DOCSLIB.ORG

Open PDF File, 4.27 MB, for Final Regional Haze State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation Plan August 9, 2012 This information is available in alternate format. Call Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Director, at 617-292-5751. TDD# 1-866-539-7622 or 1-617-574-6868 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper Executive Summary The federal Clean Air Act, in sections 169A and 169B, contains requirements for the protection of visibility in 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas that have been federally designated as Class I areas and include some of our nation’s most treasured public lands. Unfortunately, enjoyment of the scenic vistas in these pristine areas is significantly impaired by regional haze. In the eastern U.S., the average visual range has decreased from 106 miles (under natural conditions) to 24 - 44 miles today. In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations known as the Regional Haze Rule, which requires states to develop State Implementation Plans to reduce haze-causing pollution to improve visibility in Class I areas. The overall goal of the regional haze program is to restore natural visibility conditions at Class I areas by 2064. Regional haze is caused by fine particle pollution that impairs visibility over a large region by scattering or absorbing light. Fine particle pollution also adversely impacts human health, especially for children, the elderly, and people with heart or respiratory conditions. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has prepared this State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address Massachusetts sources that contribute to regional haze. Class I Areas Although Massachusetts has no Class I areas, emissions from Massachusetts sources contribute to visibility degradation in Class I areas in several other states. These include Lye Brook Wilderness Area (Vermont), Great Gulf Wilderness Area (New Hampshire), Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness Area (New Hampshire), Acadia National Park (Maine), Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge (Maine), and Roosevelt Campobello International Park (Maine/Canada). In the first round of SIPs, states with Class I areas must set reasonable progress goals for 2018 for improving visibility in their Class I areas. States affecting Class I areas (including Massachusetts) must submit SIPs with long-term strategies for meeting the 2018 reasonable progress goals. SIPs also must include control measures for certain existing sources placed into operation between 1962 and 1977 (known as Best Available Retrofit Technology or BART). States must update their SIPs in 2018 and every 10 years thereafter and must evaluate progress every 5 years. Regional Planning Efforts EPA established five regional planning organizations across the nation to coordinate regional haze efforts. Massachusetts is a member of one of these regional organizations, the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), comprised of Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states, tribes, and federal agencies. Massachusetts developed this SIP by participating in a regional planning process coordinated Page ii by MANE-VU. Together, the MANE-VU members established baseline and natural visibility conditions, determined the primary contributors to regional haze, identified reasonable progress goals and long-term strategies, and facilitated a consultation process with states, other regional planning organizations, and federal land managers. As a MANE-VU member state, Massachusetts adopted the “Statement of MANE-VU Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States Within MANE-VU Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress” at the MANE-VU Board meeting on June 7, 2007. This Statement outlines a strategy for reducing regional haze at MANE-VU Class I areas for the first ten-year planning period and forms the basis for the actions Massachusetts has included in this SIP. Elements of Massachusetts’ SIP for Regional Haze In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b), Massachusetts submits this SIP to meet the requirements of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule. This SIP addresses the core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d). These actions include: Best Available Retrofit Technology - EPA’s Regional Haze Rule requires the control of emissions from certain stationary sources placed into operation between 1962 and 1977 through the implementation of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) or an alternative to BART that achieves greater emission reductions. Massachusetts identified 5 electric generating unit (EGU) facilities, 1 municipal waste combustor, and 1 industrial boiler as BART-eligible facilities whose 2002 emissions (the baseline year for this SIP) contributed significantly to visibility impairment. For the EGUs, Massachusetts has adopted an Alternative to BART program that achieves greater emissions reductions than source-by- source BART. For the municipal waste combustor, Massachusetts has made a source-specific BART determination. For the industrial boiler, no BART determination is needed since the facility has accepted an emissions cap that makes it no longer BART-eligible. Targeted EGU strategy - MANE-VU identified 167 EGU stacks at power plants whose sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions significantly impaired visibility at one or more MANE-VU Class I areas, including stacks at 5 Massachusetts power plants. Massachusetts agreed to reduce SO2 emissions from these specific power plants stacks by 90 percent from 2002 levels by 2018, or to pursue equivalent, alternative measures. Each of these EGUs already has reduced SO2 emissions due to Massachusetts air quality regulations. Based on MassDEP’s existing regulations, and additional reductions that will result from MassDEP’s Alternative to BART, EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, and EGU closures, MassDEP estimates that SO2 emissions in 2018 will be up to 87% lower than 2002 emissions. Sulfur in Fuel Oil - MANE-VU determined that states could cost-effectively achieve significant reductions in SO2 emissions by requiring lower sulfur content fuel oils, including #2 distillate oil (home heating oil) and #4 and #6 residual oils (used in power plants and industrial and commercial boilers). Refineries already have made significant capital investments to produce low and ultra-low sulfur diesel, Page iii which is the same product as #2 distillate oil, and lower sulfur residual oils also are readily available. To implement the regional MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil strategy, MassDEP has adopted regulations that lower allowable sulfur content in fuel oils, ultimately achieving 15 parts per million sulfur for #2 oil and 0.5 percent sulfur by weight for #4 and #6 residual oils by 2018. The regulatory and technical basis for this proposed SIP is found in Sections 1 – 7. The prescriptive elements of this proposed SIP – BART, reasonable progress goals, and long-term strategy – are found in Sections 8 – 10. Page iv Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xi List of Appendices .................................................................................................................... xii Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................. xiv 1. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL REGIONAL HAZE REGULATION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. The Basics of Haze ............................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 1 History of Federal Regional Haze Rule .............................................................................. 3 State Implementation Plan .................................................................................................. 4 2. REGIONAL PLANNING AND STATE/TRIBE AND FEDERAL LAND MANAGER COORDINATION .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Regional Planning ............................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) ..................................................... 7 2.4. Class I Areas Within MANE-VU ....................................................................................... 8 2.5. Area of Influence for MANE-VU Class I Areas ................................................................ 8 2.6. Massachusetts Impact on MANE-VU Class I Areas .......................................................... 9 2.7. Regional Haze Planning after the Remand of CAIR ........................................................ 10 2.8. Regional Consultation and the “Ask” ............................................................................... 11 2.9. Meeting the “Ask” – MANE-VU States ..........................................................................
Recommended publications
  • 2011 ACS PUMS DATA DICTIONARY August 7, 2015 HOUSING RECORD

    2011 ACS PUMS DATA DICTIONARY August 7, 2015 HOUSING RECORD

    2011 ACS PUMS DATA DICTIONARY August 7, 2015 HOUSING RECORD RT 1 Record Type H .Housing Record or Group Quarters Unit SERIALNO 7 Housing unit/GQ person serial number 0000001..9999999 .Unique identifier DIVISION 1 Division code 0 .Puerto Rico 1 .New England (Northeast region) 2 .Middle Atlantic (Northeast region) 3 .East North Central (Midwest region) 4 .West North Central (Midwest region) 5 .South Atlantic (South region) 6 .East South Central (South region) 7 .West South Central (South Region) 8 .Mountain (West region) 9 .Pacific (West region) PUMA 5 Public use microdata area code (PUMA) 00100..08200 .Public use microdata area codes 77777 .Combination of 01801, 01802, and 01905 in Louisiana Note: Public use microdata areas (PUMAs) designate areas of 100,000 or more population. Use with ST for unique code. REGION 1 Region code 1 .Northeast 2 .Midwest 3 .South 4 .West 9 .Puerto Rico ST 2 State Code 01 .Alabama/AL 02 .Alaska/AK 04 .Arizona/AZ 05 .Arkansas/AR 06 .California/CA 08 .Colorado/CO 09 .Connecticut/CT 10 .Delaware/DE 11 .District of Columbia/DC 12 .Florida/FL 13 .Georgia/GA 1 15 .Hawaii/HI 16 .Idaho/ID 17 .Illinois/IL 18 .Indiana/IN 19 .Iowa/IA 20 .Kansas/KS 21 .Kentucky/KY 22 .Louisiana/LA 23 .Maine/ME 24 .Maryland/MD 25 .Massachusetts/MA 26 .Michigan/MI 27 .Minnesota/MN 28 .Mississippi/MS 29 .Missouri/MO 30 .Montana/MT 31 .Nebraska/NE 32 .Nevada/NV 33 .New Hampshire/NH 34 .New Jersey/NJ 35 .New Mexico/NM 36 .New York/NY 37 .North Carolina/NC 38 .North Dakota/ND 39 .Ohio/OH 40 .Oklahoma/OK 41 .Oregon/OR 42 .Pennsylvania/PA 44 .Rhode
  • Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States

    Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States

    Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Contribution Assessment Prepared by NESCAUM For the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Figure III-21 2002 Annual Average PM 2.5 , Sulfate, Nitrate and Total Carbon for MANE-VU based on IMPROVE and STN data. Mass data are supplemented by the FRM network AIRS vs. CMAQ in PA,MD,DE,DC,VA,WV,NC during August 9~16, 2002 100 O3 hourly 75 O3 daytime hourly O3 diurnal max 50 O3 daily mean 15%/35% Fractional Error (%) . (%) Error Fractional 25 30%/50% 60%/75% 0 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 Fractional Bias (%) Contribution to PM Sulfate in Brigantine, NJ Surface Emission + All Canada & Mexico PA Emission 11.2% 30% OH Other US Elevated 9.2% Emission 1.9% NY 4.3% RI VT WV 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% DC CONTRIBUTION OF RPO TO PM SO4 IN CLASS I AREAS 0.0% ME MD MANE-VU LADCO VISTAS CenRAP0.1% Esurface 4.0% AR VA 100 NH MS 0.2% 4.0% 90 0.3% IN 0.3% SC MI 80 AL GA KY 3.9% CT TX 0.9% DE 2.9% LA 1.2% 2.2% NJ 70 0.5% 0.7% 1.6% 2.0% 0.3% NC 3.5% 60 TN IL IA MA WI 2.9% 50 MN MO 1.6% 2.2% 0.6% 1.0% 1.3% Percent 40 0.5% 0.9% 30 20 10 0 Brigantine, NJ Acadia, ME Lye Brook, VT Shenandoah, VA August 2006 Members of NESCAUM Board Arthur Marin, Executive Director NESCAUM Anne Gobin, Bureau Chief Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Management James P.
  • Caribbean Billfish Project?

    Caribbean Billfish Project?

    Image by sportfishimages.com What is the Caribbean Billfish Project? The goal of the Caribbean Billfish Project (CBP) is to recapture lost wealth and contribute to sustainable livelihoods in the West- ern Central Atlantic region through investment in economically, technically and ecologically feasible billfish fisheries management and conservation approaches. The objective is to develop business plans for one or more long-term pilot projects aimed at sustain- able management and conservation of billfish within the Western Central Atlantic Ocean. The CBP has 4 components: 1. Generating value and conservation outcomes through innovative management. 2. Strengthening regional billfish management and conservation planning. 3. A Functional and Responsive Consortium on Billfish Management and Conservation (CBMC). 4. Business plans developed for pilot investments in sustainable management and conservation of billfish. 2 • Caribbean Billfish Project List of Acronyms CBMC Consortium on Billfish Management and Conservation CFMC Caribbean Fisheries Management Council CI Conservation International CNFO Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organizations CRFM Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism FAD Fish Aggregating Devices GGFA Grenada Game Fishing Association ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated IGFA International Game Fish Association OSPESCA Central America Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization RFB Regional Fisheries Body WECAFC Western
  • Speleothem Paleoclimatology for the Caribbean, Central America, and North America

    Speleothem Paleoclimatology for the Caribbean, Central America, and North America

    quaternary Review Speleothem Paleoclimatology for the Caribbean, Central America, and North America Jessica L. Oster 1,* , Sophie F. Warken 2,3 , Natasha Sekhon 4, Monica M. Arienzo 5 and Matthew Lachniet 6 1 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240, USA 2 Department of Geosciences, University of Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; [email protected] 3 Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 4 Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA; [email protected] 5 Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV 89512, USA; [email protected] 6 Department of Geoscience, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 December 2018; Accepted: 21 January 2019; Published: 28 January 2019 Abstract: Speleothem oxygen isotope records from the Caribbean, Central, and North America reveal climatic controls that include orbital variation, deglacial forcing related to ocean circulation and ice sheet retreat, and the influence of local and remote sea surface temperature variations. Here, we review these records and the global climate teleconnections they suggest following the recent publication of the Speleothem Isotopes Synthesis and Analysis (SISAL) database. We find that low-latitude records generally reflect changes in precipitation, whereas higher latitude records are sensitive to temperature and moisture source variability. Tropical records suggest precipitation variability is forced by orbital precession and North Atlantic Ocean circulation driven changes in atmospheric convection on long timescales, and tropical sea surface temperature variations on short timescales. On millennial timescales, precipitation seasonality in southwestern North America is related to North Atlantic climate variability.
  • About MANE-VU.Pmd

    About MANE-VU.Pmd

    ABOUT Mid-Atlantic/Northeast MANE-VU Visibility Union FACT SHEET Regional haze is air pollution that visually obscures mountain ranges, city skylines and scenic vistas. With regional haze diminishing pristine views of the Nation’s national parks and wilderness areas, visi- tors may not experience the beauty seen in the past. Regional haze also poses risks to human health. An organization called MANE-VU, a coalition of air quality experts from nearly 20 federal, state and tribal agencies, is working to develop solutions to bring back beautiful vistas to the Mid-Atlantic and North- east regions. MANE-VU, the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union, includes representatives from Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, the Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Ver- mont, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. The federal Clean Air Act requires EPA to address impaired visibility caused by haze in federal Class I areas – certain national parks and wilderness areas. In 1999 EPA issued the Regional Haze Rule, which requires states and interested tribes to take steps to reduce haze-causing emissions from numerous sources over large geographic areas. In accordance with the Rule, all states in the na- tion are required to identify key sources of haze- causing pollution, develop plans to reduce emis- sions from those sources, and submit these plans to EPA by 2008. EPA established five regional planning organizations across the nation to coor- dinate this effort.
  • Threats to Western United States Riparian Ecosystems: a Bibliography

    Threats to Western United States Riparian Ecosystems: a Bibliography

    Threats to Western United States Riparian Ecosystems: A Bibliography Boris Poff, Karen A. Koestner, Daniel G. Neary, and David Merritt United States Department of Agriculture / Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-269 December 2012 Poff, Boris; Koestner, Karen A.; Neary, Daniel G.; Merritt, David. 2012. Threats to western United States riparian ecosystems: A bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-269. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 78 p. Abstract __________________________________________________ This bibliography is a compendium of state-of-knowledge publications about the threats affecting western U.S. riparian ecosystems and is a companion to the website: http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/ awa/ripthreatbib/. The website contains abstracts and access to many of the publications via PDFs, or it directs the readers to websites where PDFs of the publication can be viewed or obtained. The bibliography is ordered alphabetically and the type of threats discussed in each publication is highlighted. These threats include agriculture, climate change, dam construction, disease, drought, invasive species, fire, floods, flow regulation, forest harvesting, grazing, groundwater depletion, insects, mining, recreation, roads, water diversions, urbanization, and water quality. Keywords: ecosystem, riparian, soil, water, watersheds, hydrology, threats, vegetation, wildlife, drought, floods, grazing, invasive plants Authors _____________________________ David Merritt, Riparian Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agri- culture, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, Boris Poff, District Hydrologist, Bureau of Land Management, Stream Systems Technology Center, Fort Collins, Colorado. Las Vegas, Nevada. Karen A. Koestner, Hydrologic Research Technician, U.S. Acknowledgments ____________________ Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Flagstaff, This effort was funded by a grant from the U.S.
  • Deep Structure of the Atlantic Margins and Neighboring Oceanic Crust from Wide-Angle Seismic Data and Plate Kinematic Reconstructions

    Deep Structure of the Atlantic Margins and Neighboring Oceanic Crust from Wide-Angle Seismic Data and Plate Kinematic Reconstructions

    Deep structure of the Atlantic margins and neighboring oceanic crust from wide-angle seismic data and plate kinematic reconstructions. Frauke Klingelhoefer, Youssef Biari, Dieter Franke, Thomas Funck, Lies Loncke, Jean-Claude Sibuet, Christophe Basile, James Austin, Caesar Rigoti, Mohamed Sahabi, Massinissa Benabdellouahed, and Walter Roest This study Biari et al., 2021 Rotational poles Matthews et al., 2016 Volcanic provinces Whittaker et al., 2015 Marginal plateaus Loncke et al., 2020 Click to visit Conclusions Next slide Central Atlantic (~195 Ma) Initial extension Assymmetric seafloor spreading Accretion of thin oceanic crust Funck et al., 2004 Biari et al., 2015 Biari et al., 2017 ● 37 km unthinned continental crust thickness ● No indications for the existence of serpentinized upper mantle material ● 150 km broad region with serpentinized upper mantle material exhumed to the seafloor ● Oceanic crust of 7–8 km thickness ● ~3 thin oceanic crust ● Unthinned continental crust has a thickness of ~36 km South Atlantic – Falkland Segment (~160Ma) Schimschal and Jokat, 2019 Falkland Plateau comprises three regions: ● the Falkland/Malvinas islands (underlain by a 35 km crust of continental origin) ● the Falkland Plateau basin (underlain by thick oceanic crust) ● the Maurice Ewing Bank (28 km thick continental fragment heavily overprinted by magmatic intrusions) South Atlantic – Austral Segment (~133 Ma) Schnabel et al., 2008 Hirsch et al., 2009 ● 20–25 km of thinned continental crust ● Continental crust thinning from 40 to 15 km below the SDR ● One single thick SDR complex ● Further thinning crust seaward of SDR. ● Up to 10 km thick underplate layers at the ● High velocity lower crustal body transition zone interpreted to be igneous material.
  • Contemporary Uplift of the Sierra Nevada, Western United States, from GPS and Insar Measurements

    Contemporary Uplift of the Sierra Nevada, Western United States, from GPS and Insar Measurements

    Contemporary uplift of the Sierra Nevada, western United States, from GPS and InSAR measurements William C. Hammond1*, Geoffrey Blewitt1, Zhenhong Li2, Hans-Peter Plag1, and Corné Kreemer1 1Nevada Geodetic Laboratory, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, and Nevada Seismological Laboratory, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA 2Centre for the Observation and Modelling of Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Tectonics (COMET+), School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK ABSTRACT particular, the EarthScope Plate Boundary Observatory has provided hun- Modern space geodesy has recently enabled the direct observation dreds of new stations in California and Nevada, including about a dozen of slow geological processes that move and shape Earth’s surface, includ- on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada. We processed all available GPS ing plate tectonics and crustal strain accumulation that leads to earth- data to obtain station height time series, and fi t them with a six-parameter quakes. More elusive has been the direct observation of active moun- empirical model including an epoch position, a velocity, and an amplitude tain growth, because geodetic measurements have larger uncertainties and phase of annual and semiannual harmonic constituents (to model sea- in the vertical direction, while mountain growth is typically very slow. sonal effects). To enhance the signal-to-noise ratio, we used GPS vertical For the Sierra Nevada of California and Nevada, western United States, velocities based on over 3 yr of data with 1σ rate uncertainties ≤1.0 mm/yr, the history of elevation is complex, exhibiting features of both ancient and required that the empirical model adequately fi t the data (Fig.
  • Why Is Snow Important in the Southwestern United States

    Why Is Snow Important in the Southwestern United States

    Module 1 Educator’s Guide Investigation 4 Why is snow Geography Standards important in the Standard 7: Physical Systems The physical processes that shape southwestern the patterns of Earth’s surface • Describe how physical processes affect different regions of the United United States? States and the world. Investigation Overview Standard 15: Environment In Investigation 4, students role-play U.S. senators from seven western and Society states seeking to find solutions to important water problems in the How physical systems affect Southwest: recurrent drought, which reduces vital snowpack resources, human systems in the face of rapid population growth and therefore increasing demand • Analyze examples of changes in the on those resources. Information from satellite images, in tandem with physical environment that have ground-based perspectives, assist students in playing their roles as reduced the capacity of the environ- senators. Because the investigation uses a case study in the United ment to support human activity. • Apply the concept of “limits to growth” States, all statistics will be in English units. This conscious exception to to suggest ways to adapt to or the standard use of metric units reflects the real-world practice of Ameri- overcome the limits imposed on can water resource managers. human systems by physical systems. Time required: Five to nine 45-minute sessions (as follows): Standard 18: The Uses of Introduction and Parts 1 and 2: One or two 45-minute sessions Part 3: One 45-minute session Geography Parts 4 and 5: One or two 45-minute sessions How to apply geography to inter- Parts 6 and 7: One or two 45-minute sessions pret the present and plan for the Part 8 and Debriefing: One or two 45-minute sessions future • Develop policies that are designed to guide the use and management of Materials/Resources Earth’s resources and that reflect Briefing (one per student) multiple points of view.
  • Autumn Precipitation Trends in the Northeast United States

    Autumn Precipitation Trends in the Northeast United States

    Middle States Geographer, 2000, 33:74-81 AUTUMN PRECIPITATION TRENDS IN THE NORTHEAST UNITED STATES Keith G. Henderson Department of Geography Villanova University Villanova, PA 19085 ABSTRA CT: The northeastern United States experienced significant increases in precipitation from /900- / 999 Precipitation changes have been most prominent in the autumn. In western New York and Pennsylvania. and in coastal New England, seasonal precipitation totals have risen 25-45% over the IOO-year period. Concurrent decreases in temperature indicate that early season precipitation increases may be associated with earlier upper­ level troughing, while large-scale November changes may be linked to an enhanced subtropical high pressure system. Autumn precipitation steadily increased over the century and has impacted regional hydrology. At least three major rivers have shown increased autumn flow. This impact is potentially important given that autumn is usually a time ofrising river levels before high winter and spring runoffperiods. INTRODUCTION aI., 1996). Karl and Knight (1998) suggest that over half of the measured precipitation increase across the country has been caused by increases in the largest Recent research on global climate change 10% of storms. While precipitation events of all has highlighted precipitation trends as a leading levels have become more frequent, only the signal in change detection. In North America intensities of the largest events have increased (Karl precipitation has increased significantly in many and Knight, 1998). Kunkel et al. (1999) also found regions over the past century. Groisman and significant increases in extreme precipitation events Easterling (1994) found that total precipitation rose over many portions of the United States.
  • The Atlantic Northeast Region and the French Canada

    The Atlantic Northeast Region and the French Canada

    Outline The Atlantic Northeast and French Canada 1. The Atlantic Northeast 2. French Canada and Overarching Themes Atlantic Northeast Atlantic Northeast Defining the Region Defining the Region • What’s the unique characteristic? • Less explicit than other unique characteristics • The “New England Question” • Character, rurality, not French, relatively What’s the author doing on p. 104? limited resources on land, relatively rich • adjacent ocean, very early settlement • Do you agree with the argument? • Region defined by bordering regions, but has own character Atlantic Northeast Atlantic Northeast Economic Struggles Economic Struggles • “Suffered longer and more continually from physical geography disadvantages economic handicaps than any other on the • continent” • soils are poor • Why? • growing season is short and cool Atlantic Northeast Atlantic Northeast • growing season • the time period each year when dominant crops can be grown • climate and crop selection • days between first and last frost • extremely important statistic for agriculture http://epaedia.eea.europa.eu/page.php?pid=343#gallery Atlantic Northeast Atlantic Northeast Economic Struggles Economic Struggles • physical geography (site) disadvantages physical geography (site) advantages- soils are poor • • turned-disadvantages growing season is short and cool • • fish stock mineral resources are scarce • • water power resources not sufficient • second-growth timber grows slowly Atlantic Northeast Atlantic Northeast Economic Struggles Economic Struggles • lower income per capita
  • Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States: Preliminary Update Through 2007

    Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States: Preliminary Update Through 2007

    Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States: Preliminary Update Through 2007 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Updated Contribution Assessment Prepared by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) March 2012 Members of Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management Arthur Marin, Executive Director Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management Anne Gobin, Bureau Chief Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Management Melanie Loyzim, Bureau Director Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Nancy Seidman, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Prevention Craig Wright, Acting Director New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Air Resources Division William O’Sullivan, Director New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air Quality Management David Shaw, Director New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources Douglas L. McVay, Chief Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Resources Richard A. Valentinetti, Director Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Air Pollution Control Division Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States: Preliminary Update Through 2007 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Updated Contribution Assessment Prepared by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) March 2012 ii CONTRIBUTIONS TO REGIONAL HAZE IN THE NORTHEAST AND MID-ATLANTIC UNITED STATES: PRELIMINARY UPDATE THROUGH 2007 MID-ATLANTIC/NORTHEAST VISIBILITY UNION (MANE-VU) UPDATED CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT Project Manager Paul Miller, NESCAUM Principal Contributors Leiran Biton, NESCAUM Printed: April 2015 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.