
the
future,
meaning
that
future
emissions
will
be
associated
with
new
residential
and
commercial
development,
when
it
occurs.

Figure
III.
B.
4:
Current
Land
Use
and
VOC
Emissions
¹
0
10
20
5
M
i
le
s
Source:
MAG,
ASU
Department
of
Mechanical
and
Aerospace
Engineering
20
III.
B.
5.
Criterion
#
5
­
Traffic
and
Commuting
Patterns
The
Greater
Phoenix
area
has
developed
and
continues
to
develop
with
a
concentrated
urban
center.
That
is
to
say
the
majority
of
economic
activity
and
employment
occurs
in
the
urban
core
and
following
major
corridors,
radiating
from
the
urban
core
(
see
Figures
III.
B.
2.
b
and
III.
B.
2.
c).
These
commercial
and
employment
centers
are
surrounded
by
concentric
development
of
residential
areas
mixed
with
commercial
development
designed
to
serve
the
local
populations.
As
a
result,
the
traffic
and
commuting
patterns
involve
movement
of
vehicles
from
throughout
the
urbanized
area
toward
the
urban
core
in
the
morning
(
morning
"
rush­
hour"),
continued
traffic
concentrated
in
the
urban
core
during
business
hours,
and
the
return
of
vehicles
to
residential
areas
from
the
urban
core
in
the
evening
(
evening
"
rush­
hour").
This
pattern
is
demonstrated
in
the
MAG
Regional
Freeway
Bottleneck
Study,
Task
5,
Traffic
Data
Working
Paper
(
May
7,
2002,
see
Appendix
12),
which
shows
highest
freeway
traffic
volumes
in
the
urban
core,
and
from
7
to
almost
10
percent
of
traffic
volume
on
freeways
in
the
urban
core
occurs
on
inbound
lanes
during
peak
morning
hour
and
outbound
lanes
during
the
peak
evening
hour
(
see
Figures
1,
13
and
14
of
MAG
report
referenced
above).
In
addition,
interstate
traffic
moves
along
Interstate
10,
which
connects
California
markets
to
Arizona
and
other
southern
states,
and
Interstate
17,
which
connects
Interstate
40,
another
major
east­
west
conduit,
to
Interstate
10.
The
vast
majority
of
the
traffic
and
vehicle
miles
traveled
in
the
greater
Phoenix
area,
however,
are
locally
generated
Figure
III.
B.
5.
a
illustrates
where
traffic
is
concentrated
in
the
greater
Phoenix
area.
In
addition,
VMT
estimates
for
2006
in
the
MAG
Carbon
Monoxide
Redesignation
Request
and
Maintenance
Plan
for
the
Maricopa
County
Nonattainment
Area
(
May
2003)
demonstrate
this
fact:

Table
III.
B.
5
2006
VMT
Estimates
for
the
MAG
Planning
Area
Freeways
Arterials
Collectors
Locals
Total
30,090,000
47,679,000
2,919,000
9,329,000
90,017,000
33.4%
53.0%
3.2%
10.4%
100%

About
two­
thirds
of
all
traffic
occurs
off
of
the
freeways,
and
the
majority
of
freeway
traffic
is
of
local
origin
as
well.

This
mode
of
traffic
is
expected
to
continue
into
the
future.
As
is
characteristic
of
concentric
development
around
an
urban
core,
development
expanding
beyond
the
urban
fringe
will
result
in
greater
average
home­
to­
work
commute
distances.
Figure
III.
B.
5.
b
shows
the
growth
trend
for
population
and
VMT,
with
VMT
increasing
at
a
faster
rate
than
population.
Average
annual
growth
in
VMT
from
1995
to
2016
is
expected
to
be
3.58%,
approximately
46%
greater
than
the
average
annual
growth
rate
for
population,
which
is
expected
to
be
2.45%.

It
may
be
concluded
that,
given
the
commuting
and
traffic
patterns
in
the
greater
Phoenix
area,
the
size
of
the
nonattainment
area
should
be
sufficiently
large
to
include
the
expected
suburban
frontier
at
the
end
of
the
maintenance
period.
Since
on­
road
vehicles
are
the
largest
anthropogenic
source
category
and
account
for
about
25%
of
the
VOC
and
50%
of
the
NOx
inventories
(
see
Appendix
9,
Attachment
2),
it
may
be
necessary
to
21
assure
that
appropriate
Clean
Air
Act
regulations
apply
to
as
many
of
these
vehicles
as
possible.

Figure
III.
B.
5.
a:
Study
Area
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic
Source:
ADOT
22
Figure
III.
B.
5.
b:
Population
and
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Projections
Population
&
Vehicle
Miles
Travelled
For
MAG
Planning
Area,
1995
­
2015
Source:
MAG
CO
Maintenance
Plan
(
May
2003)

50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Avg
Wkday
VMT
(
1,000,000)

2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Population
(
1,000)

VMT/
Day
Population
Year
1995
2006
2015
Population
in
thousands
2,529
3,406
4,102
VMT
in
millions
59.623
90.017
120.406
III.
B.
6.
Criterion
#
6
­
Expected
Growth
(
including
extent,
pattern
and
rate
of
growth)

In
its
analysis
of
population
density
and
the
degree
of
urbanization,
ADEQ
took
a
longterm
view,
anticipating
that
a
maintenance
plan
would
be
developed
demonstrating
that
attainment
would
continue
to
be
achieved
for
a
growing
urban
area,
through
at
least
2018.
For
this
criterion,
changes
in
population
and
density,
land
use,
and
traffic
and
commuting
patterns
throughout
the
area
were
examined.
Appendix
10
details
the
processes
used
to
obtain
the
following
information.

Population
density
and
projected
population
growth
were
reviewed
for
the
period
2000
 
2018.
Figure
III.
B.
6.
a
shows
the
change
in
persons
per
square
mile
from
2000­
2018,
for
the
Phoenix
area.
The
greatest
projected
growth
is
in
the
western
and
eastern
fringe
of
the
Phoenix
urban
area,
with
little
to
no
increase
in
persons
per
square
mile
in
Pinal,
Gila,
and
Yavapai
Counties.
The
figure
was
created
using
a
population
growth
model
whose
performance
was
verified
with
the
Arizona
Department
of
Economic
Security's
(
DES)
23
growth
model.
Official
2000
U.
S.
Census
and
Immigration
and
Naturalization
Service
(
INS)
data
were
used
as
model
inputs.
As
noted
in
section
III.
B.
2,
land
ownership
patterns
have
greatly
influenced
development
patterns
in
the
MSA
and
are
expected
to
continue
to
do
so.
Only
29%
of
Maricopa
County
and
26%
of
Pinal
County
are
privately
owned.
Indian
reservations
as
well
as
State
and
federal
lands
(
see
Figure
III.
B.
2.
d),
particularly
to
the
north
and
south,
create
barriers
to
contiguous
expansion
of
the
urbanized
core.
As
a
result,
the
majority
of
growth
in
the
MSA
is
expected
to
be
primarily
to
the
west
of
the
central
core
with
the
majority
of
the
remainder
of
the
MSA
continuing
as
neither
a
source
nor
a
receptor
of
ozone
pollution.

Figure
III.
B.
6.
a:
Change
in
Population
2000­
2018
The
land
use
analysis
was
narrowed
to
look
at
current
and
future
residential
land
use,
as
shown
in
Figure
III.
B.
6.
b.
This
map
was
created
using
data
obtained
from
the
City
of
Payson,
Yavapai
County,
and
MAG.
Two
datasets
from
MAG
were
used
for
this
map.
The
first
was
land
use
for
the
year
2000
and
is
shown
in
red.
The
second
dataset
used
is
0
20
40
1
0
M
il
e
s
Source:
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
Immigration
and
Naturalization
Service,
Department
of
Economic
Security
24
platted
subdivisions,
as
shown
in
blue.
Platted
subdivisions
have
been
through
the
planning
process
and
are
approved
for
development.
The
light
blue
represents
areas
zoned
residential,
which
means
a
local
government
has
approved
the
use
of
land
as
residential.
These
areas
are
not
necessarily
platted
or
planned,
however.
Both
Gila
and
Yavapai
Counties
are
shown
as
having
minimal
foreseeable
growth.
Even
though
the
northeast
corner
of
Pinal
County
has
a
platted
subdivision
corridor,
it
is
dwarfed
in
comparison
with
the
platted
subdivision
area
in
the
western
edge
of
the
urban
area.

Figure
III.
B.
6.
b:
Current
and
Future
Residential
Land
Use
ADEQ's
look
at
traffic
and
commuting
patterns
included
reviewing
Arizona
Department
of
Transportation
(
ADOT),
Pinal
County,
and
central
Phoenix
existing
and
planned
transportation
routes.
Figure
III.
B.
6.
c
shows
projected
annual
average
daily
traffic
change
from
2000­
2018
for
those
routes
of
the
Arizona
State
Highway
System
(
those
on
which
ADOT
has
jurisdiction
over).
The
routes
are
forecasted
for
only
rural,
nonurbanized
portions
of
those
routes,
but
provide
some
idea
of
where
traffic
focus
is
headed.
Source:
MAG,
ALRIS,
Pinal
County,
Yavapai
County,
Town
of
Payson
0
20
40
1
0
M
il
e
s
¹
25
Figure
III.
B.
6.
c:
Study
Area
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic
(
excluding
city
center)

A
similar
map
(
Figure
III.
B.
6.
d)
was
created
from
data
available
from
the
Pinal
County
Transportation
Plan
2000
Update.
The
map
depicts
change
for
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic
Counts
for
Pinal
County
from
2005­
2020.
There
is
only
a
4.3­
mile
stretch
of
road
southeast
of
Maricopa
County
where
daily
traffic
is
expected
to
reach
high
levels.
At
this
point
it
is
difficult
to
draw
any
conclusion
regarding
this
projection.
0
20
40
1
0
M
il
e
s
Source:
ADOT,
Arizona
Land
Resource
Information
Systems
26
0
20
40
1
0
M
il
e
s
Figure
III.
B.
6.
d:
Pinal
County
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic
A
third
map,
Figure
III.
B.
6.
e,
based
on
preliminary
estimates
of
average
daily
trips
in
eastern
Maricopa
County,
depicts
where
traffic
is
expected
to
be
concentrated
in
2015.
As
discussed
above,
in
Section
III.
B.
5,
this
map
indicates
that
commuting
and
traffic
patterns
will
continue
to
concentrate
traffic
from
outlying
areas
into
the
urban
core.
The
data
have
not
been
used
in
any
Air
Quality
Plan
adopted
by
MAG
and
are
subject
to
change.
Regardless,
no
known
plan
exists
that
would
modify
this
pattern
of
development
and
traffic
movement.
Source:
Lima
and
Associates
27
Figure
III.
B.
6.
e:
Annual
Average
Daily
Traffic
Count
 
City
Center
III.
B.
7.
Criterion
#
7
­
Meteorology
(
weather/
transport
patterns)

Meteorological
patterns
play
a
pivotal
role
in
the
formation
of
elevated
ozone
concentrations.
Both
synoptic
flows
and
topographically
driven
surface
winds
have
an
influence
on
the
speed
and
direction
of
the
transport
of
urban
ozone
precursor
emissions.
Ultimately,
since
emissions
are
more
or
less
constant
from
day
to
day,
the
meteorological
variation
dictates
the
days
and
locations
that
will
experience
elevated
ozone.
In
this
analysis,
meteorology
was
considered
in
three
ways.
First,
the
choice
of
design
dates
for
the
air
quality
modeling
was
dictated
by
meteorological
conditions
that
were
conducive
to
elevated
ozone
formation.
June
6,
2002,
was
chosen
for
its
wind
patterns
that
resulted
in
high
ozone
in
the
far
eastern
part
of
the
network:
Tonto
National
Monument
and
Queen
Valley.
July
12,
2002,
was
chosen
for
different
wind
conditions
that
led
to
high
ozone
concentrations
in
central
and
north
Phoenix,
as
well
as
high
concentrations
to
the
north
of
the
metropolitan
area
(
Humboldt
Mountain).
Second,
the
meteorological
and
air
quality
modeling
simulations
necessitated
a
thorough
examination
of
both
surface
wind
and
upper
level
wind
measurements,
of
the
meteorological
model
output,
of
the
differences
between
the
observations
and
the
model,
and
of
the
general
synoptic
conditions
that
prevailed
for
the
five
days
ending
at
each
design
date.
Third,
receptor
areas,
wind
patterns
and
transport
duration,
and
sunset
times
were
considered
in
delineating
the
boundaries
to
the
northwest,
north,
northeast,
and
east
of
metropolitan
Phoenix.
0
20
40
1
0
M
il
e
s
¹
Source:
Maricopa
Association
of
Governments
28
Data
were
gathered
from
hourly
records
of
wind
direction
and
speed
from
instruments
operated
by
Maricopa
County,
Salt
River
Project,
University
of
Arizona,
and
ADEQ
for
the
9
days
of
the
2
ozone
episode
periods
in
2002,
which
had
ozone
concentrations
higher
than
85
ppb.
The
location
of
the
wind
sites
are
shown
on
page
7
of
the
Technical
Analysis
Used
to
Develop
Optional
Nonattainment
Boundaries
for
8­
Hour
Ozone
For
the
Greater
Phoenix
Area,
contained
in
Appendix
6.
The
wind
data
were
used
to
characterize
general
airflow
patterns
and
their
variations
on
the
9
days
with
8­
hour
ozone
values
exceeding
the
standard.
Each
episode
day
exhibited
the
same
general
pattern
and
consequent
ozone
transport.
Downslope
or
drainage
winds,
generally
from
the
east,
usually
persisted
until
a
few
hours
after
sunrise,
which
is
typical
during
the
summer
ozone
season
(
see
Figure
III.
B.
7.
a).
The
transition
from
drainage
to
upslope
typically
lasts
for
2­
3
hours,
but
during
the
9
days
studied
the
transition
varied
from
1­
8
hours.
The
transitional
period
corresponds
with
the
beginning
of
the
daily
photochemical
ozone
formation
period.
During
the
transition,
winds
rotate
in
a
clockwise
fashion
through
south
before
completing
the
shift
to
blowing
from
the
southwest
quadrant,
which
is
typical
upslope
flow
for
this
area
(
see
Figure
III.
B.
7.
b).
Upslope
winds
generally
begin
about
noon
and
last
till
near
sunset
(
see
Figure
III.
7.
c).
During
the
9
days
studied,
upslope
flow
varied
from
6
to
12
hours
duration.

Figure
III.
B.
7.
a:
Morning
Downslope
Winds
July
12,
2002
Source:
ADEQ,
Maricopa
County
Monitoring
sites
29
Figure
III.
B.
7.
b:
Transition
Winds
for
July
12,
2002
Figure
III.
B.
7.
c:
Afternoon
Upslope
Winds
July
12,
2002
Source:
ADEQ,
Maricopa
County
Monitoring
sites
Source:
ADEQ,
Maricopa
County
Monitoring
sites
30
The
few
hours
of
drainage
flow
during
the
early
daylight
hours
added
to
the
early
portion
of
the
transitional
winds,
transported
the
urban
plume
toward
the
northwest
under
ozone
formation
conditions
for
3­
10
hours
on
the
episode
days.
The
later
part
of
the
transition
period
coupled
with
the
upslope
period
pushed
the
plume
into
the
mountainous
northeast
quadrant
for
periods
of
time
ranging
from
8­
12
hours.
Wind
speeds
averaged
5­
10
mph
during
the
upslope
period
and
were
somewhat
lighter
during
transition
and
drainage
periods.
These
wind
direction
patterns
were
useful
in
interpreting
the
ozone
measurements
on
these
ozone
episode
days,
and
the
persistence
of
wind
in
the
different
directions
provided
a
sound
basis
for
estimating
the
transport
distance
of
the
urban
plume
and
the
extent
of
geographic
extent
of
ozone
violations.

As
previously
mentioned,
ozone
concentration
levels
are
well
defined
in
the
urbanized
area
by
the
relatively
dense
array
of
monitors.
In
the
outlying
areas
there
are
large
gaps
between
monitors.
To
better
understand
what
happens
in
rural
settings,
the
region
was
divided
into
four
sectors.
Each
sector
was
then
analyzed
from
a
viewpoint
of
wind
speed
and
direction,
topography,
modeling,
and
monitoring
data
(
see
Appendix
6).
In
all
four
sectors,
it
appears
high
ozone
concentrations
can
occur
in
the
elevated
terrain
outside
the
populated
area.

III.
B.
8.
Criterion
#
8
­
Geography/
Topography
(
mountain
ranges
or
other
air
basin
boundaries)

Although
in
the
broad
and
mostly
flat
Salt
River
Valley,
metropolitan
Phoenix
lies
close
to
mountainous,
complex
terrain
on
the
north,
northeast,
east,
and
southwest.
The
highest
of
this
higher
ground
is
northeast,
the
area
that
typically
receives
the
Phoenix
urban
plume
because
of
the
prevailing
valley­
to­
mountain
surface
winds
out
of
the
south
and
southwest.
In
the
absence
of
major
storm
fronts,
topography
dictates
the
strength
and
direction
of
these
surface
winds.
Topography
was
part
of
the
meteorological
and
air
quality
modeling
work,
as
both
models
require
an
accurate
depiction
of
the
elevations
throughout
the
modeling
domain.
Ozone
monitoring
on
Humboldt
Mountain
and
Mount
Ord
show
that
8­
hour
ozone
concentrations
at
higher
elevations
are
likely
to
be
higher
than
concentrations
at
lower
elevations.
This
knowledge,
when
combined
with
the
monitoring
data
from
the
peaks,
provided
a
means
by
which
to
infer
elevated
ozone
concentrations
in
areas
lacking
monitors.
Thus,
topography
was
an
integral
part
of
the
boundary
line
choices.
31
III.
B.
9.
Criterion
#
9
­
Jurisdictional
Boundaries
(
e.
g.,
counties,
air
districts,
existing
1­
hour
nonattainment
areas,
Reservations,
etc.)

Five
major
issues
were
taken
into
consideration
relating
to
jurisdictional
boundaries:



Indian
reservations;



County
boundaries;



Ambient
air
quality
monitoring
data;



Existing
air
pollution
control
programs;
and


Existing
institutions
and
conventions
for
air
quality
and
transportation
planning.

First,
as
the
State
has
no
jurisdiction
within
the
interior
boundaries
of
Indian
reservations,
the
proposed
nonattainment
area
excludes
all
Indian
Country.
The
three
Indian
reservations
that
are
located
within
or
adjacent
to
the
proposed
nonattainment
area
are
the
Salt
River
Pima­
Maricopa
Indian
Community
and
the
Fort
McDowell
Yavapai
Nation,
which
are
adjacent
to
each
other
and
located
in
the
eastern
portions
of
the
proposed
nonattainment
area;
and
the
Gila
River
Indian
Community,
which
lies
along
most
of
the
southern
boundary
of
the
proposed
nonattainment
area.

The
Maricopa
County
boundaries
were
selected
for
the
recommended
outer
boundary
of
the
proposed
nonattainment
area
on
the
southeast,
east
and
northern
sides.
One
issue
that
complicates
this
choice
is
the
existence
of
Area
A,
defined
in
Arizona
statutes
(
ARS
§
49­
541.1)
as
the
area
where
certain
pollution
control
programs
are
required
(
See
Section
III.
B.
10,
below,
for
details
on
the
specific
control
programs).
As
can
be
seen
in
Figure
III.
B.
9.
a,
Area
A
includes
a
small
portion
of
Yavapai
County,
and
a
block
of
land
in
northeastern
Pinal
County
that
includes
Apache
Junction
and
areas
platted
for
development
between
Apache
Junction
and
Florence.
These
portions
of
Area
A
may
be
excluded
from
the
nonattainment
area
because:



No
violations
of
the
ozone
standard
have
been
measured
in
either
of
these
parcels;



The
Yavapai
County
portion
of
area
contains
no
platted
subdivisions,
is
primarily
public
lands,
and
is
not
expected
to
contain
significant,
new
anthropogenic
sources
of
ozone
precursors
into
the
distant
future;



While
substantial
growth
is
expected
in
the
Pinal
County
portion
of
Area
A,
it
represents
a
relatively
small
percentage
of
the
overall
growth
expected
in
the
Maricopa
County
portion
of
Area
A,
and
is
about
one
fifth
of
the
growth
expected
in
incorporated
Surprise
and
Buckeye,
alone;
32
0
20
40
1
0
M
ile
s
¹


Several
air
pollution
control
are
being
implemented
in
the
parts
of
Area
A
outside
of
Maricopa
County
(
see
Section
III.
B.
10,
below),
and,
in
compliance
with
Clean
Air
Act
§
110(
l),
must
be
maintained
into
the
foreseeable
future;
and


Arizona
statutes
ARS
§
49­
406(
A)
and
23
USCA
§
134
authorize
MAG
as
the
designated
planning
agency
for
air
quality
and
transportation
planning,
respectively,
within
Maricopa
County.
A
nonattainment
area
extending
outside
of
Maricopa
County
would
greatly
complicate
air
quality
and
transportation
planning,
and
would
require
development
of
new
institutional
arrangements
for
accomplishing
these
required
tasks.

Finally,
the
ambient
air
quality
monitoring
record
documents
exceedances
and
violations
of
the
8­
hour
average
ozone
NAAQS
at
several
locations
on
the
Maricopa
County
boundary:
Humboldt
Mountain
to
the
north­
northeast;
Mt.
Ord
to
east­
northeast;
and
Roosevelt
Lake/
Tonto
National
Monument
to
the
east.
ADEQ
acknowledges
that
the
areas
where
ozone
exceedances
and
violations
are
likely
to
occur
extends
beyond
the
Maricopa
County
line,
perhaps
by
a
substantial
distance.
As
the
photochemical
grid
modeling
results
documented
in
Appendix
8
are
imprecise,
it
is
not
possible
at
this
time
to
determine
with
any
confidence
how
far
beyond
the
Maricopa
County
line
to
draw
a
nonattainment
area
boundary.

Figure
III.
B.
9:
Recommended
8­
hour
Ozone
Nonattainment
Area
with
Area
A
and
the
1­
hour
Ozone
Nonattainment
Area
Depicted
Sources:
ADEQ,
USGS,
Arizona
Land
Resource
Information
Systems
33
III.
B.
10.
Criterion
#
10
­
Level
of
Control
of
Emissions
Sources
Several
control
federally
enforceable
measures
are
measures
included
in
the
1­
hour
nonattainment
area
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
that
was
submitted
to
EPA
in
Dec
2000.
In
addition,
there
are
other
measures
included
as
federally
enforceable
measures
in
the
2000
Maricopa
County
Carbon
Monoxide
SIP
and
2002
Maintenance
Plan,
and
2001
Maricopa
County
PM10
SIP
that
have
ozone­
reducing
benefits.
As
shown
in
the
table
below,
the
majority
of
existing
control
strategies
are
legislatively
required
to
be
implemented
in
Area
A,
which
is
larger
than
the
1­
hour
nonattainment
area.
Area
A
also
includes
a
portion
of
Pinal
County.
Some
programs
listed
are
of
voluntary
nature,
however,
when
implemented,
have
some
positive
impact
on
reducing
ozone.
It
will
be
necessary
to
review
the
status
and
scope
of
implementation
of
each
strategy
as
the
8­
hour
ozone
plan
is
developed.

This
list
does
not
include
federal
measures
in
place,
specifically
gasoline
and
diesel
vehicle
engine
and
fuel
standards.

Table
III.
B.
10:
Existing
Control
Measures
MEASURE
Area
of
Application
Vehicle
Emissions
Inspection
program
components,
including:
­­
Phased
In
Emission
Test
Cutpoints
­­
Enhanced
Emission
Testing
of
Constant
Four
Wheel
Drive
Vehicles
­­
Increased
Waiver
Repair
Limit
Options
­­
Catalytic
Converter
Replacement
Program
­­
Voluntary
Vehicle
Repair
and
Retrofit
Program
­­
Tougher
Enforcement
of
Vehicle
Registration
and
Emissions
Test
Compliance
­­
Snap
Acceleration
Test
for
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
­­
One­
Time
Waiver
from
Vehicle
Emissions
Test
­­
Gross
Polluter
Option
for
I/
M
Program
Waivers
Area
A
Require
Pre­
1988
Heavy­
Duty
Diesel
Commercial
Vehicles
(>
26,
GVWR)
Operating
in
Area
A
To
Meet
1988
Federal
Emissions
Standards
By
2004
Area
A
Arizona
Cleaner
Burning
Gasoline
Area
A
and
balance
of
Maricopa
County
Limit
Sulfur
Content
of
non­
road
Diesel
Fuel
to
500
ppm
Area
A
Stage
II
Vapor
Recovery
Program
Area
A
Alternative
Fuel
Vehicles
for
Local
Governments,
School
Districts
and
Federal
Government/
Low
Emission
Vehicle
Requirements
Area
A
Coordinate
Traffic
Signal
Systems
Area
A
34
Table
III.
B.
10:
Existing
Control
Measures
MEASURE
Area
of
Application
Trip
Reduction
Program
for
Employers
with
50
or
more
Employees
at
a
Work
Site
Area
A
Oxidation
Catalyst
for
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
Vehicles
One
Hour
Ozone
NA
Mass
Transit
Alternatives
One
Hour
Ozone
NA
Develop
Intelligent
Transportation
Systems
One
Hour
Ozone
NA
Special
Event
Controls
­
Required
Implementation
from
List
of
Approved
Strategies
One
Hour
Ozone
NA
Encourage
the
Use
of
Temporary
Electrical
Power
Lines
Rather
than
Portable
Generators
at
Construction
Sites
One
Hour
Ozone
NA
Defer
Emissions
Associated
With
Governmental
Activities
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Encourage
Limitations
on
Vehicle
Idling
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Voluntary
No­
Drive
Days
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Expansion
of
Public
Transportation
Programs
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Employer
Rideshare
Program
Incentives
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Preferential
Parking
for
Carpools
and
Vanpools
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Reduce
Traffic
Congestion
at
Major
Intersections
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Site­
Specific
Transportation
Control
Measures
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Encouragement
of
Bicycle
Travel
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Development
of
Bicycle
Travel
Facilities
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Alternative
Work
Schedules
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Land
Use/
Development
Alternatives
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Encouragement
of
Pedestrian
Travel
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Restrictions
on
the
Use
of
Gasoline­
Powered
Blowers
for
Landscaping
Maintenance
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Voluntary
Lawn
and
Garden
Equipment
Replacement
Program
Area
A
Alternative
Fuels
for
Fleets
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Areawide
Public
Awareness
Programs
(
Clean
Air
Campaign)
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Encouragement
of
Vanpooling
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Park
and
Ride
Lots
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Encouragement
of
Telecommuting,
Teleworking
and
Teleconferencing
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Promotion
of
High
Occupancy
Vehicle
Lanes
and
By­
Pass
Ramps
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Improved
Rule
Effectiveness,
Area
Sources
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
State
Procurement
Code­
Request
for
Low
or
No
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Products
One­
Hour
Ozone
NA
Vehicle
Idling
Restriction
Ordinances
for
Engines
that
Propel
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
Vehicles
equal
to
or
greater
than
to
14,000
lbs
GVWR
Maricopa
County
and
Area
A
Portion
of
Pinal
County
35
Table
III.
B.
10:
Existing
Control
Measures
MEASURE
Area
of
Application
New
Source
Performance
Standards
Maricopa
County
Rule
360
ADEQ
Arizona
Administrative
Code,
Title
18,
Chapter,
2,
Article
9
Maricopa
County
Maricopa
County
Rules:

Permit
Requirements
for
New
Major
Sources
and
Major
Modifications
to
Existing
Major
Sources
Rule
240
Permits
for
New
Sources
and
Modifications
to
Existing
Sources
Rule
241
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
Rule
321
General
VOC
Rule
330
Solvent
Cleaning
Operations
Rule
331
Petroleum
Solvent
Dry
Cleaning
Rule
333
Rubber
Sport
Ball
Manufacturing
Rule
334
Architectural
Coatings
Rule
335
Aerospace
Surface
Coating
Rule
336
Graphic
Arts
Rule
337
Semiconductor
Manufacturing
Rule
338
Vegetable
Extraction
Processes
Rule
339
Cutback
and
Emulsified
Asphalt
Rule
340
Metal
Investment
Casting
Rule
341
Wood
Coating
Rules
342
and
346
Commercial
Bread
Bakeries
Rule
343
Windshield
Washer
Fluid
Rule
344
Vehicle
and
Mobile
Equipment
Coating
(
aka
Automobile
Refinish
Coatings)
Rule
345
Ferrous
Sand
Casting
Rule
347
Aerospace
Manufacturing
and
Rework
Operations
Rule
348
Pharmaceutical,
Cosmetic,
and
Vitamin
Manufacturing
Operations
Rule
349
Storage
of
Organic
Liquids
at
Bulk
Plants
and
Terminals
Rule
350
Loading
of
Organic
Liquids
Rule
351
Gasoline
Delivery
Vessel
Testing
and
Use
Rule
352
Gasoline
in
Stationary
Dispensing
Tanks
Rule
353
Federal
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
Program
Rule
370
Maricopa
County
ADEQ
Rules:

New
Source
Review
Rules
R18­
2­
401
thru
407
Existing
Stationary
Source
Performance
Standards
R18­
2­
701
thru
732
Statewide
(
for
sources
under
ADEQ's
jurisdiction)
36
III.
B.
11.
Regional
Emission
Reductions
(
e.
g.,
NOx
SIP
call
or
other
enforceable
regional
strategies)

Because
there
are
no
enforceable
regional
strategies
in
place
at
this
time,
this
criterion
is
not
applicable.
The
State,
however,
is
developing
of
its
regional
haze
SIP
in
coordination
with
other
states,
federal
agencies
and
Indian
Tribes
in
the
West
through
the
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership.
Some
regional
strategies
will
be
submitted
in
regional
haze
SIP
revisions
due
December
31,
2003.

IV.
AREA
DESIGNATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
IV.
A
Attainment/
Unclassifiable
Areas
Arizona
recommends
that
all
of
the
following
counties
(
except
for
Indian
Country)
be
designated
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS:

Apache
County
Cochise
County
Coconino
County
Gila
County
Graham
County
Greenlee
County
La
Paz
County
Mohave
County
Navajo
County
Pima
County
Pinal
County
Santa
Cruz
County
Yavapai
County
Yuma
County
In
addition,
Arizona
recommends
that
Maricopa
County
(
except
for
Indian
Country),
except
for
the
portion
described
in
section
IV.
B
be
designated
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
37
IV.
B
Nonattainment
Area
The
nonattainment
area
recommended
by
Arizona
is
smaller
than
the
MSA,
but
still
meets
the
definition
in
Section
107(
d)(
1)(
A)(
i)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
addresses
the
criteria
identified
in
EPA's
March
2000
guidance.
The
recommended
area
encompasses
the
existing
one­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area,
the
growing
area
to
the
west
where
several
new
power
plants
are
located
and
substantial
residential
growth
is
planned,
and
to
the
north
and
east
of
the
urban
area
where
monitors
are
violating
the
8­
hour
standard
or
have
experienced
exceedances
in
recent
history.
The
recommended
area
excludes
the
Gila
River
Indian
Community,
Salt
River
Pima
Maricopa
Indian
Community
and
the
Fort
McDowell
Yavapai
Nation.

In
the
absence
of
conclusive
air
quality
modeling
and
additional
monitoring,
it
is
not
possible
at
this
time
to
determine
the
precise
extent
of
nonattainment
beyond
the
Maricopa
County
line.
Arizona's
alternative
recommendation
includes
an
attainment/
unclassifiable
designation
for
the
rest
of
the
State,
as
explained
in
Section
IV.
A.

Figure
IV.
B
illustrates
the
recommended
8­
hour
nonattainment
area.
Table
IV.
B
describes
by
county
and
township
the
areas
of
the
State
recommended
for
Attainment/
Unclassifiable
and
Nonattainment.
38
Figure
IV.
B:
8­
Hour
Nonattainment
Area
Recommendation
0
20
40
1
0
M
ile
s
Sources:
ADEQ,
USGS,
Arizona
Land
Resource
Information
Systems
39
Table
IV.
B:
Recommended
Attainment/
Unclassifiable
and
Nonattainment
Areas
for
Arizona
Arizona­
Ozone
(
8­
Hour
Standard)

Designated
Area
Designation
Type
Classification
Type
Phoenix
Area:
Maricopa
County
(
part)       ..

T1N,
R1E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T1N,
R2E
T1N,
R3E
T1N,
R4E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T1N,
R5E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T1N,
R6E
T1N,
R7E
T1N,
R1W
T1N,
R2W
T1N,
R3W
T1N,
R4W
T1N,
R5W
T1N,
R6W
T2N,
R1E
T2N,
R2E
T2N,
R3E
T2N,
R4E
T2N,
R6E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T2N,
R7E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T2N,
R8E
T2N,
R9E
T2N,
R10E
T2N,
R11E
T2N,
R12E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T2N,
R13E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T2N,
R1W
T2N,
R2W
T2N,
R3W
T2N,
R4W
T2N,
R5W
T2N,
R6W
T2N,
R7W
Nonattainment
40
Designated
Area
Designation
Type
Classification
Type
T3N,
R1E
T3N,
R2E
T3N,
R3E
T3N,
R4E
T3N,
R5E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T3N,
R6E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T3N,
R7E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T3N,
R8E
T3N,
R9E
T3N,
R10E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T3N,
R11E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T3N,
R12E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T3N,
R1W
T3N,
R2W
T3N,
R3W
T3N,
R4W
T3N,
R5W
T3N,
R6W
T4N,
R1E
T4N,
R2E
T4N,
R3E
T4N,
R4E
T4N,
R5E
T4N,
R6E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T4N,
R7E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T4N,
R8E
T4N,
R9E
T4N,
R10E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T4N,
R11E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T4N,
R12E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T4N,
R1W
T4N,
R2W
T4N,
R3W
T4N,
R4W
T4N,
R5W
T4N,
R6W
T5N,
R1E
T5N,
R2E
T5N,
R3E
T5N,
R4E
T5N,
R5E
41
Designated
Area
Designation
Type
Classification
Type
T5N,
R6E
T5N,
R7E
T5N,
R8E
T5N,
R9E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T5N,
R10E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T5N,
R1W
T5N,
R2W
T5N,
R3W
T5N,
R4W
T5N,
R5W
T6N,
R1E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T6N,
R2E
T6N,
R3E
T6N,
R4E
T6N,
R5E
T6N,
R6E
T6N,
R7E
T6N,
R8E
T6N,
R9E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T6N,
R10E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T6N,
R1W
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T6N,
R2W
T6N,
R3W
T6N,
R4W
T6N,
R5W
T7N,
R1E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T7N,
R2E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T7N,
R3E
T7N,
R4E
T7N,
R5E
T7N,
R6E
T7N,
R7E
T7N,
R8E
T7N,
R9E
(
except
that
portion
in
Gila
County)
T7N,
R1W
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T7N,
R2W
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)

T8N,
R2E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T8N,
R3E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T8N,
R4E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T8N,
R5E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
42
Designated
Area
Designation
Type
Classification
Type
T8N,
R6E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T8N,
R7E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
County)
T8N,
R8E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
and
Gila
Counties)
T8N,
R9E
(
except
that
portion
in
Yavapai
and
Gila
Counties)

T1S,
R1E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T1S,
R2E
(
except
that
portion
in
Pinal
County
and
in
Indian
Country)
T1S,
R3E
T1S,
R4E
T1S,
R5E
T1S,
R6E
T1S,
R7E
T1S,
R1W
T1S,
R2W
T1S,
R3W
T1S,
R4W
T1S,
R5W
T1S,
R6W
T2S,
R1E
(
except
that
portion
in
Indian
Country)
T2S,
R5E
T2S,
R6E
T2S,
R7E
T2S,
R1W
T2S,
R2W
T2S,
R3W
T2S,
R4W
T2S,
R5W
T3S,
R1E
T3S,
R1W
T3S,
R2W
T3S,
R3W
T3S,
R4W
T3S,
R5W
T4S,
R1E
T4S,
R1W
T4S,
R2W
T4S,
R3W
43
Designated
Area
Designation
Type
Classification
Type
T4S,
R4W
T4S,
R5W
Rest
of
State
(
except
those
portions
in
Indian
Country) .           .  
Apache
County
Cochise
County
Coconino
County
Gila
County
Graham
County
Greenlee
County
La
Paz
County
Maricopa
County
(
part)
Remainder
of
County
Mohave
County
Navajo
County
Pima
County
Pinal
County
Santa
Cruz
County
Yavapai
County
Yuma
County
Attainment/
Unclassifiable