ࡱ; NO  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijkR FVzCompObj\WordDocumentObjectPool8z8z  FMicrosoft Word 6.0 DocumentNB6WWord.Document.6;  Oh+'0 5 ; G S_g o{ MMacintosh HD:Applications:Microsoft Office:Microsoft Word 6:Templates:NormalSec 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5 Max HenrionMichael Steele'@$Rx@vܥhO eņ:4f\f(@fl>(fffff|pWYYYYYY&XCA.JP ff...f>....ffWPhhn.W.). Design for an Integrated- Assessment Framework for the Southern Appalachian Mountain Initiative Phase I Report: Draft   Lumina Decision Systems, Inc.: Max Henrion - Los Altos, California Deborah Amaral - Mebane, North Carolina Rich Sonnenblick - Los Altos, California Resources for the Future, Inc.: Alan Krupnick - Washington, D. C. Winston Harrington - Washington, D. C. Dallas Burtraw - Washington, D. C. Organization of This Report The executive summary contains the key recommendations, whose background and justifications are provided in the body of the report. The body of the report consists of eight chapters. We emphasize our key recommendations in the body of the report as bulleted paragraphs in italics, like this one. Chapter 1 introduces SAMI, the purpose and organization of the report. Chapter 2 outlines the recommended methodology for SAMI to follow in developing its integrated assessment. It also discusses methods, such as progressive refinement, the treatment of uncertainty, and the use of reduced-form models. Chapter 3 treats the effects and criteria for evaluation of EMOs. It presents various ways in which results can be evaluated, aggregated, and displayed to support the selection of EMOs. Chapter 4 describes the process for selecting and using a baseline or reference case against which to compare the effects of proposed EMOs. Chapter 5 concerns the modules that comprise the framework itself. It presents each of the modules with discussion of alternative models, levels of detail, and the effort involved in developing that module. The organization and preparation EMOs are the subject of Chapter 6. In Chapter 7, we provide suggestions for coordinating the work with SAMI and the rest of the IA team of contractors. In Chapter 8, we propose three plans to develop the IAF to suit different budget levels, with timelines and budgets. The appendix presents the Screening Table, summarizing the information on integrated assessment modules presented in Chapter 5 in a summary table. Table of Contents Executive Summary This report describes an integrated-assessment framework (IAF) for the Southern Appalachian Mountain Initiative (SAMI). Integrated assessment is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach to environmental decision making that integrates all relevant areas of science, economics, and policy into a unified framework. It combines both quantitative and qualitative methods, as appropriate to the state of understanding and to the needs of SAMI members. This executive summary consists primarily of recommendations drawn from the body of the report. Consult the full report for the background and justification of these recommendations. The section numbers in this summary correspond to the chapter numbers in the report. The design presented here describes both a product and a process. The product is a flexible framework for evaluation of opportunities to reduce the effects of air pollution in the SAMI region. The process consists of the steps to be taken by SAMI and its contractors to build the integrated framework and apply it to assess candidate emissions-management options (EMOs). Background SAMI is a volunteer organization consisting of representatives from the environmental departments of the eight member states from the southeast, community environmental groups, industry, and federal agencies. Its mission is to develop and recommend reasonable emissions-management options (EMOs) to remedy existing and prevent future adverse effects from human-induced air pollution, primarily environmental effects occurring within Class I parks and wilderness areas, weighing the environmental and socioeconomic implications. Recommended methodology for SAMI's integrated assessment By the term assessment in integrated assessment, we imply a focus on the evaluation of potential consequences of environmental and economic events not simply in technical terms increase in lake pH, atmospheric extinction coefficients, or power generation costs but in terms that people care about poor fishing, dead trees, increased electricity rates, or fewer jobs. By the term integrated, we imply an assessment that covers the causal chain end to end, from environmental management options (EMOs) recommended by SAMI to responses by individuals and industry to changes in environmental loading and transport of pollutants, to environmental and economic effects, all the way through to the effects people care about. It also implies a comprehensive analysis, that covers the full range of important pathways and effects. An assessment that ignores some important effects will never be credible to those that care about those effects. Of course, the degree of integration in an integrated assessment is relative: It is impossible to model every single pathway and effect of conceivable interest. SAMIs goal should be to assemble the data and tools to enable a far more comprehensive assessment than has been practical hitherto, and to provide ways of summarizing and linking datasets and models so that they can work together much more effectively. Recently developed methodologies and technologies for integrated assessment have made this much more practical and affordable than it was even a few years ago. SAMI can benefit from the experience of previous integrated assessment projects, which provide the following lessons: The integrated assessment framework (IAF) should guide all research and analysis in a coordinated program. The IAF should focus on the policy issues the EMOs in SAMIs case. The use of reduced-form models (RFMs) lets components be integrated into a single flexible computer program that can run on a personal computer. A shared software environment can let multiple teams work together to create an integrated model. A flexible, interactive computer model to analyze new policy options can facilitate more rapid and informed decision making by groups with diverse interests. Reduced-form models should be based on credible scientific data and models. Previous studies of the external costs of electrical power have found that human health effects, employment impacts, fiscal effects, and fuel transportation are often important relative to the more obvious environmental effects and direct costs. Environmental effects such as ecological stability and global warming are so poorly understood that they may best be treated qualitatively. The costs of conducting integrated assessments have been in the range of $1 million to $10 million, and appear to be declining with experience. The following summarize our recommendations for the integrated-assessment methodology: Adopt progressive refinement as SAMIs approach to integrated assessment, developing the assessment model as a series of versions of progressively increasing refinement. This approach is more flexible in responding to new scientific results, changing policy priorities, and funding than single-pass methods. It will also provide a usable results earlier in the process. Conduct peer review of the IAF and its modules to ensure scientific credibility in all phases. Where there exist large amounts of data or detailed computer models, develop reduced-form models (RFMs) for use as modules in the IAF. To accommodate unexpected changes in the science, use RFMs to keep the IAF small, flexible, and easy to update. Use hierarchical influence diagrams to specify and communicate IAF and module structures in qualitative terms. Represent uncertainty about all key quantities using probability distributions, based on observed data where available, and otherwise on expert judgment. Propagate probabilistic uncertainties through computer models using Monte Carlo, or related sampling techniques. Conduct systematic sensitivity and uncertainty analysis to identify those inputs that contribute most to the uncertainty in the results. Employ a common software environment to be used by all contractors for developing and integrating modules of the IAF. Candidates are standard spreadsheet applications, Analytica from Lumina, or a custom-built software program. Apply software-engineering techniques to specify module interfaces to ensure successful integration of the products of independent teams. Effects and criteria for evaluation of EMOs It is helpful to classify effects into intermediate effects and final effects, which directly influence objectives of the decision maker. Following convention, we classify objectives into two groups, Environmental benefits and economic costs, even though some environmental effects may give rise to costs, and some economic effects may give rise to benefits. The cost-effectiveness of an EMO is the ratio of some measurable effect, such as emissions reductions or percentage of lakes with pH<5.5, to the cost of implementation. Quantitative cost-benefit analysis entails estimating the monetary value of all important costs and benefits, and computing the net benefits. Emissions cost-effectiveness is easy to compute, but less informative than a cost-benefit analysis. Cost-effectiveness can be used to rank EMOs with similar patterns of emissions. But, it cannot tell you whether even the most cost-effective EMO is worth adopting. Moreover, it does not consider all important effects. On the other hand it invites major controversy to attempt to monetize some effects, such as ecosystem health and effects on cultural resources. Multicriteria analysis involves rating options (EMOs) on a comprehensive list of criteria, some of which may be quantified in monetary terms, such as direct costs, others which may be quantified in nonmonetary units, such as average percentage increase in visibility, and still others may be purely qualitative, such as damage to forests. The results of the integrated assessment may be summarized in an options-criteria table as shown in Table 1-1. This table provides a simple, but clear way to integrate qualitative and quantitative information in a comprehensible form. By presenting qualitative and quantitative criteria in this unified table, it reduces the chance that decision makers will concentrate on quantified criteria at the expense of qualitative issues. The exact choice of which attributes should be included, which quantified and which monetized, depends on SAMIs budget and priorities. Choices from the Screening table in the Appendix will determine this. Table 1-1 is only intended as an illustration. We recommend that SAMI employ cost-effectiveness, and multicriteria analysis in an options-criterion table as a way to view the results of the integrated assessment to support decision making. Table  STYLEREF 1 \n 1- SEQ Table \* ARABIC \r 1 1: An example options-criteria table to present summary results from an integrated assessment: Selected effects, objectives, and other criteria are listed vertically, for comparing selection options or EMOs. The values in the table, whether qualitative or quantitative, are expressed relative to the base case. OptionsCriteriaMeasureABCIndicator effectsEmissions reductiontons/year200,000800,000300,000Concentration in Class I areasmicrograms/m3 253Primary environmental effectsVisibility% improvement10%30%6%Aquatics% lakes acidifiedfewmanynoneForestsvisible damagesmalllargenegligibleSocioeconomic effectsDirect costs$ millions/year$50 $200 $30 Indirect costssmalllargesmallJobsmodestlargenegligible SAMI should instruct the Phase II contractors to identify disadvantaged groups that need special consideration, and to provide separate estimates of the effects of EMOs on those groups. The baseline or reference case In order to predict the effects of an EMO, we need to be able to predict the baseline or reference case of what would happen without that EMO. Prediction of the baseline requires assumptions about compliance with current environmental regulations, future demographic and economic trends, and the lifetime of existing plant. Developing a complete specification is hard. Many of these assumptions are uncertain. Accordingly, we suggest expressing this uncertainty by developing three reference cases: most likely, optimistic, and pessimistic. To avoid the complications of assessing a reference case, we can assess the consequences of EMOs relative to the consequences of not adopting the EMO, rather than in absolute terms. Relative consequences are easier to assess and more accurate than absolute consequences. Designing Modules for the Integrated Assessment Framework A critical task in the design of an IA is to choose the level of detail for modeling each module, balancing the need for accuracy against the limits on data and computational resources. Key dimensions to be specified for each module include pollutant species or pathway e.g., SOx, NOx, VOCs and O3 spatial scale, e.g., national park, state, grid square, county, or selected site, and temporal scale, e.g. decade, year, season, or day. We define four levels of detail as options for treating each module: Level 1: A purely qualitative assessment of this issue to determine the relative qualitative effects of EMOs. Level 2: The simplest quantitative analysis of this issue that passes the laugh test that is based on scientifically credible assumptions, available data, and reasonable approximations. Level 3: A medium-level quantitative model, intermediate between level 2 and level 4. Level 4: A detailed quantitative model, at the greatest level of detail practical without excessive use of resources, with spatial disaggregation substantially greater than the medium, calibrated against extensive site-specific data. Appendix A provides a summary table of this information, along with assessments by SAMI of its priority, and the state of science. This table is intended to support decision making about the priority and resource allocation to each module for plans under different budgets. As far as geographic scope is concerned, for receptors we need only consider the SAMI region. For emissions, we may need to consider emissions sites in much of the US, which can affect the SAMI region. We recommend a 25 year time horizon (to the year 2020) for forecasting and evaluation of primary effects, with a 50 year horizon (to the year 2045) for assessment of effects with long time constants or risk of irreversible effects, such as long-term ecosystem damage or species extinction. Emissions inventory and projections The Phase I contractors on emissions discuss several approaches for projecting emissions without recommendations as to which is best for alternative budgets. The RFP for Phase II work should request proposers to review the Phase I report, and make specific proposals about the approach they will adopt. All other contractors, particularly the air-modeling group, should carefully review for compatibility the work of the emissions-inventory contractor. The Phase II contractor should define an explicit set of criteria and offer a structured judgment comparing the options. As in all modules, the design and implementation of emissions inventory and projections need to be peer reviewed. Emissions costs The Phase II contractor should define an explicit set of criteria and offer a more structured judgment on the model with consideration of other available cost models. The Phase II cost contractor should be asked to specify how least-cost approaches to emissions reductions will be estimated. Insights gained from examining simple, low-quality, information can be used to guide the selection of scope and scale. Given the importance of NOx emissions-control strategies, the Phase II contractor should be required to add NOx control technologies to the AIRCOST/PC model, and to add SO2 control strategies to ERCAM (if ERCAM is chosen by SAMI) for sectors with major contributions to the SAMI emissions inventory. For major cost categories, the contractor should survey the more specialized literature for more accurate cost estimates. We suggest that estimates be made of the incremental cost of proposed EMOs. There is no need for precise estimates of the absolute direct costs for the baseline. Atmospheric transport and chemistry It is important to resolve the dimensions of the assessment to identify the spatial and temporal scopes and scales before committing to a modeling approach. SAMI can use regional models to predict changes in secondary pollutants resulting from EMOs and also for the baseline scenario. The IAF can use local models to predict changes in primary pollutants resulting from emissions near the receptor. It is important to test model results for accuracy and sensitivity to inputs to assure quality in the representation of complex processes. If a sophisticated modeling approach is adopted, as in a level 2 or level 3 analysis, a substantial investment will be required for data gathering, data preparation, model testing, and model evaluation. If a reduced-form model is selected, it will be necessary to run simulations using the full model, to develop and test the reduced form. As much as possible, SAMI should collaborate with other regional and federal modeling efforts to conserve resources and learn from their experience. Visibility effects SAMI must decide on receptor sites: those sites where visibility should be evaluated in the assessment. SAMI must choose how the results of the visibility analysis would be most usefully reported, as distances or other quantitative units, or using visual images, such as photographs. Aquatic effects Regional effects can be extrapolated from estimates of local effects, with careful attention to the need to represent the diversity of watershed responses. Extrapolation can be based on rock types, to strengthen predictions. Some effects will be difficult to quantify, but acidity, or acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), and fish response could be represented using indices such as the stress index developed by NAPAP. SAMI needs to resolve the question of scope, whether the focus of the assessment will be on the population of streams in the SAMI region, or on extrapolation from a selected sample of extremely sensitive streams in the Class I areas. Terrestrial effects No single model will cover all relevant effects and levels of biological organization. Thus, a collection of models will be needed, and the results across different models will need to be interpreted qualitatively. Final recommendations on the selection of which models to use should occur after the reports from the SAMI Phase I contracts have been delivered and peer reviewed. SAMIs IAF design can be informed by the federal regulatory process, in which standards for ozone and acid deposition are currently being evaluated. The location of sensitive species, with respect to elevation, deposition and exposure patterns, and soil type and condition, is the key to the likelihood of harmful effects from air pollution The transport and chemistry model results will need to provide concentration and deposition over space and time, and for sulfur and nitrogen, in wet and dry form and in different chemical forms (gas, acid particle, etc.). The results of experimental studies of vegetation response to exposure and changes in soil chemistry should be applied to existing databases and air quality projections to provide a gross indication of possible changes in forest qualities with changes in air quality. The representation of terrestrial effects may need to be highly disaggregated, allowing for separation of the results into categories according to factors such as species, location, historical land use, soil type, elevation, and moisture. The framework will need to represent the uncertainty in effects, and this information will also be disaggregated. The use of expert judgment and sensitivity analysis will facilitate SAMI participants understanding of the implications of uncertainty in this module. Other environmental effects There is more consensus about the effects of air pollution on human health than other biological effects of air pollution, although, as in any science, researchers disagree about the details. RFF has a health-benefits model, which could be used as the health module for SAMI. Given the easy availability and low cost of use, we suggest SAMI consider including human health effects for the mid and high budget scenarios. If analysis of human health is to be included, two sets of results should be presented: one assuming no thresholds, and another using thresholds that appear in other health-benefits studies. Although several studies have attempted to estimate materials damage avoided through air-pollutioncontrol policy, in our judgment they are not of sufficient quality and reliability to use in the SAMI process, without new research. A new study is beginning, however, funded by NAPAP, which, should it be completed in time, may prove illuminating. Benefits to commercial crops, including timber could be estimated fairly easily if SAMI chose to explore this pathway. Level 2 and 3 involve estimating crop benefits assuming no price changes or allowing price changes, respectively. Decisions on estimating benefits to commercial forests should be deferred until the terrestrial-contractor report is in. At level 4, and assuming the appropriate scientific information is provided, benefits to commercial forestry could be estimated using a model developed for NAPAP. While SAMIs mission primarily concerns effects in class I areas, it is likely that the EMOs considered by SAMI would improve urban visibility as well. Because there are so many people who could be affected by urban-visibility improvements, this category could well contribute substantially to the perceived benefits of emissions reduction, even if an average individual would value more heavily the improvements in class 1 areas. We recommend that global warming not receive quantitative treatment. We recommend that other secondary environmental effects not be treated quantitatively, including direct effects on terrestrial wildlife, birds, grasses and shrubs, and the effects on animals, fish, and humans of air pollutants falling in surface waters and infiltrating groundwater. Socioeconomic effects We suggest that, given a medium or high budget, SAMI consider explicit monetary valuation for visibility, recreation in Class I areas, and human health For visibility, a level 2 analysis can calibrate existing valuation literature for SAMI region. For level 3, rather than rely on the benefits transfer techniques of levels 1 and 2, mount a new visibility study to elicit willingness to pay for visibility improvements in Class I areas. For level 4, develop and estimate a comprehensive visibility/existence value model. For recreation in Class I areas, a level 1 effort characterize amenity resources at a high level of aggregation. SAMI should assume additivity in the valuation of improvements in physical inputs to the recreation experience, such as improvements in recreational area, in visual range, or in fish populations. No additional economic modeling should be performed. At level 2, SAMI should fund a new site-specific study. The results should be applied to all relevant sites At level 3, SAMI should replicate the modeling recommended for level 2, and should sponsor the construction of a regional model of recreation that will incorporate linkages between different sites. The preservation and enhancement of natural environments in the southern Appalachians will have an importance and value that transcend recreational benefits and enhancement of property values. The estimation of existence values, also known as nonuse values, in monetary terms is an active area of research in environmental economics. However, both the notion of a measurable existence value and the estimates produced are highly controversial. Accordingly, unless SAMI is willing to fund a serious research study to provide some idea of the size of such values, we recommend that nothing further be done. People in the SAMI region may be differentially affected by environmental improvements for a mixture of two reasons. First, they may have different access to environmental improvement; for example, air-quality changes resulting from EMOs might be different in Richmond and Atlanta. Second, people may bear the costs disproportionately, because socioeconomic effects, such as the increased cost of electricity or job losses are not evenly spread over the region or over economic and cultural groups. At low levels of funding, monitor distributional aspects by identifying primary constituents who will benefit or lose from policy changes. At mid and high levels of funding, the socioeconomic contractor should review data available from the Park Service and elsewhere to construct a model that profiles the characteristics of users of benefit effects. Development of models of dynamic macroeconomic effects is only worthwhile at high levels of funding. Use scenario analysis to examine the effect of future regional economic growth. Invest SAMI resources in the use of national economic models (drivers) only if SAMI obtains a high level of funding. Include estimates of state and regional level employment effects making use of input-output tables in the assessment at all levels of funding. The geographic detail of these estimates and the detail of affected industries can vary with the level of funding available to SAMI. Include fiscal effects for all levels of funding in the assessment, but pursue greater levels of detail with higher levels of funding. Visualization and communication of results Design the IAF so that it uses geographic-information systems to present the results of the analyses of the EMOs over space and time. Continue to work closely with SAA and SAMAB to develop capability in geographic-information systems. Develop visualization capabilities to aid in selecting EMOs and to support educational and outreach work. SAMI could use the animated visualizations directly in making decisions about the selection of EMOs, and also could use them to develop educational and outreach materials, such as videos for distribution. Emission Management Options A range of sample EMOs should be selected for analysis early on in the IAF development. This set of EMOs will help the IA team keep their eyes on the prize by maintaining their focus on developing a tool to compare and assess EMOs. Many EMOs lack specificity in their original form, and will require considerable translation into concrete terms to analyze their implications. We suggest that the IA contractor be given the task of working with the relevant SAMI PC and TOC to refine the definitions of EMOs where necessary. The IA should be defined to include two additional discrete sets of tasks for (i) translating EMOs into concrete terms and (ii) performing pre-processing analyses on the EMOs, as appropriate. Recommendations for building an IAF The IA contractor, in addition to developing the IA framework, should have primary responsibility for coordinating the work of the other contractors to ensure that all modules work together effectively. Given adequate budget, the RFM module should be built by the individual contractors. For a limited budget, it may be more economical for much of this work to be assigned to the IA contractor. The IA contractor can also work with SAMI to apply the IAF to selected EMOs. A final task would be to develop a version of the IAF that is an educational simulation to help people understand the issues faced by SAMI, and explore the implications of alternative solutions themselves. If SAMI has difficulty in obtaining sufficient funds, there are a number of ways to make a limited budget go further. Keep the number of contractors small, to minimize the overhead costs of management, and coordination. Hire contractors who have already developed reduced-form models for important modules, and who do not have to develop new ones from scratch. Reuse and adapt an existing public-domain IAF, such as TAF under development for NAPAP. Seek in-kind contributions of data collection, research, and analysis from other organizations. For example, seek information and analysis on relevant topics from SAMAB, EPA, or TVA. Encourage organizations with related missions to share their work on common tasks, such as OTAG, SOS, SAMAB, and others. For example, encourage NAPAP to select receptor sites of importance to SAMI for aquatic and visibility effects, in NAPAPs 1996 assessment. Or reuse data from runs of RADM or other atmospheric models conducted for other purposes. Do not attempt to develop quantitative models for effects for which the science is poorly understood, for effects for which adequate data will not be available, or that are not likely to be substantially important in discriminating among alternative EMOs. Organize the IA process into two further Phases, II and III, to follow the current Phase I. Divide Phase II and III each into three cycles of progressive refinement, at approximately 4-month intervals: Phase II: Initial implementation and application of IAF Aug 96 Selection of Phase II contractors for IAF, emissions cost, and transport modules Sep 95 Start of Phase II contracts for IAF, emissions cost, and transport Sep 95 Selection of Phase II contractors for other modules Oct 96 Start of Phase II contracts for other modules Nov 96 Kickoff meeting of all contractors and SAMI to finalize specifications for modules Feb 97 Phase II.1 draft integrated model with specified scope and dimensions, but some dummy data; peer review of design Jun 97 Phase II.2 integrated model with real data for all phase II modules; sample application to selected EMOs Aug 97 Peer review and sensitivity analysis of Phase II.2 model, to identify priorities for which modules should be refined or added in Phase III, and to assess potential value of additional work Sep 97 Meeting to present Phase II.3 refined integrated model with applications to more EMOs to SAMI (date suggested by SAMI) Phase III: Refinement and application of IAF Sep 97 Selection of contractors for Phase III Oct 97 Start of Phase III contracts Nov 97 Phase III kickoff meeting to finalize specifications for Phase III new and refined modules Feb 98 Phase III.1 draft revised integrated model, and initial peer review May 98 Phase III.2 integrated model with real data for all phase II modules; sample application to selected EMOs; peer review Aug 98 Meeting to present Phase III.3 integrated model with applications to more EMOs to SAMI Effective management of the IA process requires careful specification and coordination of tasks for specialist contractors: Ensure that the statements of work (SOWs) and schedules for specialist contractors developing components of the IAF coordinate with the general plans and schedule. For high budget scenarios, ensure that contractors develop, verify, and calibrate a reduced-form version of their module. Develop RFPs (requests for a proposal) and SOWs in consultation with the IA contractor, where possible. Design RFPs to request contractors to specify the best refinement or level of detail for the module for two phases, at suggested levels of funding. but also allowing proposals for other funding levels. Incorporate frequent opportunities for communication between modeling contractors, and between modeling contractors and IA contractor. Appendix A: Screening Table for SAMI Integrated Assessment In Chapter 5, we have suggested four levels of detail and sophistication for developing quantitative models to be used in the integrated assessment. The screening table presented in this appendix summarizes these four levels, including a less costly, qualitative framework for analysis, for each potential SAMI IAF component. These suggestions are based on our teams judgment and on extensive discussions with SAMI contractors and other experts in environmental and economic modeling. The screening table provides a framework and supporting information for SAMI to develop plans regarding the scope and budget of the integrated assessment framework. The table summarizes much of the information in Chapter 5 in a convenient form to support SAMI's discussions of IAF issues and decisions on project budgets. The table includes the following information for each framework component: The average rankings assessed by a subset of the SAMI working group and TOC of the relative importance effects in Class I areas, other mountain areas, and the entire eight-state region, on a scale of 1 to 3. Measures or units that we recommend SAMI use to represent the results or effects. Comments on the potential magnitude of the effects in the three regions, based on SAMI contractor reports The degree of scientific consensus in each field The availability of existing models that SAMI could adapt for the IAF A summary outline of four levels of treatment of each problem area, including one qualitative and three quantitative levels. Each level represents an increase in modeling and data sophistication. Estimated costs of treatment at each of these levels. These cost estimates are the result of extensive discussions with several SAMI technical contractors and other experts in environmental science and modeling. Our estimates provide information on relative costs at different levels of detail; the actual costs for a model at each level of sophistication can vary widely. Design for an Integrated Assessment Framework for SAMI Design for an Integrated Assessment Framework for SAMI Lumina Draft  Page |HH(EG(HH(d'`|HH(EG(HH(d'`|HH(EG(HH(d'`thi& :WC31 S&WordMicrosoft Word&Word    2 @@$Use Word 6.0c or later to 2 @$view Macintosh picture.  t| |t t|a1< (|( abt< :|k a_?qQ<"@H(a<  a<   a<  a4F< n|= a7I,<"h>a/A< 8 a_?qQ<"@H(aw<"a <"ta!<"a?Q<"H8aws;<"a<N<"; a_q<"p a<"r2a<" a<" a)<"4}'U 4@|8U2<t <t2!,  Helvetica .+/ Emission 2!/(+$ Management 2/=(9Options (EMOs)jܞ t| D Hjܞ2| |2(- Visibility 2+effects t|D ,Hjܞ2 %|  %|2 (' Terrestrial 2&+ effects t|D Hjܞ2| |2ڀ(0Aquatic 2+effects t|D @Hjܞ25| 5|2(($Direct economic 2(6+ costs of EMOs t|D4 lHjܞ2;d| ;d|2;I(E5Other 2IW(Senvironmental 2We+effects t|Dh Hjܞ2k| k|2ky(u. Indirect 2y(socioeconomic 2+effectsQ^ t|t&skskp&skskQ^2l l2+Options-criteria 2(table for integrated 2+ assessment of 2+EMOsV6 t|DHV62x x2Ӏ( Atmospheric 2(transport and 2+  air quality t|Dh|HV62rt rt2r(|& Emissions 2(% projectionsa8#> t|DhHa8#>2k k2ky(u Regional 2y( economic 2+ activityˊ9 t|D<tHˊ92Cl Cl2CQ(MEconomic costs 2Q_+ (quantitative 2_m(iand qualitative) t|D Hˊ92 2+Environmental 2+ benefits 2( (quantitative 2(and qualitative)ࡱ; SummaryInformation(@z@Microsoft Word 6.0.1{3 d}~6 ] m    (\gkx6Bp[\_z/Y.2EKL UVa II [a c$I [a c0Ia  Ua c I Ua IuD|a I Za IuDVa I Va IV]a c0IV\]a Ia ICLH I T _  h!!!""""##M#y#B$Y$]$k$$$$%%%%''|)),,,,,,,,,,,,,-...$.'.0.1.R.X.Y..........//;/> ??9?:???@@@AyBBBBCCCC,D-DDDDDDDDEEE]a c eI a hIa  Ua IIa I a bcIUa bcITE1E=EEEFFFFGGGGHHIIrJsJJKK?Q\QQQSSSTTUU)U9U;UKUUUUUV V)VVVV$WWXXX.YTY7ZMZZZZZ [[[[[W\X\[\]\r\w\z\\\]]]]^1^^^______ `Va ]a Ua  Ua I ]a cIIa a IX ```bmccdde'eaebefffgtggggiiiijjkkllll8mEmnoOtPtTuxyz||I~J~S~e~j~~~~~~~~9@bjʀӀBKpځBa:;rs U]I]Ia c$ a c$I ]a II Ua Ia Ia U†ÆĆņua II]IuD]I2Pdvw6Xw   %%%%%@%@%@%%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%T%%% 4h h,( 6,x 6,( 6,(x 6@ 6  \gxe]]+kJ U!!"M#y#$'+,,....$.%%%%%@%%@ %%%%%@%%%%@%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%@% % %%%%T ")$.%.&.'.0.1.9.;.=.?.@.R.S.T.U.V.W.0 0 0 0 -@LN j~"IIIIIIII-@LN j~"IIW.X.Y.m.w..................T T LLL-LN j~"II-LN j~"II....// /////,/0/5/:/;/>yBBFFGGsJJLT %%%@%%%@%%%%%%%%% %% %% %%%%%%%`-LN j~"IIIIIIII!LEO?Q\QSU%WXY7ZMZZX\^WadetgghiijllxooTpp9qqPsPtuuTuuu2v %%%%%%%%%%%% %% %%%%%%%@%%%@ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%# 4&2vgvv:wwoxxyHylyyzzzq{|||}I~~l˂Ä:;rs%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%T%T%%,%" dh 4hd#"†ÆĆņ%%," dh 4h H$*K"@"Normalx]cl@l Heading 1K  @ 4 .Ua c$b@b Heading 2B  4Ua c`@` Heading 3B @ 4.Ua j@jHeading 4,SubsubheadingB  4.UX@X Heading 5=  4.UZ@Z Heading 6@  4.UX@X Heading 7=  4.VX@X Heading 8=  4.VX @X Heading 9=  4.V"A@"Default Paragraph Font *@ Endnote Referenceh &@ Footnote Referenceh*@*TOC 6  % ]c*@*TOC 5X % ]c*@*TOC 4 % ]c*@*TOC 3 % V]&@&TOC 2  % Z](@(TOC 1 x % U[] @Index 1 @ Footer ! @ Header !"@" Footnote Textc O referenceh`O`Recommendations@ h 4hV&O&lesson O extract`V*@*TOC 7 % ]c*@*TOC 8  % ]c*@*TOC 9!x % ]c"@Caption"xU"O2"Dateline#`a (OB(bullet1 $h]a ,O,caption%]a *Ob* description &`a (Or(Figure'Ua Oh(Otoc1)Ń      ŃņچVm !! !! AAAAAAAAA A A @ A ek*'/l:EUQ\[hryJ{Ń@p  o S 9h;2Pdvw6Xw \ g xe]]+kJUM y !$())+'+@+X++++,;,k,,,,,----/ 1C12?33l445688;;y??CCDDsGGIEL?N\NPR%TUV7WMWWXY[W^abtddeffgiixllTmm9nnPpPqrrTrrr2sgss:ttouuvHvlvvwwwqxyyyzI{{l}~Á:;Ń"$   $  $$@#########@######8pLk/E `JKLMNO $.W..//L2vņPQRSTUVWXY))))))Ń  | _Toc340632646 _Toc340632632 _Toc340880718 _Toc340880719 _Toc340632634 _Toc340880720 _Toc340632635 _Toc340880721 _Toc340632636 _Toc340632640 _Toc340880722 _Toc340880723 _Toc340880724 _Toc340880725 _Toc340880726 _Toc340880727 _Toc340880728 _Toc340880729 _Toc340880730 _Toc340880731 _Toc340632639 _Toc340880732 _Toc340632641 _Toc340880733 _Toc340632642 _Toc340880734 _Toc340632717\ xxM M ))- 18;y?CDsG?N7WtdtdffiiI{ƃ f x x --B18;?CDGZNLWtdddffiiJ{ƃ)Stacie and Rich's PC'C:\My Documents\SAMI\SAMI Recovered.docStacie and Rich's PC'C:\My Documents\SAMI\SAMI Recovered.docStacie and Rich's PC'C:\My Documents\SAMI\SAMI Recovered.docStacie and Rich's PC'C:\My Documents\SAMI\SAMI Recovered.docStacie and Rich's PC'C:\My Documents\SAMI\SAMI Recovered.docBoris BasevichC:\TEMP\!SAMIREC.OVE Max Henrion(Max's 7100 HD:SAMI:March 96:SAMIREPT.DOC Max Henrion3Max's 7100 HD:Temporary Items:Word Work File A 2550 Max Henrion Lumina Public 2:SAMI:EXECSUM.DOCMichael Steele Lumina Public 2:SAMI:EXECSUM.DOC@&"&"&"&"5lMTimes New RomanTimes Symbol"MArialHelvetica MTimes MTms RmnMPalatino#(jFF{{$ASec 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5 Max HenrionMichael Steeleࡱ;