OFR-15-04
ADEQ 2015 5-Year Network Assessment
This document is the ADEQ 2015 5-year Network Assessment. Included is an executive summary which
reports the findings of this assessment, a Ranking Analysis of current ADEQ monitors, and a Spatial Raster
Analysis which shows areas of Arizona which potentially could be monitored to protect human health and
the environment.

ADEQ 5-Year Network Assessment for the Year 2015, Page 1

Table of Contents
ADEQ 2015 5-Year Network Assessment.................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ 4
5-Year Network Assessment......................................................................................................................... 5
Purpose and Objective ...................................................................................................................... 5
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8
Section I: Ranking Analysis........................................................................................................................ 10
Measured Concentrations ................................................................................................................ 12
Deviation from the NAAQS ........................................................................................................... 14
Area Served ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Population Served ........................................................................................................................... 21
Correlation Between Monitors ........................................................................................................ 25
Length of Record ............................................................................................................................ 27
Required Monitor ............................................................................................................................ 29
Distance from Phoenix .................................................................................................................... 31
Parameters Monitored ..................................................................................................................... 33
Final Rankings ................................................................................................................................ 35
Section II: Spatial Raster Analysis.............................................................................................................. 40
Hospitalization Density ................................................................................................................... 41
Sensitive Age Density ..................................................................................................................... 43
Total Population .............................................................................................................................. 45
Point Sources .................................................................................................................................. 47
Traffic Count ................................................................................................................................... 55
Distance Between Monitors ............................................................................................................ 59
Predicted Values ............................................................................................................................. 67
Final Weighted Overlay .................................................................................................................. 72
Section III: Final Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 80
Final Conclusions and Recommendations by Pollutant Network ................................................... 80
Appendix A – Definitions and Abbreviations............................................................................................. 84
Appendix B – References ........................................................................................................................... 86

ADEQ 5-Year Network Assessment for the Year 2015, Page 2

List of Tables
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 15:
Table 16:
Table 17:
Table 18:
Table 19:
Table 20:
Table 21:
Table 22:
Table 23:
Table 24:
Table 25:
Table 26:
Table 27:
Table 28:
Table 29:
Table 30:
Table 31:
Table 32:
Table 33:
Table 34:
Table 35:
Table 36:
Table 37:
Table 38:
Table 39:
Table 40:
Table 41:
Table 42:
Table 43:
Table 44:

Ranking Analysis Indicators ................................................................................................... 10
SO2 Instruments by Highest Design Value ............................................................................. 12
O3 Instruments by Highest Design Value ............................................................................... 12
PM10 Instruments by Highest Design Value ........................................................................... 13
PM2.5 Instruments by Highest Design Value........................................................................... 13
SO2 Instruments by Absolute Deviation from the NAAQS .................................................... 14
O3 Instruments by Absolute Deviation from the NAAQS ...................................................... 14
PM10 Instruments by Absolute Deviation from the NAAQS .................................................. 15
PM2.5 Instruments by Absolute Deviation from the NAAQS ................................................. 15
SO2 Instruments by Area Served............................................................................................. 17
O3 Instruments by Area Served ............................................................................................... 18
PM10 Instruments by Area Served ........................................................................................... 19
PM2.5 Instruments by Area Served .......................................................................................... 20
EPA Monitoring Spatial Scales............................................................................................... 21
SO2 Instruments by Population Served ................................................................................... 22
O3 Instruments by Population Served ..................................................................................... 22
PM10 Instruments by Population Served ................................................................................. 22
PM2.5 Instruments by Population Served ................................................................................ 23
SO2 Instruments by Correlation Between Monitors ................................................................ 25
O3 Instruments by Correlation Between Monitors .................................................................. 25
PM10 Instruments by Correlation Between Monitors .............................................................. 26
PM2.5 Instruments by Correlation Between Monitors ............................................................. 26
SO2 Instruments by Length of Record .................................................................................... 27
O3 Instruments by Length of Record ...................................................................................... 27
PM10 Instruments by Length of Record .................................................................................. 28
PM2.5 Instruments by Length of Record .................................................................................. 28
SO2 Instruments by Required Monitor .................................................................................... 29
O3 Instruments by Required Monitor ...................................................................................... 29
PM10 Instruments by Required Monitor .................................................................................. 30
PM2.5 Instruments by Required Monitor ................................................................................. 30
SO2 Instruments by Distance from Phoenix............................................................................ 31
O3 Instruments by Distance from Phoenix .............................................................................. 31
PM10 Instruments by Distance from Phoenix .......................................................................... 32
PM2.5 Instruments by Distance from Phoenix ......................................................................... 32
SO2 Instruments by Parameters Monitored ............................................................................. 33
O3 Instruments by Parameters Monitored ............................................................................... 33
PM10 Instruments by Parameters Monitored ........................................................................... 34
PM2.5 Instruments by Parameters Monitored .......................................................................... 34
Ranking Analysis Pollutant Results from the Survey ............................................................. 35
Weighted SO2 Instrument Results. Unweighted Results in Parentheses................................ 36
Weighted O3 Instrument Results. Unweighted Results in Parentheses .................................. 37
Weighted PM10 Instrument Results. Unweighted Results in Parentheses.............................. 38
Weighted PM2.5 Instrument Results. Unweighted Results in Parentheses ............................. 39
Raster Analysis Indicators ...................................................................................................... 40
ADEQ 5-Year Network Assessment for the Year 2015, Page 3

Table 45:
Table 46:
Table 47:
Table 48:

Point Source Minimum Tonnage Threshold ........................................................................... 47
Traffic Count Buffer Sizes ...................................................................................................... 55
Distance Between Monitors Concentric Ring Sizes ............................................................... 59
Spatial Raster Analysis Survey Results .................................................................................. 72

Table of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
Figure 19:
Figure 20:
Figure 21:
Figure 22:
Figure 23:
Figure 24:
Figure 25:
Figure 26:
Figure 27:
Figure 28:
Figure 29:
Figure 30:
Figure 31:
Figure 32:
Figure 33:
Figure 34:
Figure 35:
Figure 36:
Figure 37:

ADEQ’s 2013 Monitoring Sites ................................................................................................ 7
SO2 Thiessen Polygons ........................................................................................................... 17
O3 Thiessen Polygons ............................................................................................................. 18
PM10 Thiessen Polygons ......................................................................................................... 19
PM2.5 Thiessen Polygons......................................................................................................... 20
Population Served by Site ....................................................................................................... 24
Hospitalization Density Map .................................................................................................. 42
Sensitive Age Density Map..................................................................................................... 44
Total Population Map.............................................................................................................. 46
SO2 Point Sources Map ........................................................................................................... 48
O3 Point Sources Map ............................................................................................................. 49
PM10 Point Sources Map ......................................................................................................... 50
PM2.5 Point Sources Map......................................................................................................... 51
CO Point Sources Map ............................................................................................................ 52
NO2 Point Sources Map........................................................................................................... 53
Pb Point Sources Map ............................................................................................................. 54
Traffic Count Map ................................................................................................................... 56
Phoenix Traffic Count Map ..................................................................................................... 57
Tucson Traffic Count Map ...................................................................................................... 58
SO2 Distance Between Monitors Map ..................................................................................... 60
O3 Distance Between Monitors Map ....................................................................................... 61
PM10 Distance Between Monitors Map ................................................................................... 62
PM2.5 Distance Between Monitors Map .................................................................................. 63
CO Distance Between Monitors Map...................................................................................... 64
NO2 Distance Between Monitors Map .................................................................................... 65
Pb Distance Between Monitors Map ....................................................................................... 66
SO2 Predicted Values Map ...................................................................................................... 68
O3 Predicted Values Map ........................................................................................................ 69
PM10 Predicted Values Map .................................................................................................... 70
PM2.5 Predicted Values Map.................................................................................................... 71
SO2 Weighted Spatial Overlay ................................................................................................ 73
O3 Weighted Spatial Overlay .................................................................................................. 74
PM10 Weighted Spatial Overlay .............................................................................................. 75
PM2.5 Weighted Spatial Overlay.............................................................................................. 76
CO Weighted Spatial Overlay ................................................................................................. 77
NO2 Weighted Spatial Overlay ............................................................................................... 78
Pb Weighted Spatial Overlay .................................................................................................. 79

ADEQ 5-Year Network Assessment for the Year 2015, Page 4

5-Year Network Assessment
Purpose and Objective
The purpose and objectives of this assessment is to determine if the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality’s (ADEQ) ambient air monitoring network meets its monitoring goals and objectives set forth by
ADEQ to protect and enhance public health and the environment in Arizona. In supporting these goals, an
analysis of ADEQ’s air monitoring network is provided for ADEQ’s air quality professionals for the
purpose of determining the adequacy of the network. 40 CFR Part 58.10(d) states the specific requirements
for this assessment:
The state, or where applicable local, agency shall perform and submit to the EPA Regional
Administrator an assessment of the air quality surveillance system every 5 years 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.
The state, or where applicable local, agency must submit a copy of this 5-year assessment, along
with a revised annual network plan, to the Regional Administrator.
In order to achieve the above objectives, the analysis consists of the following:







Executive Summary – A summary of the recommendations and conclusions made by the Air
Quality Division.
Section I – An instrument-to-instrument Ranking Analysis which determines the comparative
importance of each instrument using a variety of indicators. These indictors cover demographic,
geographic, economic and regulatory perspectives that are important to air monitoring. The
individual instruments in the monitoring network are separated by pollutant and ranked. The
ranking is then used for the determination of final recommendations. The purpose of the Ranking
Analysis is to determine the adequacy of ADEQ’s current monitoring network and any
recommended network modifications.
Section II – A Spatial Analysis using a series of raster-based maps representing a variety of
indicators. These indicators cover demographic, geographic, and source pollution perspectives that
are important to air monitoring. Raster maps are a GIS tool that quantifies areas in Arizona for
their importance to air monitoring. The spatial analysis is separated by pollutant and then used for
the determination of final recommendations. The purpose of the Spatial Analysis is to determine
potential locations or areas where new monitors could be deployed and to identify any areas of over
representation.
Section III – Recommendations and final conclusions using both the Ranking and Spatial analyses
to determine: if the current network meets monitoring objectives, whether new sites are needed,
whether existing sites are no longer needed, where areas with relatively high populations of
sensitive individuals are located, and whether new technologies are appropriate for incorporating
into the existing network.
ADEQ 5-Year Network Assessment for the Year 2015, Page 5

The assessment addresses only the criteria pollutants monitored by ADEQ. The criteria pollutants include
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (both
PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The assessment uses instrument and site data from the years 2009-2013,
as these data are the most current certified five-years of data at the time of the creation of this assessment.
All data used are publically available and were taken from EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS), the United
States Census Bureau, ADEQ’s permitted emission sources, Arizona Department of Transportation, and
the Arizona Department of Health Services.
The recommendations stated in this assessment are used to plan for changes in the air monitoring network
for the subsequent five years and to be included in the 2016 Annual Network Plan. The recommendations,
conclusions, and rankings in this assessment include only sites and areas operated by ADEQ. The final
conclusions and recommendations were determined by ADEQ’s Air Quality management. Information
included in this report may be helpful to other agencies and organizations in evaluating their monitoring
activities.

ADEQ 5-Year Network Assessment for the Year 2015, Page 6

Figure 1: ADEQ’s 2013 Monitoring Sites
This Map shows all of ADEQ’s monitoring sites in Arizona. This can be used for reference when referring to sites
in subsequent sections.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Page 7

Executive Summary
The purpose of this executive summary is to provide a summary of this analysis and the final recommendations and conclusions.
The purpose of this analysis to determine the adequacy of ADEQ’s air monitoring network. This is done using two types of
analysis: a Ranking Analysis determines which instruments are of greatest and least impact to protecting and enhancing public
health and the environment in Arizona; a Spatial Analysis determines which areas of Arizona are being under or over represented
by air monitoring. Recommendations for the removal/addition of instruments are determined using both analyses and the full
recommendations and conclusions are found in Section II (A) of this document. The conclusions and recommendations were
made by ADEQ’s Air Quality management. All results and findings are listed below.

1. Ranking Analysis Results:
The ranking scale starts at one, being the highest ranking instrument and therefore the most important to monitoring.

SO2 Network Results
Site Name

Miami
Ridgeline
Miami
Jones
Ranch
Miami
Townsite
Hayden
Old Jail
Alamo
Lake
JLG
Supersite

Ranking

4
5
6
1
3
2

O3 Network Results
Site Name

Flagstaff
Middle
School
Tonto
National
Mon.
Alamo Lake
JLG
Supersite
Queen Valley
Prescott
College AQD
Yuma
Supersite

PM10 Network Results

Ranking

6
5
4
2
3
7
1

Site Name

Paul Spur
Chemical
Lime Plant
Douglas
Payson
Hayden Old
Jail
Miami Golf
Course
Alamo Lake
JLG
Supersite
Bullhead
City
Ajo
Rillito
Nogales Post
Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post
Office
(Filter)
Yuma
Supersite

Ranking

11
5
10
6
12
2
3
9
4
8
7

PM2.5 Network Results
Site Name

Ranking

Douglas
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
(Continuous)
JLG Supersite
(Filter)
Nogales Post
Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post
Office
(Primary
Filter)
Nogales Post
Office
(Secondary
Filter)
Yuma
Supersite

7
1
4
2
6

3

8
5

13
1

2. Ranking Analysis Recommendations:


Removal of the PM10 (POC 1 Filter) and PM2.5 (POC 2 Secondary Filter) instruments at Nogales Post Office.
o These instruments are not required and are lowest ranked. A request for their removal should be made in the 2015
Annual Network Plan. These instrument were required before 2013 because they were either the primary or the
State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 8

required collocated instruments. When the continuous PM instruments were placed, these instruments became
redundant but were not removed at the time.

3. Ranking Analysis Conclusions




Consolidation of the Miami SO2 Network
o The three instruments in the Miami SO2 Network are highly correlated and are the three lowest ranked monitors.
This indicates that consolidation can be done to better effectively represent the Miami SO 2 non-attainment area
without the loss of quality. Special consideration must be taken to follow all requirements under the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Consolation of the Miami SO2 network is subject to requirements in the SO2 nonattainment SIP and any removal or relocation should be made according network modification requirements in 40
CFR Part 58.14. Due to the placement of the Miami Jones Ranch and Miami Townsite locations in 2013, at least
three years of data are required in order to be considered for relocation. Thus any modifications to the can be
done at earliest in 2016.
The JLG Supersite and Yuma Supersite special consideration
o These monitoring sites are identified as of particular important to the ADEQ’s air monitoring network. Both of
these sites are consistently ranked high compared to the other sites. Yuma Supersite is important as a border
transport site and representative of a large MSA. JLG supersite is important due to it long trend and research
objectives for the Phoenix area. Any modernization of instrumentation or techniques should be made at these
sites first.

4. Spatial Analysis Results
See Section II (H) page 72 for the final map results.

5. Spatial Analysis Recommendations






Exploratory PM10 monitoring in the Quartzite, Kingman, and Benson/Willcox areas
o This monitoring should be conducted to determine if permanent monitoring should be done for these areas and
populations. Low cost sensors and alternative monitoring techniques are recommended to quickly and easily
determine ambient concentrations.
Exploratory PM2.5 monitoring in the Bullhead City and Benson/Willcox areas
o This monitoring should be conducted to determine if permanent monitoring should be done for these areas and
populations. Low cost sensors and alternative monitoring techniques are recommended to quickly and easily
determine ambient concentrations.
Exploratory O3 monitoring in the Kingman, Payson, and Bullhead City areas
o This monitoring should be conducted to determine if permanent monitoring should be done for these areas and
populations. Low cost sensors and alternative monitoring techniques are recommended to quickly and easily
determine ambient concentrations.

6. Spatial Analysis Conclusions




It was determined that ADEQ’s monitoring network is generally satisfactory for Arizona. The minimum monitoring
requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part 58 appendix D are being met by ADEQ and monitoring represents all major
pollutant and population centers.
It was determined that no areas in Arizona were being over represented by ADEQ’s monitoring networks. No removals
or relocations of instrument are recommended based on this analysis.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 9

Section I: Ranking Analysis
A Ranking Analysis provides an instrument-to-instrument comparison for ADEQ’s criteria networks. The purpose of the Ranking
Analysis is to determine which instruments are most crucial to air monitoring and which can be removed or relocated. The analysis
uses indicators to rank instruments for their importance to air monitoring. The indicators serve as a way to quantify different
aspects important to monitoring and public health. This is done by assigning a value, known as the Indicator Value, to the
individual instruments. The Indicator Values are on a scale from 0-10, with 0 the lowest valued and 10 the highest. The indicators
cover regulatory, demographic, geographic, and economic topics. Focusing on one indicator does not give the full picture or status
of ADEQ’s monitoring network. Therefore, the Ranking Analysis combines all of the indicators in the Section J: Final Rankings
page 35 to give a comprehensive and robust ranking of ADEQ’s monitoring network.
Chosen indicators represent a variety of pertinent areas to look at the worth of instruments; e.g. cost-effectiveness, measured
concentrations, spatial effectiveness, correlation, and population served. Nine indicators are used in the Ranking Analysis:
Table 1:

Ranking Analysis Indicators

Indicator

Description

Indicator
Type

Assigns an indicator value to instruments based on their measured concentrations,
with the highest ranking having the highest concentrations. This indicator uses
Measured
Concentration average design values from the years 2009-2013. It is considered more important to

Deviation
from the
NAAQS

Area Served

Population
Served

Monitor to
Monitor
Correlation
Length of
Record
Required
Monitor
Distance from
Phoenix
Parameters
Monitored

have instruments that measure the highest concentrations.
Assigns an indicator value to instruments using the absolute deviance from the
NAAQS. Places importance on monitors that are closest to the standard. Instruments
that are close to the standard can more easily change attainment status and are thus
considered of more important for NAAQS compliance. This indicator uses average
design values from the years 2009-2013.
Assigns an indicator value based on an instrument’s area of influence. The area of
influence is calculated using Theissen polygons. Theissen polygons are polygons
surrounding instruments which shown the relative area of representation based on the
straight line distance to other instruments. It is considered more important to have
instruments that represent large areas. A large area of influence results in a high
indicator value.
Assigns an indicator valued based on the number of people that an instrument serves.
Using the stated spatial scale of each monitor to determine each monitor’s area of
representation, population data are laid over the area to determine the represented
population. It is considered more important to have instruments that represent the
highest population. High population served results in a high indicator value.
Using the monthly averages from 2009-2013, each instrument is correlated using
Pearson’s R2 correlation coefficient. The maximum correlation to another instrument
is used to assign an indicator value. It is considered more important to have
instruments that are unique in their measurements. Low correlation with another
instrument results in a high indicator value.
The indicator value is based on how long the instrument has been operating. A longer
history is considered of greater importance to tracking trends and thus is more
meaningful for air monitoring. Instruments with the longest record receive a higher
indicator value.
This is a simple yes or no indicator. If an instrument is required, it receives the
highest indicator value.
Using the travel distance from Phoenix, instruments are assigned an indicator value
from closest to furthest. It is considered more economical to operate instruments that
are closest to ADEQ’s center of operation. The closest monitoring receives the
highest indicator value.
Using the number of individual instruments at a given site, an indicator value is
assigned. It is considered more economical to operate instruments at the same site as
other instruments. Instrument located at sites with the most number of instruments
results in high indicator value.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 10

Measured
Value

Measured
Value

Spatial

Population

Measured
Value

Historic
Regulatory
Cost
Analysis
Cost
Analysis

Each indicator uses publically available data and produces an indicator value that is unique to the different instruments. As shown,
the indicators represent a wide range of air monitoring considerations, but it is not assumed that each indicator is as important a
consideration as another. For this reason, the indicators values are weighed according to their importance. In order to establish
weights for the indicators, a survey was conducted and given to air quality professionals at ADEQ. The survey asked the
participants to place a value of the indicators. By doing this, some indicators are more heavily weighed than others. The results
of the survey were placed on the Indicator Values and a new Weighted Indicator Value was produced. Using the Weighted
Indicator Values, the monitoring networks are ranked by averaging the all the values and the highest average value being the most
important instrument in the network. The results for the Ranking Analysis are found in Section I (J) page 35. The Final
Conclusions and Recommendations (Section III page 80) then uses these rankings to determine the adequacy of ADEQ’s current
monitoring network in Arizona.
NOTE: Due to the small number of monitors in ADEQ’s Pb, CO, and NO2 networks, they are not analyzed in the Ranking Analysis.
ADEQ only operates three Pb sites, one CO site, and two NO2 sites. These networks will be analyzed in Section II page 40. The
remaining pollutant networks (SO2, O3, PM10, and PM2.5) are included in the Ranking Analysis.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 11

Measured Concentrations
This indicator assesses monitors based on the concentrations that are measured. The highest valued instrument has the highest
average design value over the past five years. Instruments are given an indicator value on a 0-10 scale, with the monitor that has
the lowest average design value receiving a value of 0, and the highest receiving a value of 10. Design values were taken from
EPA’s AQS database for the years 2009-2013 and were averaged.
It is assumed that instruments that measure higher concentrations are more important for the NAAQS, permitted sources, and
regulatory compliance because these instruments already have or have the potential to exceed the standard. This indicator does
not take into account monitors being used for reasons other than NAAQS compliance. Background, informational, and research
oriented monitors provide valuable data to be used for trends and new source permit analysis and may not have high design values.
NOTE: PM10 values used in this indicator are the not the design values. The design value for PM10 is the number of exceedances
over a three-year period. This results in a design value that does not represent actual ambient concentrations. Therefore, the highest
annual PM10 value for each year is used in place of the design value for this and subsequent indicators.

1. Results
Results for the Measured Concentrations indicator are given by pollutant. The highest 2009-2013 average is assigned an
indicator value of 10 and the lowest a 0. All instruments are assigned a value relative to these highest and lowest values.
Table 2:

SO 2 Instruments by Highest Design Value

AQS ID
Site Name

Design Value (99th Percentile of 1-hour
Maximum Concentration, Averaged over 3
years in ppb)
Average
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Indicator
Value

2009-2013
Miami Ridgeline
113
123
96
102
117
110.2
04-007-0009
3.84
Miami
Jones
Ranch
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
148
148
04-007-0011
5.24
Miami Townsite
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
117
117
04-007-0012
4.09
Hayden Old Jail
274
314
189
353
256
277.2
04-007-1001
10.00
Alamo Lake
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
04-012-8000
N/A*
JLG Supersite
7
6
5
6.1
5.5
5.92
04-013-9997
0.00
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2014 and has not operated long enough to have a valid DV
Table 3:

O 3 Instruments by Highest Design Value

AQS ID
Site Name

04-005-1008
04-007-0010
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-021-8001
04-025-8033
04-027-8011

Flagstaff Middle
School
Tonto National
Monument
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
Prescott College
AQD
Yuma Supersite

Design Value (Annual 4th-highest daily
Maximum 8-hour Concentration, Averaged
over 3 years in ppb)
Average

Indicator
Value

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

66

68

68

72

69

68.6

1.52

72

70

76

78

72

73.6

6.96

69
73
70

71
76
72

72
78
78

75
76
78

71
79
76

71.6
76.4
74.2

4.78
10.00
7.61

62

67

70

72

65

67.2

0.00

68

76

76

80

73

74.6

8.04

2009-2013

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 12

Table 4:

PM 1 0 Instruments by Highest Design Value

AQS ID
Site Name

Design Value (Highest Annual Value in
μg/m3)
Average
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Indicator
Value

2009-2013
Paul Spur Chemical
49
46
85
194
165
107.8
04-003-0011
Lime Plant
97
83
138
71
251
128.0
04-003-1005 Douglas Red Cross
Payson
40
42
39
44
58
44.6
04-007-0008
Hayden Old Jail
225
135
210
250
407
245.4
04-007-1001
N/A
52
129
90.5
04-007-8000 Miami Golf Course N/A N/A
Alamo Lake
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
04-012-8000
JLG Supersite
146
74
150
120
262
149.8
04-013-9997
Bullhead City
98
33
132
185
208
131.2
04-015-1003
Ajo
153
77
213
138
299
176.0
04-019-0001
Rillito
106
235
242
239
421
248.6
04-019-0020
Nogales Post Office
238
191
161
169
272
206.2
04-023-0004
(Continuous)
Nogales Post Office
123
96
126
102
89
107.2
04-023-0004
(Filter)
Yuma Supersite
306
124
225
274
640
313.8
04-027-8011
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2013 and has not operated long enough to have a valid DV
Table 5:

2.35
3.10
0.00
7.46
1.71
N/A*
3.91
3.22
4.88
7.58
6.00
2.33
10.00

PM 2 . 5 Instruments by Highest Design Value

AQS ID
Site Name

Design Value (98th Percentile of Annual
Values, Averaged over 3 years in μg/m3)
Average
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Indicator
Value

2009-2013
Douglas Red Cross 13.5
13.5
13.0
12.1
12.2
12.86
0.00
Alamo Lake
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A*
JLG Supersite
24.0
15.9
26.4
19.0
21.6
21.38
04-013-9997
5.51
(Continuous)
JLG Supersite
24.0
15.9
23.0
27.0
23.5
22.68
04-013-9997
6.35
(Filter)
Nogales Post
Office
29.7
31.6
27.2
25.9
27.2
28.32
04-023-0004
10.00
(Continuous)
Nogales Post
Office (Primary
29.7
31.6
27.2
25.9
25.5
27.98
04-023-0004
9.78
Filter)
Nogales Post
Office (Secondary
29.2
32.5
26.2
15.7
18.2
24.36
04-023-0004
7.44
Filter)
Yuma Supersite
15.4
13.5
15.6
15.8
17
15.46
04-027-8011
1.68
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2013 and has not operated long enough to have a valid DV
04-003-1005
04-012-8000

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 13

Deviation from the NAAQS
This indicator assesses monitors based on the absolute deviation of measured concentrations from the NAAQS. The most
important instrument in each network has the lowest deviation from the NAAQS using the average design value over the past five
years. Each pollutant network is assessed on a 0-10 scale, with the instrument that is furthest from the standard receiving a value
of 0, and the closest receiving a value of 10. Design values were taken from EPA’s AQS database for the years 2009-2013 and
averaged to obtain the final value.
It is assumed that monitors with measured concentrations that are closest to the NAAQS are most important to determine NAAQS
compliance and have greater regulatory significance. The reasoning for this indicator is to identify monitors that could most easily
be pushed into either attainment or nonattainment status. As with the measured concentration indicator, this indicator does not
take into account monitors being used for reasons other than NAAQS compliance. Background, informational, and research
oriented monitors provide valuable data to be used for trends and new source permit analysis and may not have high design values.

1. Results
Results for the Deviation from the NAAQS indicator are given by pollutant. The minimum deviation from the NAAQS using the
2009-2013 average is assigned an indicator value of 10 and the maximum a 0. All instruments are assigned a value relative to
these highest and lowest values.
Table 6:

SO 2 Instruments by Absolute Deviation from the NAAQS

Design Value (99th Percentile of 1-hour Max
Concentration, Averaged over 3 years in ppb)
AQS ID
Site Name

Abs.
Dev.
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
from
75 ppb
Miami Ridgeline
113
123
96
102
117
110.2
35.2
04-007-0009
Miami Jones Ranch
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
148
148.0
73.0
04-007-0011
Miami Townsite
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
117
117.0
42.0
04-007-0012
Hayden Old Jail
274
314
189
353
256
277.2
202.2
04-007-1001
Alamo Lake
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
04-012-8000
JLG Supersite
7
6
5
6.1
5.5
5.92
69.08
04-013-9997
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2014 and has not operated long enough to have a valid DV
Table 7:

Average
20092013

Indicator
Value
10.00
7.74
9.59
0.00
N/A*
7.97

O 3 Instruments by Absolute Deviation from the NAAQS

Design Value (Annual 4th-highest daily maximum 8hour concentration, Averaged over 3 years in ppb)
AQS ID
Site Name

04-005-1008
04-007-0010
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-021-8001
04-025-8033
04-027-8011

Flagstaff Middle
School
Tonto National
Monument
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
Prescott College AQD
Yuma Supersite

Abs.
Dev.
from
75 ppb

Indicator
Value

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Average
20092013

66

68

68

72

69

68.6

6.4

1.89

72

70

76

78

72

73.6

1.4

8.65

69
73
70
62
68

71
76
72
67
76

72
78
78
70
76

75
76
78
72
80

71
79
76
65
73

71.6
76.4
74.2
67.2
74.6

3.4
1.4
0.8
7.8
0.4

5.95
8.65
9.46
0.00
10.00

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 14

Table 8:

PM 1 0 Instruments by Absolute Deviation from the NAAQS

Highest Annual Value in μg/m3
AQS ID
Site Name

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Average
20092013

Abs.
Dev.
from
150
μg/m3

Paul Spur Chemical
49
46
85
194
165
107.8
42.2
Lime Plant
Douglas Red Cross
97
83
138
71
251
128.0
22
04-003-1005
Payson
40
42
39
44
58
44.6
105.4
04-007-0008
Hayden Old Jail
225
135
210
250
407
245.4
95.4
04-007-1001
Miami Golf Course
N/A
N/A
N/A
52
129
90.5
59.5
04-007-8000
Alamo Lake
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
04-012-8000
JLG Supersite
146
74
150
120
262
149.8
0.2
04-013-9997
Bullhead City
98
33
132
185
208
131.2
18.8
04-015-1003
Ajo
153
77
213
138
299
176.0
26
04-019-0001
Rillito
106
235
242
239
421
248.6
98.6
04-019-0020
Nogales Post Office
238
191
161
169
272
206.2
56.2
04-023-0004
(Continuous)
Nogales Post Office
123
96
126
102
89
107.2
42.8
04-023-0004
(Filter)
Yuma Supersite
306
124
225
274
640
313.8
163.8
04-027-8011
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2013 and has not operated long enough to have a valid DV
04-003-0011

Table 9:

Indicator
Value

7.43
8.67
3.57
4.18
6.38
N/A*
10.00
8.86
8.42
3.99
6.58
7.40
0.00

PM 2 . 5 Instruments by Absolute Deviation from the NAAQS

Design Value (98th Percentile of Annual Values,
Averaged over 3 years in μg/m3)
AQS ID
Site Name

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Average
20092013

Abs.
Dev.
from
35
μg/m3
22.14
N/A

Douglas Red Cross
13.5
13.5
13.0
12.1 12.2
12.86
Alamo Lake
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
JLG Supersite
24.0
15.9
26.4
19.0 21.6
21.38
13.62
04-013-9997
(Continuous)
24.0
15.9
23.0
27.0 23.5
22.68
6.68
04-013-9997 JLG Supersite (Filter)
Nogales Post Office
29.7
31.6
27.2
25.9 27.2
28.32
19.54
04-023-0004
(Continuous)
Nogales Post Office
29.7
31.6
27.2
25.9 25.5
27.98
7.02
04-023-0004
(Primary Filter)
Nogales Post Office
29.2
32.5
26.2
15.7 18.2
24.36
10.64
04-023-0004
(Secondary Filter)
Yuma Supersite
15.4
13.5
15.6
15.8
17
15.46
12.32
04-027-8011
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2013 and has not operated long enough to have a valid DV
04-003-1005
04-012-8000

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 15

Indicator
Value

0.00
N/A*
5.51
6.35
10.00
9.78
7.44
1.68

Area Served
This indicator assesses monitors based on the area of influence. All instruments in Arizona, including all state, local, and tribal
monitors are used to show the instrument’s area of representation. Theissen polygons are polygons that surround an instrument
used to show its area of representation. These are drawn by locating the midway point between monitors and creating multisided
polygons surrounding each monitor. The area in square-miles of each polygon is used to assess instruments on a 0-10 scale, with
the monitor that has the largest area receiving a value of 10 and the smallest receiving a value of 0. Monitor location data were
taken from EPA’s AQS database.
It is assumed that monitors that cover the largest areas are of higher significance to air monitoring in Arizona because it represents
the largest unique geographic area and are sampling a unique parcel of air. Instruments that are close together generally measure
the same concentration, therefore it would be advantageous to operate an instrument that covers the largest area. Instruments on
the edge of urban areas or background type monitors typically have a larger area of influence.
This indicator has disadvantages in that each pollutant cannot be represented over a very large area because of meteorology or
topographic changes. Some polygons are so large that it shows a monitor having a representation of half the state. The monitors
in these very large areas would not actually be representative of ambient concentrations in the entire area; therefore, this indicator
is purely spatial in nature.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 16

1. Results
Results for the Area Served indicator are given by pollutant. The maximum area served is assigned an indicator value of 10 and
the minimum a 0. All instruments are assigned a value relative to these highest and lowest values.
Table 10:

SO 2 Instruments by Area Served

AQS ID
Site Name
04-007-0009
04-007-0011
04-007-0012
04-007-1001
04-012-8000
04-013-9997

Miami Ridgeline
Miami Jones Ranch
Miami Townsite
Hayden Old Jail
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite

Area
Served (sqmi)

Indicator
Value

30484
323
4321
8770
52064
10483

5.85
0.00
0.78
1.64
10.00
1.97

Figure 2: SO2 Thiessen Polygons

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 17

Table 11:

O 3 Instruments by Area Served

AQS ID
Site Name
04-005-1008
04-007-0010
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-021-8001
04-025-8033
04-027-8011

Flagstaff Middle
School
Tonto National
Monument
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
Prescott College
AQD
Yuma Supersite

Area
Served (sqmi)

Indicator
Value

8046

4.32

5578

2.99

18609
19
1583

10.00
0.00
0.84

5224

2.80

15384

8.27

Figure 3: O3 Thiessen Polygons

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 18

Table 12:

PM 1 0 Instruments by Area Served

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-0011
04-003-1005
04-007-0008
04-007-1001
04-007-8000
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-015-1003
04-019-0001
04-019-0020
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-027-8011

Paul Spur Chemical
Lime Plant
Douglas Red Cross
Payson
Hayden Old Jail
Miami Golf Course
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Bullhead City
Ajo
Rillito
Nogales Post Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post Office
(Filter)
Yuma Supersite

Area
Served (sqmi)

Indicator
Value

2468

2.07

3748
4419
885
1650
7886
17
8963
10819
290

3.15
3.72
0.73
1.38
6.64
0.00
7.55
9.12
0.23

2126

1.78

2126

1.78

11860

10.00

Figure 4: PM10 Thiessen Polygons

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 19

Table 13:

PM 2 . 5 Instruments by Area Served

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-1005
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-013-9997
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-027-8011

Douglas Red Cross
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
(Continuous)
JLG Supersite
(Filter)
Nogales Post Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post Office
(Primary Filter)
Nogales Post Office
(Secondary Filter)
Yuma Supersite

Area
Served (sqmi)

Indicator
Value

7538
24968

3.01
10.00

30

0.00

30

0.00

4713

1.88

4713

1.88

4713

1.88

16176

6.47

Figure 5: PM2.5 Thiessen Polygons

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 20

Population Served
This indicator assesses instruments by the number of people that it represents. Instruments have a stated spatial scale related to
their monitoring objectives and purposes, ranging from a few meters to global. EPA’s spatial scales and distances are found in
Table 14. The spatial scales of monitors are determined by ADEQ before installation and recorded in AQS and in the Network
Plan. The EPA confirms the spatial scale. The spatial scale distances are effectively a radius of a circle in which the concentration
readings are relatively uniform.
Using the spatial scale of each monitor, population data are laid over the spatial scale areas and the number of individuals in that
area are counted to determine the population served. Population data are broken up into census blocks (small areas of population
data). To calculate the population in the spatial scale area, total population data were superimposed with the spatial scale circle
and then calculated in ArcGIS.
The population in each spatial scale circle is used to assess monitors on a 0-10 scale, with the monitor that has the greatest
population receiving a value of 10 and the smallest receiving a value of 0. Population data are taken from the 2010 US Census.
It is assumed that a monitor that represents the largest population is of greatest significance. There are many advantages of using
the spatial scale of each monitor to calculate the population served. Monitors are specifically sited to represent the area and
population directly surrounding the site. The siting takes into account pollutant sources, roadways, topography, and meteorological
considerations to represent the stated spatial scale. This indicator has disadvantages in that it does not take into account the specific
purpose of each monitor (background, regional, source specific). Some instruments are not population oriented thus may not
represent a large number of people. This is dealt with by only ranking the neighborhood scale type of monitors in each pollutant
network as the neighborhood scale is population oriented.
NOTE: Since this indicator is population oriented, instruments whose purposes are not for population exposure bias the population
results. ADEQ mainly monitors for population exposure using the neighborhood spatial scale. Since this scale is the predominate
type for pollutant networks, the ranking values are based on these monitors. Regional scale monitors receive a ranking value of
10. Micro scale and middle scale monitors receive a ranking value of 0. Also, since JLG Supersite is located in a geographic,
demographic, and urban anomaly compared to the rest of ADEQ’s monitors, it also receives a ranking value of 10. All other
monitors are ranked on a 0-10 scale.
Table 14:

EPA Monitoring Spatial Scales

Type

Distance

Micro

<100 meters

Middle

0.1-0.5
kilometers

Neighborhood

0.5-4.0
kilometers

Urban

4.0-50.0
kilometers

Regional
National and
Global

Description
Defines the concentrations in air volumes associated with area
dimensions ranging from several meters up to about 100 meters.
Defines the concentration typical of areas up to several city blocks in
size with dimensions ranging from about 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer.
Defines concentrations within some extended area of the city that has
relatively uniform land use with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers
range. The neighborhood and urban scales listed below have the
potential to overlap in applications that concern secondarily formed or
homogeneously distributed air pollutants.
Defines concentrations within an area of city-like dimensions, on the
order of 4 to 50 kilometers. Within a city, the geographic placement of
sources may result in there being no single site that can be said to
represent air quality on an urban scale.

Tens to
Defines usually a rural area of reasonably homogeneous geography
hundreds of
without large sources, and extends from tens to hundreds of kilometers.
kilometers*
A whole nation
These measurement scales represent concentrations characterizing the
or the entire
nation and the globe as a whole.
globe
*For purposes of this report, regional scale monitors use a radius of 100km

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 21

1. Results
Results for the Population Served indicator are given by pollutant. The maximum population served is assigned an indicator
value of 10 and the minimum a 0. All instruments are assigned a value relative to these highest and lowest values. Removing
the regional scale, middle scale, and JLG Supersite from the Indicator Value scale results in Yuma Supersite having the largest
population served of 54,096 individuals.
Table 15:

SO 2 Instruments by Population Served

AQS ID
Site Name
04-007-0009
04-007-0011
04-007-0012
04-007-1001
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
Table 16:

Miami Ridgeline
Miami Jones Ranch
Miami Townsite
Hayden Old Jail
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite

Population
Served

Indicator
Value

Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Regional
Neighborhood

5,495
3,797
3,791
1,060
141,708
127,039

0.84
0.52
0.51
0.00
10.00
10.00

Spatial Scale

Population
Served

Indicator
Value

Neighborhood

41,273

7.58

Regional

4,450,878

10.00

Regional
Neighborhood
Regional

141,708
127,039
5,533,563

10.00
10.00
10.00

Neighborhood

29,765

5.41

Neighborhood

54,096

10.00

Spatial Scale

Population
Served

Indicator
Value

Middle

0.6

0.00

Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Regional
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Middle

18,860
14,841
1,060
8,615
141,708
127,039
6,421
3,226
142

3.36
2.60
0.00
1.42
10.00
10.00
1.01
0.41
0.00

Neighborhood

15,910

2.80

Neighborhood

15,910

2.80

Neighborhood

54,096

10.00

O 3 Instruments by Population Served

AQS ID
Site Name
04-005-1008
04-007-0010
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-021-8001
04-025-8033
04-027-8011
Table 17:

Spatial Scale

Flagstaff Middle
School
Tonto National
Monument
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
Prescott College
AQD
Yuma Supersite

PM 1 0 Instruments by Population Served

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-0011
04-003-1005
04-007-0008
04-007-1001
04-007-8000
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-015-1003
04-019-0001
04-019-0020
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-027-8011

Paul Spur Chemical
Lime Plant
Douglas Red Cross
Payson
Hayden Old Jail
Miami Golf Course
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Bullhead City
Ajo
Rillito
Nogales Post Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post Office
(Filter)
Yuma Supersite

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 22

Table 18:

PM 2 . 5 Instruments by Population Served

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-1005
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-013-9997
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-027-8011

Douglas Red Cross
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
(Continuous)
JLG Supersite
(Filter)
Nogales Post Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post Office
(Primary Filter)
Nogales Post Office
(Secondary Filter)
Yuma Supersite

Spatial Scale

Population
Served

Indicator
Value

Neighborhood
Regional

18,860
141,708

3.36
10.00

Neighborhood

127,039

10.00

Neighborhood

127,039

10.00

Neighborhood

15,910

2.80

Neighborhood

15,910

2.80

Neighborhood

15,910

2.80

Neighborhood

54,096

10.00

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 23

Figure 6: Population Served by Site

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 24

Correlation Between Monitors
This indicator assesses instruments based on how well each monitor correlates with other monitors. The correlation used is
Pearson’s R2 or coefficient of determination and it is a measure of linear correlation between two data sets, giving a value between
0.0 and 1.0. The maximum correlation for every instrument is used by this indicator to assess an instrument’s statistical uniqueness.
The highest assessed instrument in each network has the lowest correlation from other instruments over the past five years (20092013). Each pollutant network is assessed on a 0-10 scale, with the monitor that correlates best receiving a value of 0, and the most
unique instrument receiving a value of 10.
Daily average concentration data were taken from EPA’s AQS database for the years 2009-2013 and averaged into monthly means.
Monthly means were chosen to determine if sites on a large scale are similar to one other. All monitors in the pollutant networks
in Arizona were used to determine correlation for each of ADEQ’s monitors. Data were used from Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD), Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQD), Pima County Department of Environmental County
(PDEQ), tribal monitors, and the National Park Service and taken from EPA’s AQS database.
It is assumed that monitors that are most different from other monitors are most important because they may have a unique data
set that is not represented elsewhere. If monitors correlate well with each other, then they may be monitoring the same pollutant
sources and in the same area. This would be beneficial to determine which monitors are suitable for removal/relocation.
This indicator has disadvantages in that it does not take into account the requirements for collocation of monitors. The purpose of
a collocated monitor is to ensure that there is good correlation; therefore, in these circumstances it would be advantageous to have
monitors that correlate well.

1. Results
Results for the Correlation Between Monitors indicator are given by pollutant. The least correlated instrument is assigned an
indicator value of 10 and the most a 0. All instruments are assigned a value relative to these highest and lowest values.
Table 19:

SO 2 Instruments by Correlation Between Monitors

AQS ID
Site Name

Maximum
Correlation

Highest Correlated
Instrument

Indicator
Value

Miami Ridgeline
0.771
Miami Townsite
04-007-0009
Miami Jones Ranch
0.670
Miami Ridgeline
04-007-0011
Miami Townsite
0.771
Miami Ridgeline
04-007-0012
Hayden Old Jail
0.152
Children’s Park NCore
04-007-1001
Alamo Lake
N/A
N/A
04-012-8000
JLG Supersite
0.590
Miami Jones Ranch
04-013-9997
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2014 and has not operated long for the correlation
Table 20:

0.00
1.62
0.00
10.00
N/A*
2.91

O 3 Instruments by Correlation Between Monitors

AQS ID
Site Name

Maximum
Correlation

Highest Correlated
Instrument

Indicator
Value

Flagstaff Middle School
0.925
Prescott College AQD
04-005-1008
6.17
Tonto National Monument
0.938
Queen Valley
04-007-0010
4.81
Alamo Lake
0.932
Prescott College
04-012-8000
5.49
JLG Supersite
0.987
West Phoenix
04-013-9997
0.00
Queen Valley
0.940
Saguaro Park
04-021-8001
4.69
Prescott College AQD
0.932
Alamo Lake
04-025-8033
5.49
Yuma Supersite
0.886
Alamo Lake
04-027-8011
10.00
Note: All of the O3 monitors correlate very well with each other, all having a minimum correlation
coefficient of 0.886. This indicates that O3 is a regional issue and not a microscale problem.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 25

Table 21:

PM 1 0 Instruments by Correlation Between Monitors

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-0011

Paul Spur Chemical Lime
Plant

Maximum
Correlation

Highest Correlated
Instrument

Indicator
Value

0.424

Douglas Red Cross

7.55

Paul Spur Chem Lime
Plant
Payson
0.277
Prince Road
04-007-0008
Hayden Old Jail
0.551
Green Valley
04-007-1001
Miami Golf Course
0.488
Hayden Old Jail
04-007-8000
Alamo Lake
N/A
N/A
04-012-8000
JLG Supersite
0.880
Central Phoenix
04-013-9997
Bullhead City
0.468
Durango Complex
04-015-1003
Ajo
0.516
Central Phoenix
04-019-0001
Rillito
0.519
Green Valley
04-019-0020
Nogales Post Office
Nogales Post Office
0.697
04-023-0004
(Continuous)
(Filter)
Nogales Post Office
Nogales Post Office (Filter)
0.697
04-023-0004
(Continuous)
Yuma Supersite
0.423
Bullhead City
04-027-8011
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2013 and has not operated long for the correlation
04-003-1005

Table 22:

Douglas Red Cross

0.424

7.56
10.00
5.45
6.50
N/A*
0.00
6.83
6.02
5.99
3.03
3.03
7.57

PM 2 . 5 Instruments by Correlation Between Monitors

AQS ID
Site Name

0.208
N/A

Highest Correlated
Instrument

Yuma Supersite
N/A
Nogales Post Office
0.840
04-013-9997 JLG Supersite (Continuous)
(Continuous)
JLG
Supersite
(Filter)
0.839
West
Phoenix
04-013-9997
Nogales Post Office
Nogales Post Office
0.945
04-023-0004
(Continuous)
(Primary Filter)
Nogales Post Office
Nogales Post Office
0.964
04-023-0004
(Primary Filter)
(Secondary Filter)
Nogales Post Office
Nogales Post Office
0.964
04-023-0004
(Secondary Filter)
(Primary Filter)
Yuma Supersite
0.303
Cowtown
04-027-8011
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2013 and has not operated long for the correlation
04-003-1005
04-012-8000

Douglas Red Cross
Alamo Lake

Maximum
Correlation

Indicator
Value
10
N/A*

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 26

1.63
1.65
0.25
0.00
0.00
8.74

Length of Record
The length of record indicator values instruments based on their length of record. Greater length of record provides valuable trends
data that new monitors do not have. It is assumed that monitors with the longest record are most valuable, and are ranked the
highest in each network. The number of monitoring years for this ranking are taken from the number of continuous years of
operation for every instrument. If there is a collocated monitor at a site, then the separate monitors have different time periods in
order to more accurately rank them against each other. Pollutant networks are assessed on a 0-10 scale, with the monitor that has
the shortest record receiving a value of 0, and the longest receiving a value of 10.
It is assumed that a monitor has greater regulatory and research significance if it has been operating in the same location for a
longer period of time and therefore long term trends can be produced with greater confidence. Having a long trend record helps
support achievement of the standard in nonattainment areas and also aids in air quality related research by providing a larger and
more accurate dataset.
This indicator has disadvantages in that it tracks the trends of individual monitors when sites are collocated rather than the primary
instrument. For example in Nogales, the primary PM2.5 instrument has recently been upgraded, but the secondary instrument has
been in operation for many more years. This indicator values the instrument that has been in operation for longer. Also, due to
constant advances in technology, it is more advantageous to have a newer instrument rather than older ones. Newer monitors can
also give continuous data on an hourly or even minute basis as opposed to a daily basis. These newer monitors have a shorter time
period and thus are ranked lower.

1. Results
Results for the Length of Record indicator are given by pollutant. The longest record instrument is assigned an indicator value
of 10 and the shortest a 0. All instruments are assigned a value relative to these highest and lowest values.
Table 23:

SO 2 Instruments by Length of Record

AQS ID
Site Name
04-007-0009
04-007-0011
04-007-0012
04-007-1001
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
Table 24:

Miami Ridgeline
Miami Jones Ranch
Miami Townsite
Hayden Old Jail
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite

Length of
Record
(Years)

Indicator
Value

20
2
2
40
1
10

5.00
0.50
0.50
10
0.25
2.50

Length of
Record
(Years)

Indicator
Value

7

3.18

13

5.91

10
22
17

4.55
10
7.73

7

3.18

7

3.18

O 3 Instruments by Length of Record

AQS ID
Site Name
04-005-1008
04-007-0010
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-021-8001
04-025-8033
04-027-8011

Flagstaff Middle
School
Tonto National
Monument
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
Prescott College
AQD
Yuma Supersite

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 27

Table 25:

PM 1 0 Instruments by Length of Record

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-0011
04-003-1005
04-007-0008
04-007-1001
04-007-8000
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-015-1003
04-019-0001
04-019-0020
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-027-8011
Table 26:

Length of
Record
(Years)

Indicator
Value

24

7.06

17
24
34
3
2
22
18
24
30

5.00
7.06
10.00
0.88
0.59
6.47
5.29
7.06
8.82

12

3.53

28

8.24

6

1.76

Length of
Record
(Years)

Indicator
Value

15
2

9.38
1.25

4

2.50

16

10.00

2

1.25

16

10.00

16

10.00

5

3.13

Paul Spur Chemical
Lime Plant
Douglas Red Cross
Payson
Hayden Old Jail
Miami Golf Course
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Bullhead City
Ajo
Rillito
Nogales Post Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post Office
(Filter)
Yuma Supersite

PM 2 . 5 Instruments by Length of Record

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-1005
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-013-9997
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-027-8011

Douglas Red Cross
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
(Continuous)
JLG Supersite
(Filter)
Nogales Post Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post Office
(Primary Filter)
Nogales Post Office
(Secondary Filter)
Yuma Supersite

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 28

Required Monitor
The required monitor indicator is a regulatory type indicator and is a simple yes or no. Regulations in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix
D contain minimum monitoring requirements per Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Some pollutant networks require
minimum monitoring based on populations, pollutant concentrations, or source emissions. Any additionally required instrument
are subject to the EPA regional administrator and therefore the number of required instruments in an area may be more or less than
what is stated in the CFR. If a monitor is required under minimum monitoring requirements in the CFR or by the regional
administrator, it receives the highest value of 10; if it is not required, it receives a value of 0.
It is assumed that it is more important to have a monitor that is required by EPA. The minimum requirements for monitoring were
created to set the standard needed for monitoring for any given situation. This indicator has disadvantages in that it does not take
into account the full breadth of monitoring needed to fully characterize a unique area’s ambient air quality.

1. Results
Results for the Required Monitor indicator are given by pollutant. The required monitors are assigned an indicator value of 10
and the non-required a 0.
Table 27:

SO 2 Instruments by Required Monitor

AQS ID
Site Name
04-007-0009
04-007-0011
04-007-0012
04-007-1001
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
Table 28:

Miami
Ridgeline
Miami Jones
Ranch
Miami
Townsite
Hayden Old
Jail
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite

Required
Monitor?

Indicator
Value

Yes

10

Yes

10

Yes

10

Yes

10

No
Yes

0
10

Required
Monitor?

Indicator
Value

Yes

10

Yes

10

Yes
Yes
Yes

10
10
10

Yes

10

Yes

10

O 3 Instruments by Required Monitor

AQS ID
Site Name
04-005-1008
04-007-0010
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-021-8001
04-025-8033
04-027-8011

Flagstaff
Middle School
Tonto
National
Monument
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
Prescott
College AQD
Yuma
Supersite

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 29

Table 29:

PM 1 0 Instruments by Required Monitor

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-0011
04-003-1005
04-007-0008
04-007-1001
04-007-8000
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-015-1003
04-019-0001
04-019-0020
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-027-8011

Table 30:

Required
Monitor?

Indicator
Value

Yes

10

Yes

10

Yes

10

Yes

10

Yes

10

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

10
10
10
10
10

Yes

10

No

0

Yes

10

Paul Spur
Chemical
Lime Plant
Douglas Red
Cross
Payson
Hayden Old
Jail
Miami Golf
Course
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Bullhead City
Ajo
Rillito
Nogales Post
Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post
Office (Filter)
Yuma
Supersite

PM 2 . 5 Instruments by Required Monitor

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-1005
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-013-9997
04-023-0004

04-023-0004

04-023-0004

04-027-8011

Douglas Red
Cross
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
(Continuous)
JLG Supersite
(Filter)
Nogales Post
Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post
Office
(Primary
Filter)
Nogales Post
Office
(Secondary
Filter)
Yuma
Supersite

Required
Monitor?

Indicator
Value

Yes

10

Yes

10

Yes

10

Yes

10

Yes

10

Yes

10

No

0

Yes

10

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 30

Distance from Phoenix
The distance from Phoenix indicator is a cost based indicator which uses the road distance between the ADEQ’s Phoenix main
office and each site location. All instruments in ADEQ’s pollutant networks are assessed against each other on a scale of 0-10,
with the monitor furthest away from Phoenix receiving a value of 0, and the closest a value of 10.
It is assumed that it is more economically viable to operate sites that are closer to the Phoenix main office because air monitoring
operations are based in Phoenix. As part of the data quality management, required quality control checks on instruments are made
frequently on monitors. Travel to the sites is a required component of operations, and all travel costs (vehicle mileage, fuel, staff
time) are the consideration for this indicator.
This indicator has disadvantages in that it does not take into account the need and desire of ADEQ to enhance the public health in
all of Arizona. It can be interpreted as favoring those that live in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, but this indicator is purely
economic in nature and ADEQ does not support favoring any population over another. This indicator also does not take into
account the possibility of combining trips when maintaining and performing quality control checks at each site.

1. Results
Results for the Distance from Phoenix indicator are given by pollutant. The minimum distance from ADEQ is assigned an
indicator value of 10 and the maximum a 0. All instruments are assigned a value relative to these highest and lowest values.
Table 31:

SO 2 Instruments by Distance from Phoenix

AQS ID
Site Name
04-007-0009
04-007-0011
04-007-0012
04-007-1001
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
Table 32:

Miami Ridgeline
Miami Jones
Ranch
Miami Townsite
Hayden Old Jail
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite

Distance in
Miles

Indicator
Value

82

6.73

82

6.73

82
95
134
5

6.73
6.22
4.66
9.80

O 3 Instruments by Distance from Phoenix

AQS ID
Site Name
04-005-1008
04-007-0010
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-021-8001
04-025-8033
04-027-8011

Flagstaff Middle
School
Tonto National
Monument
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
Prescott College
AQD
Yuma Supersite

Distance in
Miles

Indicator
Value

152

3.94

109

5.66

134
5
56

4.66
9.80
7.77

99

6.06

184

2.67

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 31

Table 33:

PM 1 0 Instruments by Distance from Phoenix

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-0011
04-003-1005
04-007-0008
04-007-1001
04-007-8000
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-015-1003
04-019-0001
04-019-0020
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-027-8011
Table 34:

Paul Spur
Chemical Lime
Plant
Douglas Red
Cross
Payson
Hayden Old Jail
Miami Golf
Course
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Bullhead City
Ajo
Rillito
Nogales Post
Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post
Office (Filter)
Yuma Supersite

Distance in
Miles

Indicator
Value

234

0.68

234

0.68

89
95

6.45
6.22

82

6.73

134
5
251
111
97

4.66
9.80
0.00
5.58
6.14

179

2.87

179

2.87

184

2.67

PM 2 . 5 Instruments by Distance from Phoenix

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-1005
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-013-9997
04-023-0004

04-023-0004

04-023-0004
04-027-8011

Douglas Red Cross
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
(Continuous)
JLG Supersite
(Filter)
Nogales Post
Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post
Office (Primary
Filter)
Nogales Post
Office (Secondary
Filter)
Yuma Supersite

Distance in
Miles

Indicator
Value

234
134

0.68
4.66

5

9.80

5

9.80

179

2.87

179

2.87

179

2.87

184

2.67

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 32

Parameters Monitored
The number of parameters monitored indicator is a cost based indicator that uses data from the Air Monitoring Network Plan,
which contains the number of parameters at each site. A parameter is defined as a physical piece of equipment which gives a
unique set of measured data. This is different than counting the number criteria pollutant instruments as a site has other noncriteria parameters such as shelter temperature or wind speed. The site having the most parameters monitored receives a value of
10, and the least a value of 0.
It is assumed that it is more economically viable to operate sites with more monitored parameters. It is more economical to operate
because utilizing existing infrastructure, consolidating site trips, and combining utilities are all ways to have a more cost-effective
monitoring network. This indicator has disadvantages in that it does not take into account the need for optimizing a network based
on unique sources and populations. If a new monitor were placed at a site solely because that site has many parameters, it may
not be in the correct location to accurately represent the purpose of the monitor. If the purpose of an instrument is to monitor a
specific source or population, then it would better to place the monitor on its own.
NOTE: Since JLG supersite has more than twice the number of parameters as any other site and would unfairly bias the
rankings, only the seven criteria pollutants are counted at that site. By counting only the criteria parameters, it still is the highest
valued site with 8 parameters.

1. Results
Results for the Parameters Monitored indicator are given by pollutant. The maximum number of instruments at a site is assigned
an indicator value of 10 and the minimum a 0. All instruments are assigned a value relative to these highest and lowest values.
Table 35:

SO 2 Instruments by Parameters Monitored

AQS ID
Site Name
04-007-0009
04-007-0011
04-007-0012
04-007-1001
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
Table 36:

Total
Parameters
Monitored

Indicator
Value

1

1.25

1

1.25

1
4
7
8

1.25
5.00
8.75
10.00

Total
Parameters
Monitored

Indicator
Value

2

2.50

2

2.50

7
8
6

8.75
10.00
7.50

2

2.50

5

6.25

Miami Ridgeline
Miami Jones
Ranch
Miami Townsite
Hayden Old Jail
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite

O 3 Instruments by Parameters Monitored

AQS ID
Site Name
04-005-1008
04-007-0010
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-021-8001
04-025-8033
04-027-8011

Flagstaff Middle
School
Tonto National
Monument
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Queen Valley
Prescott College
AQD
Yuma Supersite

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 33

Table 37:

PM 1 0 Instruments by Parameters Monitored

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-0011
04-003-1005
04-007-0008
04-007-1001
04-007-8000
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-015-1003
04-019-0001
04-019-0020
04-023-0004
04-023-0004
04-027-8011
Table 38:

Paul Spur
Chemical Lime
Plant
Douglas Red
Cross
Payson
Hayden Old Jail
Miami Golf
Course
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
Bullhead City
Ajo
Rillito
Nogales Post
Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post
Office (Filter)
Yuma Supersite

Total
Parameters
Monitored

Indicator
Value

3

3.75

5

6.25

4
4

5.00
5.00

4

5.00

7
8
1
3
3

8.75
10.00
1.25
3.75
3.75

7

8.75

7

8.75

5

6.25

PM 2 . 5 Instruments by Parameters Monitored

AQS ID
Site Name
04-003-1005
04-012-8000
04-013-9997
04-013-9997
04-023-0004

04-023-0004

04-023-0004
04-027-8011

Douglas Red
Cross
Alamo Lake
JLG Supersite
(Continuous)
JLG Supersite
(Filter)
Nogales Post
Office
(Continuous)
Nogales Post
Office (Primary
Filter)
Nogales Post
Office (Secondary
Filter)
Yuma Supersite

Total
Parameters
Monitored

Indicator
Value

5

6.25

7

8.75

8

10.00

8

10.00

7

8.75

7

8.75

7

8.75

5

6.25

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 34

Final Rankings
The final rankings combines all the indicators in the Ranking Analysis and ranks the instruments by averaging the indicator values.
The highest indicator value average is the highest ranked instrument in the network and is therefore the most meaningful and
important. The lowest ranked instrument could be considered for relocation or removal if possible. Recommendations for possible
relocation, removal, or addition of monitors are in Section III page 80 of this assessment.
Indicator values from each of the previous indicator sections are then individually weighted and averaged to get a final ranking.
Results are shown both weighted and un-weighted. Weighing the indicators is necessary because it is not assumed that all the
indicators have the same importance to the public welfare, regulatory actions, and to ambient air monitoring in Arizona. For
example, the measured concentration indicator is considered to be of higher importance and has more meaning than the Distance
from Phoenix indicator. Both indicators are considerations when running an air monitoring network, but operating an instrument
that has higher concentrations is of higher significance than how far that instrument is from Phoenix.
Weights were derived from a survey given to ADEQ’s Air Quality Division staff and others in Arizona’s air monitoring
community. The survey was conducted by asking each individual to rate the significance of each indicator listed in Section I page
10. A total of 35 surveys were collected from ADEQ staff, project leaders, and management. Surveys were then averaged to
determine a final weight for each indicator. The survey asked participants to rate the indicators on a scale from 0-200%. If an
indicator had regular importance, it was given a 100% rating. Indicators with lower importance were rated lower than 100% and
higher importance were rated higher than 100%. The survey results were averaged and the resultant percentage was multiplied to
the indicator values. The results from the survey are found in Table 39. The weighted indicator values were then averaged by
instrument for the Final Rankings.
Table 39:

Ranking Analysis Pollutant Results from the Survey

Indicator

O3

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

Measured Concentration
Deviation from the
NAAQS
Area Served
Population Served
Monitor to Monitor
Correlation
Length of Record
Required Monitor
Distance from Phoenix
Parameters Monitored

190%

170%

190%

180%

150%

120%

140%

140%

140%
170%

90%
130%

120%
170%

110%
160%

130%

120%

140%

130%

110%
150%
60%
100%

100%
140%
50%
100%

120%
150%
60%
110%

110%
150%
60%
110%

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 35

1. Results
The ranking results for the four pollutant networks are shown hereafter. The unweighted and weighted ranking results are shown to compare the difference before the
weighting and after the weighting. The highest indicator average is the highest ranked monitor and is the most important and meaningful to air monitoring.
a. SO2 Results
Table 40:

Measured
Concentration

Deviation
from the
NAAQS

Area
Served

Population
Served

Correlation
Between
Monitors

Length
of
Record

Required
Monitor

Distance
from
Phoenix

Parameters
Monitored

Average

Rank

6.53 (3.84)

12 (10)

5.27
(5.85)

1.09 (0.84)

0 (0)

5 (5)

14 (10)

3.37
(6.73)

1.25 (1.25)

5.39

4

8.91 (5.24)

9.29
(7.74)

0 (0)

0.68 (0.52)

1.94 (1.62)

0.5
(0.5)

14 (10)

3.37
(6.73)

1.25 (1.25)

4.44

5

6.95 (4.09)

11.51
(9.59)

0.7
(0.78)

0.68 (0.52)

0 (0)

0.5
(0.5)

14 (10)

3.37
(6.73)

1.25 (1.25)

4.33

6

Hayden
Old Jail

17 (10)

0 (0)

1.48
(1.64)

0 (0)

12 (10)

10 (10)

14 (10)

3.11
(6.22)

5 (5)

6.95

1

Alamo
Lake

N/A*

N/A*

9 (10)

13 (10)

N/A*

0.25
(0.25)

0 (0)

2.33
(4.66)

8.75 (8.75)

5.56

3

2.5
(2.5)

14 (10)

4.9 (9.8)

10 (10)

6.58

2

AQS ID
Site Name
040070009
040070011
040070012
040071001
040128000
040139997

Weighted SO 2 Instrument Results. Unweighted Results in Parentheses

Miami
Ridgeline
Miami
Jones
Ranch
Miami
Townsite

JLG
9.56
1.77
0 (0)
13 (10)
3.5 (2.91)
Supersite
(7.97)
(1.97)
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2014 and has not operated long for the Ranking Values

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 36

b. O3 Results
Table 41:
AQS ID
Site Name
040051008
040070010
040128000
040139997
040218001
040258033
040278011

Weighted O 3 Instrument Results. Unweighted Results in Parentheses
Measured
Concentration

Deviation
from the
NAAQS

Area
Served

Population
Served

Correlation
Between
Monitors

Length
of
Record

Required
Monitor

Distance
from
Phoenix

Parameters
Monitored

Average

Rank

Flagstaff
Middle
School
Tonto
National
Mon.
Alamo
Lake

2.89 (1.52)

2.84
(1.89)

6.05
(4.32)

12.89
(7.58)

8.02 (6.17)

3.5
(3.18)

15 (10)

2.36
(3.94)

2.5 (2.5)

6.23

6

13.22 (6.96)

12.97
(8.65)

4.19
(2.99)

17 (10)

6.25 (4.81)

6.5
(5.91)

15 (10)

3.4 (5.66)

2.5 (2.5)

9.00

5

9.08 (4.78)

8.92
(5.95)

14 (10)

17 (10)

7.14 (5.49)

5.01
(4.55)

15 (10)

2.8 (4.66)

8.75 (8.75)

9.74

4

JLG
Supersite

19 (10)

12.97
(8.65)

0 (0)

17 (10)

0 (0)

11 (10)

15 (10)

5.88 (9.8)

10 (10)

10.09

2

14.46 (7.61)

14.19
(9.46)

1.18
(0.84)

17 (10)

6.1 (4.69)

8.5
(7.73)

15 (10)

4.66
(7.77)

7.5 (7.5)

9.84

3

0 (0)

0 (0)

3.92
(2.8)

9.2 (5.41)

7.14 (5.49)

3.5
(3.18)

15 (10)

3.64
(6.06)

2.5 (2.5)

4.99

7

15.28 (8.04)

15 (10)

11.58
(8.27)

17 (10)

13 (10)

3.5
(3.18)

15 (10)

1.6 (2.67)

6.25 (6.25)

10.91

1

Queen
Valley
Prescott
College
AQD
Yuma
Supersite

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 37

c. PM10 Results
Table 42:
Weighted PM 1 0 Instrument Results. Unweighted Results in Parentheses
Measured
Concentration

Deviation
from the
NAAQS

Area
Served

Population
Served

Correlation
Between
Monitors

Length
of
Record

Required
Monitor

Distance
from
Phoenix

Parameters
Monitored

Average

Rank

Paul Spur
Chem Lime

4.47 (2.35)

10.4
(7.43)

2.48
(2.07)

0 (0)

10.57
(7.55)

8.47
(7.06)

15 (10)

0.41
(0.68)

4.13 (3.75)

6.21

11

Douglas

5.89 (3.1)

12.14
(8.67)

3.78
(3.15)

5.71 (3.36)

10.58
(7.56)

6 (5)

15 (10)

0.41
(0.68)

6.88 (6.25)

7.38

5

Payson

0 (0)

5 (3.57)

4.46
(3.72)

4.42 (2.6)

14 (10)

8.47
(7.06)

15 (10)

3.87
(6.45)

5.5 (5)

6.75

10

Hayden Old
Jail

14.17 (7.46)

5.85
(4.18)

0.88
(0.73)

0 (0)

7.63 (5.45)

12 (10)

15 (10)

3.73
(6.22)

5.5 (5)

7.20

6

Miami Golf
Course

3.25 (1.71)

8.93
(6.38)

1.65
(1.38)

2.41 (1.42)

9.09 (6.5)

1.06
(0.88)

15 (10)

4.04
(6.73)

5.5 (5)

5.66

12

Alamo Lake

N/A*

N/A*

7.97
(6.64)

17 (10)

N/A*

0.71
(0.59)

15 (10)

2.8 (4.66)

9.63 (8.75)

8.85

2

JLG
Supersite

7.43 (3.91)

14 (10)

0 (0)

17 (10)

0 (0)

7.76
(6.47)

15 (10)

5.88 (9.8)

11 (10)

8.67

3

Bullhead
City

6.12 (3.22)

12.4
(8.86)

9.06
(7.55)

1.72 (1.01)

6.32 (4.52)

6.35
(5.29)

15 (10)

0 (0)

1.38 (1.25)

6.84

9

Ajo

9.27 (4.88)

11.79
(8.42)

10.95
(9.12)

0.7 (0.41)

8.43 (6.02)

8.47
(7.06)

15 (10)

3.35
(5.58)

4.13 (3.75)

8.01

4

Rillito

14.4 (7.58)

5.59
(3.99)

0.28
(0.23)

0 (0)

8.38 (5.99)

10.58
(8.82)

15 (10)

3.68
(6.14)

4.13 (3.75)

6.89

8

4.24
(3.53)

15 (10)

1.72
(2.87)

9.63 (8.75)

6.93

7

9.89
(8.24)

0 (0)

1.72
(2.87)

9.63 (8.75)

5.24

13

2.11
(1.76)

15 (10)

1.6 (2.67)

6.88 (6.25)

9.35

1

AQS ID
Site Name
040030011
040031005
040070008
040071001
040078000
040128000
040139997
04015100
040190001
040190020

Nogales Post
9.21
2.14
Office
11.4 (6)
4.76 (2.8)
4.25 (3.03)
(6.58)
(1.78)
(Continuous)
Nogales Post
0410.36
2.14
023Office
4.43 (2.33)
4.76 (2.8)
4.25 (3.03)
(7.4)
(1.78)
0004
(Filter)
04Yuma
02719 (10)
0 (0)
12 (10)
17 (10)
10.6 (7.57)
Supersite
8011
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2014 and has not operated long for the Ranking Values
040230004

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 38

d. PM2.5 Results
Table 43:
Weighted PM 2 . 5 Instrument Results. Unweighted Results in Parentheses
Measured
Concentration

Deviation
from the
NAAQS

Area
Served

Population
Served

Correlation
Between
Monitors

Length
of
Record

Required
Monitor

Distance
from
Phoenix

Parameters
Monitored

Average

Rank

Douglas

0 (0)

0 (0)

3.31
(3.01)

5.38 (3.36)

13 (10)

10.32
(9.38)

15 (10)

0.41
(0.68)

6.88 (6.25)

6.03

7

Alamo Lake

N/A*

N/A*

16 (10)

N/A*

1.38
(1.25)

15 (10)

2.8
(4.66)

9.63 (8.75)

9.30

1

2.75
(2.5)

15 (10)

5.88
(9.8)

11 (10)

7.82

4

11 (10)

15 (10)

5.88
(9.8)

11 (10)

9.04

2

1.38
(1.25)

15 (10)

1.72
(2.87)

9.63 (8.75)

7.40

6

11 (10)

15 (10)

1.72
(2.87)

9.63 (8.75)

8.35

3

11 (10)

0 (0)

1.72
(2.87)

9.63 (8.75)

5.86

8

3.44
(3.13)

15 (10)

1.6
(2.67)

6.88 (6.25)

7.42

5

AQS ID
Site Name
040031005
040128000

11 (10)

JLG
0 (0)
7.71
Supersite
9.92 (5.51)
16 (10)
2.12 (1.63)
(5.51)
(Continuous)
JLG
0 (0)
048.89
013Supersite
11.43 (6.35)
16 (10)
2.15 (1.65)
(6.35)
9997
(Filter)
Nogales Post
2.07
04023Office
18 (10)
14 (10)
(1.88)
4.48 (2.8) 0.32 (0.25)
0004
(Continuous)
Nogales Post
04Office
13.69
2.07
02317.6 (9.78)
4.48 (2.8)
0 (0)
(Primary
(9.78)
(1.88)
0004
Filter)
Nogales Post
2.07
04Office
10.42
(1.88)
02313.39 (7.44)
4.48 (2.8)
0 (0)
(Secondary
(7.44)
0004
Filter)
047.12
Yuma
2.35
11.36
0273.02 (1.68)
16 (10)
(6.47)
Supersite
(1.68)
(8.74)
8011
*Alamo Lake began operation in 2014 and has not operated long for the Ranking Values
040139997

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015, Appendix H Page 39

Section II: Spatial Raster Analysis
In order to determine if ADEQ’s existing ambient monitoring network adequately represents Arizona’s
unique air quality, a spatial analysis is conducted using a variety of indicators shown in Table 49. The
indicators are mapped to visually show places in Arizona where monitoring could be beneficial for the
welfare of Arizona’s population and to show the adequacy of ADEQ’s ambient monitoring network.
The seven indicators have three general classifications: demographic, source (point and mobile), and
spatially oriented variables. A map is produced showing areas of higher interest based on the indicator’s
data and is then partitioned into 10 equal parts on a scale of 0-10. The indicator maps are converted into a
GIS raster image. A raster image is a type of GIS map used to combine multiple maps together and assigns
numerical values of every part of Arizona. By placing a numerical value to the maps, areas can be
quantifiably valued. The seven raster images per pollutant are then weighed because it is not assumed that
each indicator is as important to ambient air monitoring. The weighted raster images are layered and
combined to show the final weighted spatial overlay map for all of Arizona which shows areas in Arizona
that are important to the development of a monitoring network.
Chosen indicators represent a variety of aspects that are important to developing a robust air monitoring
network. The following seven indicators are used in the raster analysis:
Table 44:

Indicator
Hospitalization
Density

Sensitive Age
Density

Total Population
Point Sources
Traffic Count
Distance between
Monitors

Predicted Values

Raster Analysis Indicators

Description
Using the primary care areas in Arizona, this indicator ranks the
areas based on the percent morbidity of air pollution related health
effects per area population. The highest valued areas have the
highest percentage of hospitalizations.
Using the 2010 Census blocks, this indicator ranks the areas based on
the percentage of sensitive individuals based on their age. Age
sensitive individuals are children and the elderly, therefore the
highest valued areas have the highest percentage of children 0-14 and
the elderly >65.
Using the 2010 Census blocks, this indicator ranks the areas based on
the number of individuals per square mile. The highest valued areas
have the highest number of individuals per square mile.
This indicator ranks areas that contain permitted and recorded
sources. The highest valued areas contain the greatest amount of
emissions.
This indicator ranks sections of roadway which have the highest
daily traffic count. The highest valued areas have the highest traffic
count.
This indicator ranks the straight line distance between monitors. The
areas that have the furthest distance from other monitors are valued
highest.
Using a Kriging interpolation map using 2009-2013 average design
values, this indicator ranks areas that are based on the predicted
values. A Kriging interpolation map is a simple prediction model
that projects air concentrations based on actual measurement. The
areas that have the highest predicted values are valued highest.

Indicator
Type
Demographic

Demographic

Demographic
Source
Source
Spatial

Spatial

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 40

Hospitalization Density
This indicator values areas based on morbidity (chronic or acute poor health) hospitalization records for
Adult Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and Congestive Heart Failure (CHF). The
average of number of Adult Asthma, COPD and CHF hospitalizations per 100,000 people per primary care
area are used to show areas that have a greater percentage of individuals potentially affected by air pollution
(see Figure 6). This indicator provides a method of accounting for environmental justice issues by
identifying those that are particularly sensitive to air quality issues.
It is assumed that areas with higher hospitalizations are of greater importance, therefore are assigned higher
scores. This indicator does not assume that the hospitalizations are a direct result of poor air quality in the
area, only that individuals with the previously mentioned conditions can be sensitive to poor air quality.
This indicator has disadvantages in that hospitalizations records do not show where the individuals work or
live, only where they went to the hospital.
The entire distribution of hospitalizations is divided into ten parts and assigned a score of 0-10, with 10
being the highest partition.
Hospitalization data is from the Arizona Department of Health Services (AZDHS) where it is listed by
primary
care
area,
and
is
publically
available
on
the
AZDHS
website:
http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/phstats/profiles/.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 41

1. Results
Figure 7: Hospitalization Density Map
The highest percentage of hospitalizations per 100,000 people is shown in red areas.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 42

Sensitive Age Density
This indicator uses the 2010 Census data to account for another population of sensitive individuals. This
indicator values areas on the percentage of individuals in the age categories of 0-14 and >65. The sensitive
age density of each census block group (sensitive individuals per area) is calculated. Census blocks groups
are geographical areas that have between 600-3,000 individuals. Higher density areas receive higher scores.
This indicator provides a method of accounting for environmental justice issues.
It is assumed that areas with the highest percentage of children and the elderly are most affected by air
quality issues. This indicator does not assume that all individuals in the 0-14 and >65 age groups are
sensitive to poor air quality, only that these age groups are considered to be sensitive for the assessment.
This indicator has disadvantages in that it does not take into account where people go to school or work,
only where they live.
The entire distribution of sensitive individuals is divided into ten parts and assigned a score of 0-10, with
10 being the highest partition.
Population details by census block group are publically available data from the US 2010 Census.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 43

1. Results
Figure 8: Sensitive Age Density Map
The highest Sensitive Age Density is shown in red areas.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 44

Total Population
This indicator values areas by the number of people per census block. Census blocks are the smallest
geographical areas used by the U.S. Census Bureau and have anywhere from zero to several hundred
individuals. A spatial output map is created showing the total populations in Arizona.
The entire distribution is divided into ten parts and assigned a score of 0-10, with 10 being the highest
partition.
Higher populations per block group are assigned higher scores since it is assumed that it is more desirable
to have a monitor representing the greatest number of people. This indicator has disadvantages in that
census blocks generally have the same number of individuals, therefore each one may not differ drastically
from another. This would then not correctly show areas of high concentrations of individuals. Population
density (population divided by area) was also considered to be used for this indicator, as it gives a better
representation of the urban areas but produces inaccuracies and over represented densities in the rural areas.
Total population was chosen over population density because it gives a better representation of the rural
areas and an acceptable representation of the urban areas of Arizona. Another disadvantage is that census
block groups can include both an urban population and surrounding non-populated areas. This results in a
block that seems to show a large number of people over a big area, where the actual population is
concentrated in one spot. The resultant total population map (Figure 9) shows an accurate representation
of populations in all of Arizona.
Population details by census block are publically available data from the US 2010 Census.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 45

1. Results
Figure 9: Total Population Map
The highest total population is shown in red areas.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 46

Point Sources
This indicator values areas on the actual tons of emissions from permitted sources per year. A map is
created of major point emission sources by pollutant. “Major sources” is defined as a source that emits a
minimum tonnage threshold and collectively they represent over the 90% of total source emissions.
Minimum tonnage thresholds are listed in Table 50. A three mile radius buffer is then placed on each
emission source and the actual emissions in tons are assigned to that buffer. Overlapping buffers are
summed together to show the total emissions for an area.
It is assumed that the areas directly surrounding stationary sources represented by the buffer are of greater
significance to air monitoring than other areas that do not have source emissions. A buffer radius of three
miles is chosen to represent all of the sources spatially.
This indicator has disadvantages in that it does not take into account the different spatial impact of smaller
or larger sources. Larger sources tend to impact a greater area than smaller sources and would therefore
require a different size buffer. Also, this indicator does not take into account the different spatial impact of
different pollutants. Some pollutants affect larger areas than others due to their reactivity in the atmosphere.
Meteorology and topography also play a large factor in the spatial and concentration gradient impact of
point sources. Due to these factors and others, it becomes very difficult to accurately show the exact spatial
impact of every separate source. Therefore, a general impact buffer of a three mile radius is used for all
pollutant sources and represents the average spatial impact for all pollutants.
When reclassifying the raster, the entire distribution of emissions is divided into ten equal parts and assigned
a score of 0‐10, with 10 being the highest partition.
Source emissions data are taken from ADEQ’s Air Quality permitted sources emission inventories and the
National Emissions Inventory maintained by the EPA. Emissions data by source were averaged for the
years 2009-2013. This eliminates anomalies in any particular year. Since O3 is not directly emitted, volatile
organic compounds (VOC) were used to represent the source emissions as an O3 precursor.
Table 45:

Point Source Minimum Tonnage Threshold

Pollutant

Minimum Tonnage
Threshold

SO2
VOC
PM10
PM2.5
CO
NO2
Pb

1.0 tons
10.0 tons
10.0 tons
5.0 tons
100.0 tons
10.0 tons
0.1 tons

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 47

1. Results
The highest sources emissions are shown as red dots.
Figure 10: SO2 Point Sources Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 48

Figure 11: O3 Point Sources Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 49

Figure 12: PM10 Point Sources Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 50

Figure 13: PM2.5 Point Sources Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 51

Figure 14: CO Point Sources Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 52

Figure 15: NO2 Point Sources Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 53

Figure 16: Pb Point Sources Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 54

Traffic Count
This indictor values road sections by daily traffic count. Road sections have a buffer with an associated
traffic count. The buffer size is dependent on the actual traffic count, with higher traffic counts receiving
a larger size buffer and being ranked the highest. Buffer sizes are taken from air monitoring siting criteria
in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix E Table E-1 which states the minimum distance sites must be away from the
roadway centerline in order to be outside the area of influence of roadways and shown in Table 51.
Differences to the buffer size were made due to limitations in GIS software to be able to visually show an
area of representation.
It is assumed that the areas directly surrounding roadways are of higher significance to air monitoring than
areas not close to roadways. Mobile source emissions play a major part in ambient air quality. This
indicator has disadvantages in that it does not show every roadway in Arizona, only those counted by the
Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT). It also does not show off -highway vehicle emissions
including construction sites, rail traffic, and recreational vehicles.
The entire distribution of traffic counts is divided into ten parts and assigned a score of 0-10, with 10 being
the highest partition.
Data and locations were taken from ADOT 2013 daily traffic counts and used to create a raster map of
roadway sections.
Table 46:

Traffic Count Buffer Sizes

Traffic Count in
Thousands

Miles from Roadway
Centerline

0.025*
<15
0.025**
15-20
0.025
20-40
0.040
40-70
0.075
70-110
0.175
>110
*Changed from 0.009 miles in order to be able to visually show an area of representation on a Raster Map
**Changed from 0.016 miles in order to be able to visually show an area of representation on a Raster
Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 55

1. Results
The highest traffic counts are shown as red section lines.
Figure 17: Traffic Count Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 56

Figure 18: Phoenix Traffic Count Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 57

Figure 19: Tucson Traffic Count Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 58

Distance Between Monitors
This indicator values areas based on the how far in distance instruments are from existing monitoring
instruments. This is achieved by calculating the straight‐line distance away from an existing monitoring
site. In practice this indicator creates concentric rings around each monitoring site at pre‐defined distances.
The scored value increases the farther away from existing monitoring sites to show that it is more desirable
to place a monitor further from another monitor. Overlapping concentric rings use the shortest distance
value to adjust for nearby instruments. The locations of all state, local, and tribal monitors in Arizona are
used.
The assumption is that it is more desirable to have a new monitoring site farther away from an existing site
to represent a different population and measure a unique air parcel. Concentric ring sizes are defined by
pollutant in Table 52 and are taken from the Section I (E): Correlation Between Monitors (page 25) data
set. By using the correlation values, it was determined the maximum distance of correlation. Monitors that
do not correlate with each other are further in distance. This distance of correlation (influence) is the
maximum distance set between monitors, with ten concentric rings leading up to that maximum. Each
pollutant’s distance of influence is dependent on its reactivity and longevity in the atmosphere.
This indicator has disadvantages in that it does not take into account pollutant sources or meteorological
and geographic differences in Arizona.
The entire distribution of distances is divided into ten parts and assigned a score of 0-10, with 10 being the
highest partition. This highest partition includes any area beyond the maximum concentric ring to extend
the coverage to all of Arizona.
Monitor locations were taken from EPA’s AQS web application database. The AMP500 Extract
Site/Monitor Data report was run for all monitors in Arizona, including state, local, and tribal monitors.
Only monitors that were in operation during the 2009-2013 time period were used.
Table 47:

Distance Between Monitors Concentric Ring Sizes
Pollutant Concentric Ring Size
6 mile rings up to 60 miles
SO2
6 mile rings up to 60 miles
O3
3 mile rings up to 30 miles
PM10
3 mile rings up to 30 miles
PM2.5
3 mile rings up to 30 miles
CO
12 mile rings up to 120 miles
NO2
2 mile rings up to 20 miles
Pb

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 59

1. Results
The areas furthest away from monitors are shown as red areas.
Figure 20: SO2 Distance Between Monitors Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 60

Figure 21: O3 Distance Between Monitors Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 61

Figure 22: PM10 Distance Between Monitors Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 62

Figure 23: PM2.5 Distance Between Monitors Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 63

Figure 24: CO Distance Between Monitors Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 64

Figure 25: NO2 Distance Between Monitors Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 65

Figure 26: Pb Distance Between Monitors Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 66

Predicted Values
This indicator is a prediction model that uses a Kriging interpolation tool in ArcGIS to show predicted
pollutant values. The Kriging interpolation uses average ambient concentrations but does not use
topography, geographic, demographic, or meteorology in its prediction. The model uses average
concentrations to estimate concentrations for all of Arizona. Predicted values are shown using 2009-2013
average design values by pollutant. This shows areas of higher and lower predicted concentration on a
gradient similar to a topographic map. The Predicted Values indicator scores areas higher that have greater
predicted concentrations.
It is assumed that areas with the highest predicted design values are most important to monitoring in
Arizona. This indicator has disadvantages in that the predicted values have error in areas that are far from
instruments. The interpolation of ambient concentrations in areas far away from recorded concentrations
is not predicted well, therefore, this error should be taken into account when interpreting this indicator. The
prediction Kriging interpolation was chosen over a Kriging error values option because the previous
indicator (Section F: Distance Between Monitors page 59) closely represents standard error around the
state. It is important to include a predicted value model in this analysis to estimate concentration levels
around Arizona and therefore the Kriging interpolation ArcsGIS tool was used to create this unique dataset.
The entire distribution of values is divided in ten parts and assigned a score of 0-10, with 10 being the
highest partition and highest predicted value.
Data were taken from the EPA’s AQS web application database. The AMP480 Design Value Report was
run for all monitors in Arizona, including state, local, and tribal monitors. Only monitors that were in
operation during the 2009-2013 time period were used. Additional instruments outside of Arizona were
used to lower the amount of error in the prediction models. The instruments outside of Arizona that were
used are: Chamizal C41 in El Paso, TX, Del Norte High School in Albuquerque, NM, Denver Animal
Shelter in Denver, CO, Hawthorne Elementary School in Salt Lake City, UT, Jerome Mack in Las Vegas,
NV, Riverside – Rubidoux in Riverside, CA, and El Cajon in El Cajon, CA.
NOTE: Due to the low number of monitors in the CO, NO2, and Pb networks, the Predicted Values indicator
will not be used for the final spatial overlay map.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 67

1. Results
The highest predicted values are shown as red areas.
Figure 27: SO2 Predicted Values Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 68

Figure 28: O3 Predicted Values Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 69

Figure 29: PM10 Predicted Values Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 70

Figure 30: PM2.5 Predicted Values Map

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 71

Final Weighted Overlay
The seven indicators in Section II (A-G) are combined together to form a single pollutant map that shows
the final results of the Spatial Raster Analysis. The final map is called a weighted overlay and is produced
to identify areas in Arizona that are of the highest importance to ambient air monitoring. This final map
will be used for suggestions to possible relocations, removals, or additional monitors. See Section III page
80 for the final conclusions and recommendations of the Spatial Raster Analysis.
Before the creation of the final overlay map, the indicators were weighted according to their value to air
monitoring in Arizona. Weights were derived from a survey given to ADEQ’s Air Quality Division staff
and others in Arizona’s air monitoring community. The survey was conducted by asking each individual
to rate the importance of each indicator listed in Section II page 40. In total 32 surveys were collected and
averaged to determine a final rating weight for each indicator. That information was then applied to each
ranking value in order to determine the final monitor rankings. It is not assumed that each indicator carries
the same significance to the public welfare, regulatory actions, and to ambient air monitoring in Arizona.
One indicator might be of greater significance than another, therefore the indicators needed to be ranked.
Results were averaged from the survey and adjusted to a 0-1 scale listed in Table 48. They were adjusted
to 0-1 because the weighted overlay tool in in ArcGIS requires the total weigh to be 1.0. All of the areas
on the indicator maps were multiplied by the survey results to apply the weighting.
Table 48:

Indicator

Spatial Raster Analysis Survey Results

SO2

O3

PM10

PM2.5

CO

NO2

Pb

Hospitalization
0.14
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.14
0.14
Density
Sensitive Age
0.15
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.18
Density
Population
0.15
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.20
0.18
Density
0.20
0.08
0.14
0.13
0.16
0.17
0.25
Point Sources
0.09
0.15
0.12
0.13
0.23
0.23
0.11
Traffic Count
Distance Between
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.14
Monitors
0.15
0.16
0.15
0.15
*N/A
*N/A
*N/A
Predicted Values
*The Predicted Values indicator is not used for CO, NO2, and Pb because there is insufficient monitoring
data for these networks

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 72

1. Weighted Overlay
The areas that are most important to new monitoring are shown in red.
Figure 31: SO2 Weighted Spatial Overlay

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 73

Figure 32: O3 Weighted Spatial Overlay

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 74

Figure 33: PM10 Weighted Spatial Overlay

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 75

Figure 34: PM2.5 Weighted Spatial Overlay

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 76

Figure 35: CO Weighted Spatial Overlay

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 77

Figure 36: NO2 Weighted Spatial Overlay

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 78

Figure 37: Pb Weighted Spatial Overlay

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 79

Section III: Final Conclusions and
Recommendations
Final Conclusions and Recommendations by Pollutant Network
The final conclusion and recommendations were made by ADEQ’s Air Quality management from both the
Ranking Analysis and the Spatial Raster Analysis. These recommendations are only made from this 5Year Network assessment and are intended to improve the quality and adequacy of ADEQ’s air monitoring
network. These conclusions and recommendations are made for the next five years and plans to modify the
air monitoring network will be made in the 2016 Annual Network Plan.

1. General conclusions from the Ranking Analysis
Two sites stand out as particularly significant for ADEQ’s networks based on the Monitor Ranking
Analysis. The Yuma Supersite and JLG Supersite monitors are consistently ranked high across all pollutant
networks as important to air monitoring. Specific attention to their operation should be in place to not lose
important ambient air data at these sites. Technology and supporting equipment upgrades should be made
to these sites first as modernizing and upgrading improved data security, quality, and quantity. Data from
Yuma Supersite are particularity important to support regulatory actions for this area and for border air
quality research. The JLG Supersite is specifically important to the trends analysis and air quality research
for the Phoenix area.

2. SO2
a. Ranking analysis
Currently, all monitors are required in the area and as such no recommendations are made at this time.
However, the Ranking Analysis indicates that there can be some optimization of the Miami, AZ monitoring
network. With the Miami Townsite monitor ranking the lowest, it indicates that this monitor could be resited to better represent a more unique area or be removed. However, both the Miami Townsite monitor
and the Miami Jones Ranch monitor do not have long records and need to be in operation longer to make a
recommendation. Future statistical analysis will be need to be done to remove or relocate any of the Miami
area SO2 monitors. Modifying networks is subject to regulatory and regional approval. Options for
modifying a network are found in 40 CFR Part 58.14.
The Alamo Lake monitor is not required and is designated as a Special Purpose Monitor. Removal of the
monitor is required before two full years of operation. It also does not have a long record and data are not
available for the Measured Concentrations, Deviation from the NAAQS, and Correlation Between Monitors
indicators. Rankings are still made using the other indicators and this qualification should be accounted for
when looking at the final rankings.
b. Spatial Raster Analysis
No recommendations are made based on the Spatial Raster Analysis. The final weighted overlay map did
not produce particular areas of interest sufficient to make any recommendations for the addition of new
instrumentation. Specific point sources targeted by the upcoming SO2 requirements rule were identified,

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 80

but no recommendations for monitoring are made from this analysis. Areas of over representation were not
found and the current SO2 network was deemed satisfactory to represent SO2 air pollution in Arizona.

3. O3
a. Ranking Analysis
Currently all O3 monitors are required and no recommendations are made based on the Ranking Analysis.
All of ADEQ’s O3 monitors are considered important to O3 monitoring.
b. Spatial Raster Analysis
Recommendations for improving the O3 monitoring network involve additions to the current network. It
was not determined that any monitors should be closed based on this analysis because ADEQ’s monitors
are not over representing any areas in Arizona. The areas of interest to O3 are the Kingman, Payson, and
Bullhead City areas. These areas were ranked highest and had the largest areas of high ranking. No
monitoring in these areas has occurred in the past and thus would be beneficial to do exploratory monitoring
to see if these areas are truly places that should be monitored continuously. This exploratory monitoring
would benefit from using temporary and low cost monitoring sensors rather than traditional monitoring.
Traditional monitoring capital and running costs are high and a significant amount of resource allocation
would be needed. Low cost sensor technology and alternative monitoring techniques are recommended to
use for this exploratory monitoring. The monitoring would be for public health and information purposes
during the exploratory phase, not for regulatory comparisons.

4. PM10
a. Ranking Analysis
Currently, twelve of the thirteen PM10 monitors are required monitors and no recommendations for those
twelve monitors are made.
The Nogales Post Office (Primary PM10 Filter) instrument is not required and should be removed to
optimize the PM10 network. It is also the lowest ranked monitor in the Ranking Analysis. The removal of
this instrument will not cause data loss since it is a collocated instrument and only runs 1-in-6 days. The
continuous instrument will remain and provide higher resolution data. A request for removal should be
made in the 2015 Annual Network Plan.
The Alamo Lake monitor does not have a long record and data are not available for the Measured
Concentrations, Deviation from the NAAQS, and Correlation Between Monitors indicators. Therefore
excluding these Indicator Values produces a high rank which can be misleading. Alamo Lake was not
excluded from this analysis resulting in Alamo Lake being the highest ranked monitor. This would likely
change if these indicators were included.
b. Spatial Raster Analysis
Recommendations for improving the PM10 monitoring network involve additions to the current network. It
was not determined that any monitors should be closed based on this analysis due to being over
representative. The areas of interest identified to PM10 monitoring are the Quartzite, Kingman, and
Benson/Willcox areas. These areas were ranked highest and had the largest areas of high ranking. No
monitoring in these areas has occurred in the past and thus would be beneficial to do exploratory monitoring
to see if these areas are truly places that should be monitored continuously. This exploratory monitoring
would benefit from using temporary and low cost monitoring sensors rather than traditional monitoring.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 81

Traditional monitoring capital and running costs are high and a significant amount of resource allocation
would be needed. Low cost sensor technology and alternative monitoring techniques are recommended to
use for this exploratory monitoring. The monitoring would be for public health and information purposes
during the exploratory phase, not for regulatory comparisons.

5. PM2.5
a. Ranking Analysis
Currently seven of the eight PM2.5 monitors are required and no recommendations for those seven monitors
are made.
The Nogales Post Office (Secondary PM2.5 Filter) instrument is not required and should be removed to
optimize the PM2.5 network. It is also the lowest ranked monitor in the Ranking Analysis. The removal of
this instrument will not cause data loss since it is a collocated instrument and only runs 1-in -6 days. Both
the Nogales Post Office (Continuous) and the Nogales Post Office (Primary Filter) instruments will remain
and provide the same level of data confidence. A request for removal should be made in the 2015 Annual
Network Plan.
The Alamo Lake monitor does not have a long record and data are not available for the Measured
Concentrations, Deviation from the NAAQS, and Correlation Between Monitors indicators. Therefore
excluding these Indicator Values produces a high rank which can be misleading. Alamo Lake was not
excluded from this analysis resulting in Alamo Lake being the highest ranked monitor. This would likely
change if these indicators were included.
b. Spatial Raster Analysis
Recommendations for improving the PM2.5 monitoring network involve additions to the current network.
It was not determined that any monitors should be closed based on this analysis because there was over
representation of ADEQ’s PM2.5 network. The areas of interest to PM2.5 are the Bullhead City and
Benson/Willcox areas. These areas were ranked highest and had the largest areas of high ranking. No
monitoring in these areas has occurred in the past and thus would be beneficial to do exploratory monitoring
to see if these areas are truly places that should be monitored continuously. This exploratory monitoring
would benefit from using temporary and low cost monitoring sensors rather than traditional monitoring.
Traditional monitoring capital and running costs are high and a significant amount of resource allocation
would be needed. Low cost sensor technology and alternative monitoring techniques are recommended to
use for this exploratory monitoring. The monitoring would be for public health and information purposes
during the exploratory phase, not for regulatory comparisons.
The northeastern part of Arizona (Showlow, Snowflake, St. Johns) also shows a large area of interest for
PM2.5. Currently, an EBAM Network of informational monitors exists and was not included in this analysis.
If these monitors were included, this area would not be of interest to monitoring. This EBAM Network is
non-regulatory and is used for public health and information purposes.

6. CO
a. Spatial Raster Analysis
No areas were identified as areas of interest and no recommendations are made based on the Spatial Raster
Analysis. The CO network is currently meeting all minimum monitoring requirements. A background

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 82

SPM at Alamo Lake is planned for operation for modeling and permitting purposes, not for regulatory
comparisons.

7. NO2
a. Spatial Raster Analysis
No areas were identified as areas of interest and no recommendations are made based on the Spatial Raster
Analysis. The NO2 network is current meeting all minimum monitoring requirements and no plans are
being made for the operation of additional monitors.

8. Pb
a. Spatial Raster Analysis
No areas were identified as areas of interest and no recommendations are made based on the Spatial Raster
Analysis. The Pb network is currently meeting all minimum monitoring requirements. An additional
monitor is being planned for the Hayden area to ensure that the maximum concentration area is being
measured.

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 83

Appendix A – Definitions and
Abbreviations
AAS

Air Assessment Section

AADT

Annual Average Daily Traffic

ADEQ

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

ADOT

Arizona Department of Transportation

AMU

Air Monitoring Unit

ArcMap

GIS Analysis Software

ASARCO

American Smelting and Refining Company, LLC

AQS

Air Quality System (EPA database)

AZDHS

Arizona Department of Health Services

CAA

Clean Air Act

CBSA

Core Based Statistical Area

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CO

Carbon Monoxide

CSN

Chemical Speciation Network

DM&QA

Data Management & Quality Assurance Unit

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

FEM

Federal Equivalent Method

FMMI

Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc.

FRM

Federal Reference Method

GIS

Geographic Information System

IMPROVE

Interagency Monitoring of PROtected Visual Environments

MCAQD

Maricopa County Air Quality Department

MET

Meteorological Measurements (wind, temperature, relative humidity)

MSA

Metropolitan Statistical Area

μg/m3

Micrograms per Cubic Meter

NAAQS

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 84

NCore

National Core multipollutant monitoring stations

NM

National Monument

NO2

Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx

Nitrogen oxides

NOy

Reactive Nitrogen Oxides

NPS

National Park Service

O3

Ozone

PAMS

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station

Pb

Lead

PCAQCD

Pinal County Air Quality Control District

PDEQ

Pima County Department of Environmental Quality

PM

Particulate Matter

PM10

Particulate Matter ≤ 10 microns

PMcoarse

Coarse Particulate Matter between 2.5 to 10 micrometers aerodynamic diameter, may
also be denoted as PM10-2.5

PM2.5

Particulate Matter ≤ 2.5 microns

POC

Parameter Occurrence Code

ppb

Parts Per Billion

ppm

Parts Per Million

PQAO

Primary Quality Assurance Organization

SIP

State Implementation Plan

SLAMS

State and Local Air Monitoring Stations

SO2

Sulfur Dioxide

SPM

Special Purpose Monitor

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 85

Appendix B – References
American FactFinder. (n.d.). Retrieved May 20, 2015, from

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
AQS Web Application Warning, TTN AIRS AQS, US EPA. (n.d.). Retrieved May 20, 2015, from

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/aqswebwarning.htm
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2014). [Excel spreadsheet]. (Available via Public
Records request)
Data and Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved May 20, 2015, from

http://www.azdot.gov/planning/DataandAnalysis/average-annual-daily-traffic
Emission Inventories. (n.d.). Retrieved May 20, 2015, from

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html
Google Maps. (n.d.). Retrieved May 20, 2015, from https://www.google.com/maps
Monitoring Network. (n.d.). Retrieved May 20, 2015, from

https://www.maricopa.gov/aq/divisions/monitoring/network.aspx
Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring, 40 C.F.R. Part 58 App D (2015)
Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring, 40 C.F.R. Part 58 App E
(2015)
System modification, 40 C.F.R. Part 58.14 (2015)

State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2015 Appendix A Page 86