DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 3, Restoration Alternatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 3, Restoration Alternatives DRAFT NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAMMATIC RESTORATION PLAN and ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE OKLAHOMA PORTION OF THE TRI-STATE MINING DISTRICT NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION SITE, IN NORTHEAST, OK DEVELOPED BY: THE TAR CREEK TRUSTEE COUNCIL March 2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Overview of Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration ........................... 3 1.1.1 Natural Resources, Services, Restoration Defined ........................................................ 5 1.1.2 Residual Injury after Response Actions ......................................................................... 6 1.1.3 Coordination with EPA and Tri-State Trustee Councils ................................................ 6 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................. 6 1.3 Draft Programmatic RP/EA Background Information ................................................... 6 1.4 NRDAR Settlement History in Northeastern Oklahoma ................................................ 7 Chapter 2: Tri-State Mining District History and Background ................................... 9 2.1 Tri-State Mining District Description ............................................................................... 9 2.2 Tri-State Mining District History ...................................................................................... 9 2.3 NOMNRDAR Site ............................................................................................................. 10 2.4 Tribal Presence in the TSMD........................................................................................... 10 2.5 Tar Creek Superfund Site Remediation History ............................................................ 11 2.5.1 Tar Creek OU Sediment/Surface water connection to other sites ............................... 12 2.6 Injured Resources and Services from Releases of Heavy Metals from TSMD ........... 14 Chapter 3: Restoration Alternatives ............................................................................. 19 3.1 Goals and Objectives of Restoration ............................................................................... 19 3.2 Restoration Alternatives ................................................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Restoration Definitions ................................................................................................ 19 3.2.2 Restoration Project Types ............................................................................................ 20 3.2.3 No Action: Alternative 1.............................................................................................. 20 3.2.4 On-Site Restoration: Alternative 2 .............................................................................. 21 3.2.5 Off-Site Restoration: Alternative 3 .............................................................................. 21 3.2.6 On- and Off–Site Restoration: Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) .......................... 21 3.3 Restoration Project Packages Process ............................................................................. 24 3.4 Evaluation Criteria and Process for Evaluating Potential Projects ............................. 24 3.4.1 Climate Change ........................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 4: Affected Environment ................................................................................. 28 4.1 Terrestrial Resources ........................................................................................................ 28 4.2 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................................. 28 4.2.1 Surface Water Resources ............................................................................................. 28 4.2.2 Groundwater Resources ............................................................................................... 29 4.3 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 30 4.4 Threatened and Endangered and Other Protected Species .......................................... 31 4.5 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 32 4.6 Climate ............................................................................................................................... 32 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences ............... 34 5.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 34 5.1.1 Recreation .................................................................................................................... 34 5.1.2 Socio-Economics ......................................................................................................... 35 5.1.3 Cumulative Impact ....................................................................................................... 35 5.1.4 Environmental Justice .................................................................................................. 35 5.2 Evaluation of Alternative 1 (No Action) .......................................................................... 35 ii 5.2.1 Terrestrial Resources / Habitat Impacts ....................................................................... 35 5.2.2 Aquatic Resources / Habitat Impacts ........................................................................... 35 5.2.3 Biological Resources Impacts ...................................................................................... 36 5.2.4 T&E Species Impacts .................................................................................................. 36 5.2.5 Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts .............................................................................. 36 5.2.6 Recreation Impacts ...................................................................................................... 36 5.2.7 Socio-Economic Impacts ............................................................................................. 36 5.2.8 Climate Change Impacts .............................................................................................. 36 5.2.9 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................... 36 5.2.10 Environmental Justice Impacts .................................................................................. 36 5.3 Elements Common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 ................................................................ 37 5.3.1 Socio-Economic Impacts ............................................................................................. 37 5.3.2 Climate Change Impacts .............................................................................................. 37 5.3.3 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................... 37 5.3.4 Environmental Justice Impacts .................................................................................... 38 5.4 Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2: On-Site Restoration .......................... 38 5.4.1 Terrestrial Resources / Habitat Impacts ....................................................................... 38 5.4.2 Aquatic Resources / Habitat Impacts ........................................................................... 38 5.4.3 Biological Resources Impacts ...................................................................................... 39 5.4.4 T&E Species Impacts .................................................................................................. 39 5.4.5 Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts .............................................................................. 39 5.4.6 Recreation Impacts ...................................................................................................... 39 5.5 Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3: Off-Site Restoration .......................... 39 5.5.1 Terrestrial Resources / Habitat Impacts ....................................................................... 40 5.5.2 Aquatic Resources / Habitat Impacts ........................................................................... 40 5.5.3 Biological Resources Impacts ...................................................................................... 40 5.5.4 T&E Species Impacts .................................................................................................. 40 5.5.5 Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts .............................................................................. 41 5.5.6 Recreation Impacts ...................................................................................................... 41 5.6 Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4: Combination of On-Site and Off-Site Restoration (Preferred Alternative) ...................................................................................... 41 5.6.1 Terrestrial Resources / Habitat Impacts ......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States District Court
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION ____________________________________________ ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) THE STATES OF COLORADO, OKLAHOMA, ) MISSOURI, KANSAS, ILLINOIS, MONTANA, ) and TENNESEE, and THE EASTERN SHAWNEE ) TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, THE OTTAWA TRIBE ) OF OKLAHOMA, THE PEORIA TRIBE OF ) INDIANS OF OKLAHOMA, THE SENECA- ) CAYUGA NATION, THE WYANDOTTE NATION, ) THE MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, ) and THE CHEROKEE NATION, ) Civil No. 3:18-cv-5097 ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) NOTICE OF LODGING OF ) CONSENT DECREE BLUE TEE CORP., BROWN STRAUSS, INC., ) DAVID P. ALLDIAN, RICHARD A. SECRIST, ) and WILLIAM M. KELLY, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________________) Plaintiff, the United States of America, respectfully informs the Court and all parties of the lodging of a consent decree in the above-captioned case. The proposed Decree is attached to this Notice as Exhibit A and no other action is required by the Court at this time. Final approval by the United States and entry of the consent decree is subject to the Department of Justice's requirements set forth at 28 C.F.R. § 50.7 which provides, inter alia, for notice of the lodging of these consent decrees in the Federal Register, an opportunity for public comment, and consideration of any comments. - 1 - Case 3:18-cv-05097-DPR Document 2 Filed 10/31/18 Page 1 of 3 After the close of the comment period and review of any new information by the Department of Justice, we will contact the Court with respect to any future action regarding the entry of this Consent Decree. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: JEFFREY H.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground-Water Flow Model of the Boone Formation at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Oklahoma and Kansas
    Ground-Water Flow Model of the Boone Formation at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Oklahoma and Kansas Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5097 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover: View looking west from top of chat pile on east side of the town of Picher, Okla- homa, overlooking the town and the adjacent chat piles derived from decades of lead-zinc mining. Photograph by John B. Czarnecki, U.S. Geological Survey. Ground-Water Flow Model of the Boone Formation at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Oklahoma and Kansas By T.B. Reed and John B. Czarnecki Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5097 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior P. Lynn Scarlett, Acting Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to repro- duce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. iii Contents Abstract.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Past and Present Conditions of the Tri-State Mining District
    BearWorks MSU Graduate Theses Summer 2020 The Legacy of Mining in Southwest Missouri: Past and Present Conditions of the Tri-State Mining District Anastasia M C McClanahan Missouri State University, [email protected] As with any intellectual project, the content and views expressed in this thesis may be considered objectionable by some readers. However, this student-scholar’s work has been judged to have academic value by the student’s thesis committee members trained in the discipline. The content and views expressed in this thesis are those of the student-scholar and are not endorsed by Missouri State University, its Graduate College, or its employees. Follow this and additional works at: https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses Part of the Environmental Chemistry Commons, Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Environmental Public Health Commons, Geochemistry Commons, Geology Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Other Earth Sciences Commons, Other Environmental Sciences Commons, Soil Science Commons, Sustainability Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation McClanahan, Anastasia M C, "The Legacy of Mining in Southwest Missouri: Past and Present Conditions of the Tri-State Mining District" (2020). MSU Graduate Theses. 3556. https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/3556 This article or document was made available through BearWorks, the institutional repository of Missouri State University. The work contained in it may be protected by
    [Show full text]
  • Remediation Challenges and Opportunities at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Oklahoma1
    ----- ----- REMEDIATION CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES AT THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE, OKLAHOMA1 by Robert W. Nairn, Brian C. Griffin, J.D. Strong and Earl L. Hatley2 Abstract: The Tar Creek Superfund Site is a portion of the abandoned lead and zinc mining area known as the Tri-State Mining District (OK, KS and MO) and includes over 100 square kilometers of disturbed land surface and contaminated water resources in extreme northeastern Oklahoma. Underground mining from the 1890s through the 1960s degraded over 1000 surface hectares, and left nearly 500 km of tunnels, 165 million tons of processed mine waste materials ( chat), 300 hectares of tailings impoundments and over 2600 open shafts and boreholes. Approximately 94 million cubic meters of contaminated water currently exist in underground voids. In 1979, metal-rich waters began to discharge into surface waters from natural springs, bore holes and mine shafts. Six communities are located within the boundaries of the Superfund site. Approximately 70% of the site is Native American owned. Subsidence and surface c~apse hazards are of significant concern. The Tar Creek site was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983 and currently receives a Hazard Ranking System score of58.15, making Tar Creek the nation's number one NPL site. A 1993 Indian Health Service study demonstrated that 35% of children had blood lead levels above thresholds dangerous to human health. Recent remediation efforts have focused on excavation and replacement of contaminated residential areas. In January 2000, Governor Frank Keating's Tar Creek Task Force was created to take a "vital leadership role' in identifying solutions and resources available to address" the myriad environmental problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Tar Creek 2009 • Running Time 54 Minutes • Directed by Matt Myers • Distributed by Bullfrog Films
    Tar Creek 2009 • Running time 54 minutes • Directed by Matt Myers • Distributed by Bullfrog Films Tar Creek is the story of the worst environmental disaster you’ve never heard of: the Tar Creek Superfund site in northeastern Oklahoma. What was once the Quapaw Tribe’s reservation was taken and transformed into one of the largest lead and zinc mines on the planet. Today, Tar Creek is home to more than 40 square miles of environmental devastation: acid mine water in the creeks, dangerous sinkholes, and high levels of lead poisoning in children. Now, almost 30 years after Tar Creek was designated for federal cleanup by the Superfund program, its residents are still fighting for decontamination, environmental justice, and, ultimately, the buyout of their homes and their relocation to safer ground. The pillaged land, contaminated waterways, and toxic dust are now the sole responsibility of the Quapaw Tribe—Native Americans who never asked to be located there in the first place. —Adapted from the distributor’s website at Bullfrog Films 1 WHY WE CHOSE THIS FILM The long sweep of historical injustices against the Quapaw Tribe makes this film extremely compelling. After being evicted from their homelands in the early 1800s, the Quapaw were relocated to Tar Creek, Oklahoma, on land that appeared useless to the U.S. government. However, once lead was discovered there in the early 1900s, the Secretary of the Interior attempted to once again deprive the Quapaw of their land rights by declaring individuals who owned land with large lead deposits “incompetent” so the government could manage the access to the lead below ground.
    [Show full text]
  • Answers T O Superfund
    ANSWERS TO SUPERFUND A PUBLICA TION OF THE C L A RK F ORK WA TERSHED E DUCA TION PROGRA M THE MOUNTAIN CON MINE YARD (FOREMAN’S PARK) PHOTO COURTESY OF CFWEP.ORG HOW DID THE CLARK FORK BECOME A SUPERFUND SITE? BY RAYELYNN CONNOLE he history of mining in the the entire camp. Furthermore, The rampant depositing of Mining continued in Butte TClark Fork Watershed be- tailings, the flour-like, acid- wastes throughout the Summit with underground mining even- gins with the discovery of gold producing mine wastes that and the Deer Lodge valleys tually giving way to open pit in Silver Bow Creek near Butte result from milling the ore, was further compounded by mining in the 1950’s. In 1977, in 1864. Gold mining in Butte were discharged into Silver an unprecedented 100-year the Anaconda Company was was rather short-lived; in fact, Bow Creek. For more than 100 flood in 1908. This flood car- bought by the big oil company, many historians reflect that the years, Silver Bow Creek was an ried tailings wastes from Butte Atlantic Richfield Company Butte camp was nearly a ghost open industrial sewer, being and Anaconda, and from the (ARCO). In 1980, ARCO closed town before the great copper used as a transport system for sediments of Silver Bow Creek the Anaconda Smelter, mark- boom of the 1880’s. The de- sending these tailings waste and Warm Springs Creek, and ing the beginning of ARCO’s mand for Butte’s copper ores downstream. spread them throughout the exit from mining.
    [Show full text]
  • Tar Creek Superfund Site "The Only Superfund Site That Is Used As a Recreational Area"
    Tar Creek Superfund Site "The Only Superfund Site That Is Used As a Recreational Area" DIANNEMCDANIEL Miami University When I came to Miami, Oklahoma, it was as a student with a class from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio participating in an ethnohistory project with the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. Early in this experience, I realized that there was located in this area many environmental issues that were greatly impacting not only the Miami Tribe, but also other tribes located in the surrounding cities of Picher, Commerce, Cardm, and Quapaw, as well as, extending even beyond their borders. This area is an Environenmental Protection Agency Superfund Site covering a 40 square mile area brought about by the mining of lead and zinc, which started in the late 1800s and lasted through the 1970s. First, I would like to give a brief history of the Native American populations that are located in this area, which is known as "Indian Territory" and is composed of many different tribes. Second, I would like to give an explanation of the current conditions and a brief historical background of the mining operations that have led to the environmental degradation of the land, water, and air problems associated with mining in northeast Oklahoma. Third, I would like to give voice to the Native American people affected and the various responses to health issues resulting from mining, as has been related to me verbally, as well as, information I gathered through research and observation. These voices reflect varied and often controversial views. My intention is to raise awareness of the environmental issues that tribes are faced with today.
    [Show full text]
  • Focus on Tar Creek: Making an Introductory Course Interesting
    Focus on Tar Creek Christi L. Patton University of Tulsa Abstract Tar Creek is #1 on the EPA cleanup list and it is located about 90 miles from the University of Tulsa campus. While the legislators and residents debate what should be done to clean up the area, freshman Chemical Engineering students research the history of Tar Creek and use this as a starting point for lectures and discussion on safety, ethics and the environment. Throughout the course students perform practice calculations that are based on the information gleaned through their readings. The last weeks of the semester are spent in a research project that takes them to Tar Creek to sample the water and test the samples in a series of experiments of their own design. The students then evaluate remediation methods and propose their plan to correct the problems that they found through the experimental testing. This project gives the students a practical appreciation of safety and the environment and an opportunity to apply their skills to a real-life problem. As a result of this project, student retention was improved and students gained a lasting sense of responsibility for the global environment. Background Tar Creek has received national attention since it was established as a top priority by the EPA Superfund in 1983. As such, it is an appropriate topic for an introductory course in chemical engineering that emphasizes safety, ethics and the environment. The fact that it is located a ninety minute’s drive from the University of Tulsa makes it an excellent way to blend an introduction to engineering with current events.
    [Show full text]
  • Third Five-Year Review Report for the Tar Creek Superfund Site Ottawa County, Oklahoma
    Five-Year Review Report Third Five-Year Review Report for the Tar Creek Superfund Site Ottawa County, Oklahoma September 2005 PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL Contract Number 68-W6-0036 Work Assignment Number 133-FRFE-06ZZ PREPARED FOR: Region 6 United States Environmental Protection Agency Dallas, Texas TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Tar Creek Superfund Site EPA ID# OKD980629844 Ottawa County, Oklahoma This memorandum documents the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) performance, determinations, and approval of the Tar Creek Superfund Site (site) third five-year review under Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 United States Code (USC) §9621(c), as provided in the attached Third Five-Year Review Report prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc., on behalf of EPA. Summary of Five-Year Review Findings The third five-year review for this site indicates that the remedial actions set forth in the decision documents for this site continue to be implemented as planned. A Long-Term Monitoring program for the Roubidoux Aquifer is being conducted by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to determine the effectiveness of the well plugging program as required by the Operable Unit (OU) 1 Record of Decision (ROD). Additional abandoned Roubidoux wells have been plugged by the ODEQ, and both the ODEQ and EPA continue to evaluate the need to plug abandoned Roubidoux wells, once identified and located, as required by the OU1 ROD. There are also several diversion channels and dikes, constructed as part of the surface water remedy for OU1, present at the site.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2018 (Pdf)
    Minutes ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS COMMITTEE MEETING Call To Order A meeting of the Environmental Concerns Committee was held in Gould Hall on December 13th, 2018. It began at 9:02 AM and was presided by Burr Millsap. Attendees Voting Members in Attendance: Tammy McCuen and Kolt Vaughn Ex-Officio Members in Attendance: Sarah Ballew, Dorothy Flowers, Jason Hancock, Brian Holderread, Burr Millsap, Bob Nairn, Randy Peppler, and Jeremi Wright. Agenda Items I. Introduction Our guest presenter this month is Dr. Bob Nairn. Dr. Nairn is a David L. Boren Professor and Viersen Presidential Professor within the School of Civil Engineering and Science as well as the Director of the Center for Restoration of Ecosystems and Watersheds (CREW). A moment was taken to introduce Dr. Nairn as well as all in attendance of the meeting. II. Guest Presentation – Dr. Nairn: A Decade of Successful Performance: Exotoxic Metal Retention in Ecologically Engineered Passive Treatment System Contributes to Stream Recovery The Tar Creek Superfund site is located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. A superfund is a contaminated site that exists due to hazardous waste being dumped, left out in the open, or otherwise improperly managed. The Tar Creek Superfund site is part of the larger Tri-State Lead Zinc Mining district that existed in the areas of northeast Oklahoma, southeast Kansas, and southwest Missouri. Today, the mining district is composed of a total of four Superfund Sites: the Cherokee County Site, Cherokee County, Kansas; the Orongo-Duenweg Site, Jasper County, Missouri; the Newton County Mine Tailings Site, Newton County, Missouri; and the Tar Creek Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma.
    [Show full text]
  • TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE STRATEGIC PLAN Cleanup Progress & Plans for the Future
    TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE STRATEGIC PLAN Cleanup Progress & Plans for the Future 2019 Contents 4 Purpose 6 Partners 8 Site Background 10 Major Site Milestones 12 Success Highlights (1983 to 2018) 16 Site Cleanup Management, Milestones & Planning 18 OU1 - Surface Water/Groundwater 20 OU2 - Residential Areas 22 OU3 - Eagle-Picher Office Complex - Abandoned Mining Chemicals Removal Action 24 OU4 - Chat Piles, Other Mine & Mill Waste, & Smelter Wastes 28 OU5 - Sediment & Surface Water 30 Institutional Controls 32 Site Redevelopment & Continued Use 33 Community Involvement 34 Near-Term Strategic Plan (2019 to 2021) 44 Planned Cleanup & Related Actions (2019 to 2021) 46 Long-Term Strategic Plans (2022 & Onward) 47 Conclusion This document contains Adobe Stock images that may not be used elsewhere without permission from Adobe Stock. Readers may not access or download Adobe Stock images from this document for any purpose and must comply with Adobe Stock’s Terms of Use, which require users to obtain a license to the work. PURPOSE The Tar Creek Superfund Site in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, was placed on the EPA This document updates the public on the progress and future plans to address Administrator’s Emphasis List of “Superfund Sites Targeted for Immediate, Intense Action” contamination at the Site. The report includes the following sections: in 2017 because it is one of the largest and most challenging Superfund sites in the • – describes the activities that resulted in the Site’s placement country. Substantial progress has been made since the Governor of Oklahoma established Site Background on the NPL. the Tar Creek Task Force in 1980 and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Safeguarding Communities from Chemical Exposures
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341 TEL: 800­232­4636 PUBLIC INQUIRIES: 1­800­CDC­INFO WEB: www.atsdr.cdc.gov ATSDR Safeguarding Communities from Chemical Exposures Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Safeguarding Communities from Chemical Exposures ATSDR responds to oil contamination of floodwaters in Coffeyville, Kansas, 2007. Environmental factors contribute to morethan 25%of alldiseasesworldwide. IntheUnitedStates, the yearly cost of just four childhood health problems linked to chemical exposures—lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and developmental disabilities—is greater than $54 billion. Chemical exposures occur in homes, schools, workplaces, and throughout communities. Accidental releases,certainhouseholdproducts,orhazardoussitesare allpossiblecausesofchemicalexposures. Exposures that occur in the community may be difficult to identify and control. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) works to safeguard communities from chemicalexposures. ATSDRinvestigatescommunity exposuresrelated to chemicalsitesandreleases; works closely with federal, tribal, state, and local agencies to identify potential exposures; assesses associatedhealtheffects;andrecommendsactionsto stop,prevent, or minimizetheseharmfuleffects. Manytimes,exposures occurred in the pastandaredifficulttoevaluate. ATSDRscientistscanestimate exposures based on previous similar situations (called modeling), test individuals in the area to determine
    [Show full text]