This inventory includes emissions of coarse particulate matter <10 µm in diameter (PM10), fine particulate matter < 2.5 µm (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and ammonia. Emissions are calculated for both Maricopa County and the PM10 nonattaiment area. Annual totals as well as typical daily emissions are provided for all source categories.

The purpose of the ambient air monitoring network is to sample air pollution in a variety of settings, assess the health and welfare effects, and assist in determining sources of air pollution. In general, six basic monitoring objectives and five measuring scales are used to determine the network design. Since it is physically and fiscally impossible to monitor the air in every location, representative samples must be obtained. These samples are determined by using the monitoring objectives and the spatial measurement scales. The network must be dynamic enough to maintain a current representative sample of the air quality. Air quality issues such as eight-hour ozone non-attainment boundaries and permits for new sources are diverse and controversial subjects for the citizens of Maricopa County. With its robust air monitoring network and mobile monitoring tools, the department strives to provide the most reliable and relevant air monitoring data to the public.

This Campaign Effectiveness Study, conducted for the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, was designed to evaluate the specific effectiveness of the 2013-2014 Clean Air and Clean Stormwater Program Campaigns. This project analyzed and tracked the overall effectiveness of the Clean Air Program after 24 campaign sessions. For the second consecutive year, the survey also measured and tracked attitudes, knowledge, awareness, and behaviors related to stormwater management for the Clean Stormwater Program Campaign.

This Campaign Effectiveness Travel Behavioral Study, conducted for the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, was designed to evaluate the specific effectiveness of the 2012-2013 Clean Air Campaign, as well as analyze the overall effectiveness of the air quality media campaign after 23 campaign sessions. New to the current study, the survey also measured baseline awareness/knowledge related to storm water and hazardous waste issues.

This document is designed to improve compliance with Maricopa County air pollution rules and regulations, with particular emphasis on Rule 310, which deals with fugitive dust sources, a major source of PM-10. It also describes control measures and work strategies that will assist in ensuring compliance with Rule 310. Also included in this report is a glossary of terms, a brief summary of applicable County air pollution regulations, and detailed information on the requirements for implementation of dust control practices.

The Committee selected the following environmental goal: A goal with the purpose of showing continued progress through 2018 by; 1) improving visibility to move days now in the poor/very poor categories up to the fair category, and 2) moving days classified as fair to the good/excellent categories. A progress
assessment will be conducted every 5 years through 2018. The members concluded that this option provides a clear, long term method to track visibility trends in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Additionally, the Committee reached general agreement that the index should not be used to affect short term actions because other programs, such as the High Pollution Advisory Program, are currently in place.

The best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and the 1999 data are not consistent with the 1989 data. Thus, the initial work by the Seidman Institute on job quality ("Job Quality in Arizona," March 2005) presented data on Arizona job quality from several sources of either industrial or occupational data. "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States" (June 2005), is an extension of the March 2005 report. Arizona’s job quality in the latest year and its change over time is compared to the national
average and is ranked among the 51 “states” (including the District of Columbia).

Available data on the cost of living indicate that living costs in Arizona are close to the national average — thus, the state’s lower-than-average wages are not offset by low living costs. No productivity data exist for Arizona. Worker productivity in Arizona could be below the national average due to lesser investments in physical or human capital, which would result in lower wages. Labor market supply and demand factors are a likely cause of the low wages in Arizona. A substantial number of people seem willing to move to Arizona and accept a substandard wage in exchange for perceived qualitative advantages to living in Arizona, primarily climate.

The long-term trend toward lower-quality jobs in the United States continued between 2001 and 2004. Industrial job quality fell 1.6 percent nationally between 2001 and 2004. The decrease in occupational job quality was not quite as great at 0.9 percent. Thus, overall U.S. job quality dropped 2.5 percent during the three years, causing the U.S. average wage to be 2.5 percent less than it otherwise would have been. Arizona’s job quality fell between 2001 and 2004 at a pace worse than the national average. Relative to the national average, the industrial and occupational job mixes each slipped a bit more than 0.3 percent during the three years, for an overall decline of 0.7 percent. In Arizona, job quality in 2004 was 2.0 percent below the national average, but Arizona ranked 23rd among all states.

The quality of jobs in the United States became a national concern in the 1980s after a long period of losses of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs and gains of frequently low-paying service jobs. National job quality remains a concern today, as witnessed by the debate in the 2004 presidential campaign. The overall average wage is a measure of prosperity or well-being, but is not in itself a measure of job quality since job quality is just one of several factors — including cost of living, productivity, and desirability of an area — that affect the overall average wage. Little information on these factors is available by state. Adjusting for job quality reduces the state-by-state variation in wages. However, even after adjusting for job quality, the average wage still varies substantially by state.