DOCSLIB.ORG

Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results Bear Lodge Project – Upton Hydrometallurgical Plant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results Bear Lodge Project – Upton Hydrometallurgical Plant Stand Alone Report 12 Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results Bear Lodge Project – Upton Hydrometallurgical Plant Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results Bear Lodge Project – Upton Hydrometallurgical Plant Rare Element Resources, Inc. Weston County, Wyoming September, 2014 Prepared by: IML Air Science a division of Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc. 555 Absaraka Sheridan, Wyoming 82801 (307) 674-7506 www.imlairscience.com TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Project Overview ........................................................................................ 2 1.2. Modeling Overview .................................................................................... 2 1.3. Pollutants of Concern................................................................................. 3 1.4. Regulatory Status ...................................................................................... 4 2 EMISSION AND SOURCE DATA ........................................................................ 5 2.1. Facility Processes and Emission Controls Affected ................................... 5 2.2. Emission Factors Used to Calculate Potential Emissions .......................... 5 2.3. Schedule of Fugitive Particulate Emissions ............................................... 6 2.4. Schedule of Tailpipe Emissions ................................................................. 7 2.5. Source Parameters .................................................................................... 8 2.6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................... 13 3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACT MODELING METHODOLOGY ................... 14 3.1. Model Selection and Justification ............................................................. 14 3.2. Model Options .......................................................................................... 14 3.3. Averaging Periods ................................................................................... 15 3.4. Building Downwash ................................................................................. 15 3.5. Elevation Data ......................................................................................... 15 3.6. Receptor Network .................................................................................... 16 3.6.1. Fenceline Receptors ..................................................................... 16 3.6.2. Public Road Corridor Receptors .................................................... 16 3.6.3. Fine Grid ....................................................................................... 16 3.6.4. Intermediate Grid .......................................................................... 16 3.6.5. Coarse Grid ................................................................................... 17 3.7. Meteorological Data ................................................................................. 20 3.8. Background Concentrations ..................................................................... 20 3.9. Ambient Ratio Method for Modeling NO2 ................................................. 21 3.10. Dry Depletion Option for Modeling PM10 .................................................. 23 3.10.1. Rationale for Using Dry Depletion in Refined PM10 Analysis .... 24 3.10.2. Precedent for Using Dry Depletion in Refined PM10 Analysis ... 24 Upton Plant Modeling Protocol and Results Page ii 3.10.3. Input Parameters for Dry Depletion Option ............................... 25 4 APPLICABLE REGULATORY LIMITS FOR CITERIA POLLUTANTS ............. 27 4.1. Methodology for Evaluation of Compliance with Standards ..................... 27 4.2. NAAQS and PSD Increments .................................................................. 27 4.3. Presentation of Modeling Results ............................................................ 28 4.4. Summary ................................................................................................. 29 5 AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES (AQRV) MODELING METHODOLOGY .... 30 5.1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 30 5.2. Model Selection and Justification ............................................................. 33 5.2.1. CALMET ....................................................................................... 34 5.2.2. CALPUFF ...................................................................................... 34 5.2.3. CALPOST ..................................................................................... 34 5.3. Meteorological, Terrain and Land Use Data ............................................ 34 5.3.1. Time Period ................................................................................... 35 5.3.2. Prognostic Meteorological Data .................................................... 35 5.3.3. CALMET Diagnostic Meteorological Data ..................................... 35 5.3.4. CALMET Approach ....................................................................... 36 5.3.5. CALMET Parameter Settings ........................................................ 36 5.3.6. Terrain Data .................................................................................. 36 5.3.7. Land Use Data .............................................................................. 36 5.3.8. CALMET Switch Settings .............................................................. 36 5.4. Modeling Domain, Sources and Receptors .............................................. 37 5.5. CALPUFF Model Inputs ........................................................................... 43 5.5.1. Background Concentrations .......................................................... 43 5.5.2. Chemistry Modeling ...................................................................... 43 5.5.3. Particle Size Distribution ............................................................... 43 5.5.4. CALPUFF Switch Settings ............................................................ 44 5.6. CALPUFF Model Outputs, Calculations and Evaluation Methods ........... 45 5.6.1. CALPOST and POSTUTIL ............................................................ 45 5.6.2. Visibility Impact Determination ...................................................... 46 5.6.3. Comparison to Existing AQRV Status ........................................... 46 5.6.4. Calculation of Light Extinctions ..................................................... 46 5.6.5. Deposition Analysis ....................................................................... 48 Upton Plant Modeling Protocol and Results Page iii 5.6.6. CALPOST Switch Settings ............................................................ 48 5.7. Presentation of Modeling Results ............................................................ 49 6 AERMOD MODELING RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .......................................... 51 6.1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 51 6.2. PM10 Modeling Analysis ........................................................................... 54 6.2.1. Initial PM10 Modeling Results ........................................................ 55 6.2.2. PM10 Modeling Over-Prediction Problems ..................................... 60 6.2.3. Refined PM10 Modeling Results .................................................... 60 6.3. PM2.5 Modeling Analysis .......................................................................... 63 6.3.1. PM2.5 Modeling Results ................................................................. 63 6.4. NO2 Modeling Analysis ............................................................................ 68 6.5. SO2 Modeling Analysis ............................................................................ 73 6.6. CO Modeling Analysis.............................................................................. 80 7 CALPUFF MODELING RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ......................................... 83 7.1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 83 7.2. Visibility Analysis ..................................................................................... 85 7.2.1. Basis for Analysis .......................................................................... 85 7.2.2. Preliminary Modeled Visibility Impacts .......................................... 86 7.2.3. Effect of Coarse Particulate on CALPUFF Visibility Assessment .. 88 7.2.4. Final Modeled Visibility Impacts .................................................... 88 7.3. Deposition Analysis ................................................................................. 89 7.3.1. Basis for Analysis .......................................................................... 89 7.3.2. Modeled Deposition Fluxes ........................................................... 90 8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 92 9 APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................... 96 10 APPENDIX B .................................................................................................... 103 Upton Plant Modeling Protocol and Results Page iv LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Maximum Potential Fugitive Emissions (tons/year) .......................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Part II: Practical Uses of Air Modeling in Litigation And
    Air Modeling as a Tool in Environmental Law and Policy: A Guide for Communities and Environmental Groups Part II: Practical Uses of Air Modeling in Litigation and Regulatory Contexts Clean Air Council 135 South 19th Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 567-4004 www.cleanair.org September 16, 2016 Authors and Purpose The authors are attorneys at the Clean Air Council at its headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The attorneys working on this White Paper were: Augusta Wilson, Esq., Aaron Jacobs-Smith, Esq., Benjamin Hartung, Esq., Christopher D. Ahlers, Esq., and Joseph Otis Minott, Esq., Executive Director and Chief Counsel. Clean Air Council is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation with headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Acknowledgments The Clean Air Council thanks the Colcom Foundation. This paper would not have been possible without its generous funding and support. The authors would also like to thank Jini Chatterjee, Tessa Roberts and Paul Townsend, students at the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Environmental Law Project, who conducted invaluable research for this paper, and Sonya Shea, who supervised their work at the Environmental Law Project. Disclaimer This paper is intended as a general introduction to the law and policy of air modeling under the Clean Air Act. Nothing in this paper is intended, nor shall it be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship or providing legal advice. © 2016 Clean Air Council 135 S. 19th Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................1 1. Use of Air Modeling to Support Tort Claims .....................................................................2 a. Challenges to the Use of Particular Modeling Software or to Underlying Assumptions .............................................................................................................2 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    CALPUFF Modeling System Version 6 User Instructions April 2011 Section 1: Introduction Table of Contents Page 1. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 CALPUFF Version 6 Modeling System............................................................... 1-1 1.2 Historical Background .......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Overview of the Modeling System ....................................................................... 1-7 1.4 Major Model Algorithms and Options................................................................. 1-19 1.4.1 CALMET................................................................................................ 1-19 1.4.2 CALPUFF............................................................................................... 1-23 1.5 Summary of Data and Computer Requirements .................................................. 1-28 2. GEOPHYSICAL DATA PROCESSORS.......................................................................... 2-1 2.1 TERREL Terrain Preprocessor............................................................................. 2-3 2.2 Land Use Data Preprocessors (CTGCOMP and CTGPROC) ............................. 2-27 2.2.1 Obtaining the Data.................................................................................. 2-27 2.2.2 CTGCOMP - the CTG land use data compression program .................. 2-29 2.2.3 CTGPROC - the land use preprocessor
    [Show full text]
  • Air Dispersion Modeling Guidelines
    Air Quality Modeling Guidelines for Arizona Air Quality Permits PREPARED BY: FACILITIES EMISSIONS CONTROL SECTION AIR QUALITY DIVISION ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY November 1, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of Regulatory Modeling ........................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of an Air Quality Modeling Analysis .......................................................... 2 1.3 Authority for Modeling ............................................................................................. 3 1.4 Acceptable Models.................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Overview of Modeling Protocols and Checklists ..................................................... 4 1.6 Overview of Modeling Reports ................................................................................ 5 2 LEVELS OF MODELING ANALYSIS SOPHISTICATION .................................. 5 2.1 Screening Models or Screening Techniques ............................................................. 6 2.1.1 Screening Models for Near-Field Assessments ................................................. 6 2.1.2 Screening Techniques for Long-Range Transport Assessments ....................... 7 2.2 Refined Modeling ..................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 AERMOD .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Assistance for Improving Emissions Control the Role Of
    This Project is Co-Financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey This Project is c This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey Technical Assistance for Improving Emissions Control Service Contract No: TR0802.03-02/001 Identification No: EuropeAid/128897/D/SER/TR The Role of Emissions Dispersion Modelling in Cost Benefit Analysis Applied to Urban Air Quality Management: Part 1-the Approach (Version 2: 18 May 2012) This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the Consortium led by PM Group and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. Contracting Authority: Central Finance and Contracting Unit, Turkey Implementing Authority / Beneficiary: Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation Project Title: Improving Emissions Control Service Contract Number: TR0802.03-02/001 Identification Number: EuropeAid/128897/D/SER/TR PM Project Number: 300424 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey The Role of Emissions Dispersion Modelling in Cost Benefit Analysis Applied to Urban Air Quality Management: Part 1 – the Approach Version 2: 18 May 2012 PM File Number: 300424-06-RP-200 PM Document Number: 300424-06-205(2) CURRENT ISSUE Issue No.: 2 Date: 18/05/2012 Reason for Issue: Final Version for Client Approval Customer Approval Sign-Off Originator Reviewer Approver (if required) Scott Hamilton, Peter Print Name Russell Frost Jim McNelis Faircloth, Chris Dore Signature Date PREVIOUS ISSUES (Type Names) Issue No. Date Originator Reviewer Approver Customer Reason for Issue 1 14/03/2012 Scott Hamilton, Peter Russell Frost Jim McNelis For client review / comment Faircloth, Chris Dore CFCU / MoEU 300424-06-RP-205 (2) TA for Improving Emissions Control 18 May 2012 CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 10.5 Development of a Wrf-Aermod Tool for Use in Regulatory Applications
    10.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A WRF-AERMOD TOOL FOR USE IN REGULATORY APPLICATIONS Toree Myers-Cook*, Jon Mallard, and Qi Mao Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) ABSTRACT available. For rural sources, the closest representative NWS station may be greater than 50- The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has developed 100 kilometers away. Furthermore, NWS data a WRF-AERMOD tool which transforms the Weather limitations - instrumentation limits, missing data, and Research and Forecasting (WRF) model output into lack of surface parameters required by AERMET - the meteorological input needed by AERMOD have motivated the EPA to explore the use of (AERMAP/AERMET/AERMOD), the EPA- prognostic meteorological models, specifically MM5 recommended model for short-range dispersion (Brode 2008), which can provide a timely and spatially modeling. The tool was used to model 2002 comprehensive meteorological dataset for input to emissions from TVA’s Allen Fossil (ALF) Plant in AERMOD. The EPA has been testing an in-house Memphis, Tennessee. Modeling using NWS data MM5-AERMOD tool for possible use in future was also performed and results were compared. regulatory applications. However, since MM5 is no Analyses of modeling results showed several longer supported by its developers and the WRF differences between the two approaches, with much (Weather Research Forecasting) model is now of the inconsistencies attributed to four main findings. considered the state-of-the-art meteorological model First, the NWS-AERMOD approach tended to stay to replace it, TVA developed a WRF-AERMOD tool more unstable in the summer and stable in the winter that takes WRF three-dimensional meteorological with unrealistically high mechanical boundary layer output (surface and upper air) and transforms it into (MBL) heights.
    [Show full text]
  • Atmospheric Deposition of Pcbs in the Spokane River Watershed
    Atmospheric Deposition of PCBs in the Spokane River Watershed March 2019 Publication No. 19-03-003 Publication Information This report is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1903003.html. Data for this project are available at Ecology’s Environmental Information Management (EIM) website: www.ecology.wa.gov/eim/index.htm, search Study ID BERA0013. The Activity Tracker Code for this study is 16-032. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) and 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) numbers for the study area: WRIAs HUC numbers 56 – Hangman 17010305 57 – Middle Spokane 17010306 Contact Information Publications Coordinator Environmental Assessment Program P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: (360) 407–6764 Washington State Department of Ecology – www.ecology.wa.gov. Headquarters, Olympia (360) 407-6000 Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue (425) 649-7000 Southwest Regional Office, Olympia (360) 407-6300 Central Regional Office, Union Gap (509) 575-2490 Eastern Regional Office, Spokane (509) 329-3400 Cover photo: Atmospheric deposition samplers on the roof of the Spokane Clean Air Agency Building. Photo by Brandee Era-Miller. Any use of product or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the author or the Department of Ecology. Accommodation Requests: To request ADA accommodation, including materials in a format for the visually impaired, call Ecology at 360-407-6764, or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/ accessibility. People with impaired hearing may call Washington Relay Service at 711. People with speech disability may call TTY at 877-833-6341.
    [Show full text]
  • Predicting Air Quality Near Roadway Intersections Through the Applicat
    University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2004 Predicting Air Quality Near Roadway Intersections Through The Applicat Brian Kim University of Central Florida Part of the Environmental Engineering Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Doctoral Dissertation (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Kim, Brian, "Predicting Air Quality Near Roadway Intersections Through The Applicat" (2004). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 200. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/200 PREDICTING AIR QUALITY NEAR ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF A GAUSSIAN PUFF MODEL TO MOVING SOURCES by BRIAN Y. KIM B.S. University of California at Irvine, 1990 M.S. California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, 1996 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the College of Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2004 ABSTRACT With substantial health and economic impacts attached to many highway-related projects, it has become imperative that the models used to assess air quality be as accurate as possible. The United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently promulgates the use of CAL3QHC to model concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) near roadway intersections.
    [Show full text]
  • Machine Learning Approaches for Outdoor Air Quality Modelling: a Systematic Review
    applied sciences Review Machine Learning Approaches for Outdoor Air Quality Modelling: A Systematic Review Yves Rybarczyk 1,2 and Rasa Zalakeviciute 1,* 1 Intelligent & Interactive Systems Lab (SI2 Lab), Universidad de Las Américas, 170125 Quito, Ecuador; [email protected] 2 Department of Electrical Engineering, CTS/UNINOVA, Nova University of Lisbon, 2829-516 Monte de Caparica, Portugal * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +351-593-23-981-000 Received: 15 November 2018; Accepted: 8 December 2018; Published: 11 December 2018 Abstract: Current studies show that traditional deterministic models tend to struggle to capture the non-linear relationship between the concentration of air pollutants and their sources of emission and dispersion. To tackle such a limitation, the most promising approach is to use statistical models based on machine learning techniques. Nevertheless, it is puzzling why a certain algorithm is chosen over another for a given task. This systematic review intends to clarify this question by providing the reader with a comprehensive description of the principles underlying these algorithms and how they are applied to enhance prediction accuracy. A rigorous search that conforms to the PRISMA guideline is performed and results in the selection of the 46 most relevant journal papers in the area. Through a factorial analysis method these studies are synthetized and linked to each other. The main findings of this literature review show that: (i) machine learning is mainly applied in Eurasian and North American continents and (ii) estimation problems tend to implement Ensemble Learning and Regressions, whereas forecasting make use of Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study: Modelling Environmental Concentrations of Chemicals from Emission Data
    EEA Technical report No 8/2007 Feasibility study: modelling environmental concentrations of chemicals from emission data ISSN 1725-2237 EEA Technical report No 8/2007 Feasibility study: modelling environmental concentrations of chemicals from emission data Cover design: EEA Layout: Diadeis and EEA Legal notice The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions of the European Communities. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report. All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the copyright holder. For translation or reproduction rights please contact EEA (address information below). Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007 ISBN 978-92-9167-925-6 ISSN 1725-2237 © EEA, Copenhagen, 2007 European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 1050 Copenhagen K Denmark Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00 Fax: +45 33 36 71 99 Web: eea.europa.eu Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries Contents Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MARK R THEOBALD.Pdf
    TESIS DOCTORAL / Ph.D THESIS An Intercomparison of Modelling Approaches for Simulating the Atmospheric Dispersion of Ammonia Emitted by Agricultural Sources Mark R. Theobald Madrid 2012 E.T.S.I. Agrónomos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Departamento de Química y Análisis Agrícola Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos An Intercomparison of Modelling Approaches for Simulating the Atmospheric Dispersion of Ammonia Emitted by Agricultural Sources Autor: Mark R. Theobald Licenciado en Ciencias Físicas (MPhys hons) Directores: Dr. Antonio Vallejo Garcia Doctor en Ciencias Químicas Dr. Mark A. Sutton Doctor en Ciencias Físicas Madrid 2012 Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was funded by the European Commission through the NitroEurope Integrated Project (Contract No. 017841 of the EU Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development). The European Science Foundation also provided additional funding through COST Action 729 for the attendance of conferences and workshops and for the collaboration with the University of Lisbon (COST-STSM-729-5799). Firstly I would like to thank my two supervisors Dr. Mark A. Sutton and Prof. Antonio Vallejo for their support and guidance throughout this work. I am grateful to Mark not only for his willingness to discuss and direct this work no matter where he was in the world or whatever time of day it was, but also for the support and encouragement I received when I was at CEH Edinburgh. I am also grateful to Antonio for guiding me through the labyrinths of University bureaucracy. I would also like to thank the other research groups with whom I have collaborated throughout this work. Thanks to all my colleagues at CEH Edinburgh with a special mention to Bill Bealey for his help developing the SCAIL model and to Sim Tang for providing the ALPHA samplers and technical support.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispersion V3.23
    Volume 2 Airviro User’s Reference Working with the Dispersion Module How to simulate the dispersion of pollutants Working with the Dispersion Module How to simulate the dispersion of pollutants Amendments Version Date changed Cause of change Signature 3.11 Ago2007 Upgrade GS 3.12 January2009 Upgrade GS 3.13 January2009 Upgrade GS 3.20 May 2010 Upgrade GS 3.21 Dec 2010 Upgrade GS 3.21 June 2012 Review GS 3.22 April 2013 Release GS 3.23 Jan 2014 Upgrade GS 3.23 January 2014 Review GS 3.23 June 2015 Review GS Contents 2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................7 2.1.1 Why You Need to Use Dispersion Models.........................................................7 2.1.1.1 What’s the Use of Dispersion Simulations.....................................................7 2.1.1.2 How Can Airviro Help?......................................................................................7 2.1.2 Model Assumptions..............................................................................................8 2.1.3 Brief description of the available models..........................................................9 2.1.4 How does Dispersion Module client work?.....................................................18 2.1.5 Guidance for the beginner:................................................................................18 2.1.6 Overview of the Dispersion Module Main Window.........................................19 2.1.6.1 Changing Weather Conditions – Model settings.........................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Chemical Dispersion Models Using Atmospheric Plume Measurements from Field Experiments EPA Contract No
    September 2012 FINAL REPORT FINAL REPORT Evaluation of Chemical Dispersion Models using Atmospheric Plume Measurements from Field Experiments EPA Contract No: EP‐D‐07‐102 Work Assignment No: 4‐06 and 5‐08 Prepared for: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Mail Code: C439‐1 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 Novato, California, 94998 Under Subcontract to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill September 2012 06‐20443M6 UNC–EMAQ 4‐06.018.v4 September 2012 FINAL REPORT UNC–EMAQ 4‐06.016.v4 i September 2012 FINAL REPORT Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH .................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Field Experiments used in the Evaluation ............................................. 2 1.3.2 Models Evaluated .................................................................................. 2 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ........................................................................ 2 2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]