DOCSLIB.ORG

Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on Its Shoreline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on Its Shoreline STAFF REPORT Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline Approved on October 6, 2011 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 California Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Information: (415) 352-3600 Fax: (415) 352-3606 Web site: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1 The Vulnerability Assessment ....................................................................................................... 2 1. Shoreline Development ............................................................................................................... 2 2. The Bay .......................................................................................................................................... 5 3. Governance ................................................................................................................................... 6 Adaptation Strategies ...................................................................................................................... 7 Proposed Bay Plan Amendment ............................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 1. CAUSES OF SEA LEVEL RISE ............................................................................................. 11 The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming ............................................................................ 11 Emissions Scenarios ......................................................................................................... 12 The California Climate Action Team ............................................................................. 13 Bay Area GHG Contributions ......................................................................................... 15 Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................................................. 17 Ice-Sheet Melting and Uncertainty................................................................................. 19 Sea Level Rise Scenarios ............................................................................................................... 20 Sea Level Rise and Extreme Events ............................................................................... 22 BCDC Policy Analysis ...................................................................................................... 23 Vulnerability Assessment ............................................................................................................. 25 Vulnerability from Subsidence ....................................................................................... 26 Shoreline Protection....................................................................................................................... 41 Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER 2. SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 47 Residential Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 48 Residents with Increased Vulnerability ........................................................................ 50 Schools and Emergency Services .................................................................................... 57 Commercial and Industrial Land Use ......................................................................................... 57 Airports .............................................................................................................................. 57 Ports .................................................................................................................................... 59 Water-Related Industry ................................................................................................... 62 Indirect Effects of Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................. 63 Public Health Impacts of Climate Change ................................................................................. 63 Other Shoreline Land Uses, Infrastructure and Institutions ................................................... 64 Wastewater Treatment Facilities .................................................................................... 64 Flood Control Channels ................................................................................................... 65 Contaminated Lands ........................................................................................................ 65 Pipelines and Transmission Lines .................................................................................. 65 The Regional Transportation Network ....................................................................................... 66 Major Roadways and Highways .................................................................................... 67 i Rail Network ..................................................................................................................... 69 Waterfront Parks and Beaches ..................................................................................................... 71 Public Access Required by BCDC ............................................................................................... 72 Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 75 CHAPTER 3. THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ECOSYSTEM .......................................................................... 79 Sea Level Rise in the Bay Ecosystem ........................................................................................... 80 Constraints to Wetland Adaptation ............................................................................... 81 Salinity Change in Tidal and Subtidal Habitats ........................................................... 83 Other Water Quality Impacts ....................................................................................................... 86 Invasive and Migrant Species ...................................................................................................... 87 Threat of Extinction ....................................................................................................................... 88 Shoreline Protection Impacts........................................................................................................ 90 Ecological Consequences of a Tidal Barrage ................................................................ 90 Watershed Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 92 Restoration and Adaptive Management .................................................................................... 93 Suisun Marsh ..................................................................................................................... 95 North Bay ........................................................................................................................... 95 Central Bay ........................................................................................................................ 96 South Bay ..................................................................................................................... 98 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 100 CHAPTER 4. GOVERNANCE: WHAT BCDC AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS CAN DO .......................... 103 The Governance Landscape ....................................................................................................... 103 The Commission’s Jurisdiction and Authority ........................................................................ 106 The Commission’s Jurisdiction ..................................................................................... 107 The Commission’s Permit Authority ........................................................................... 107 Salt Ponds and Managed Wetlands ............................................................................. 108 The 100-Foot Shoreline Band ........................................................................................ 109 Existing Bay Plan Policies Pertaining to Sea Level Rise ............................................ 109 The Public Trust Doctrine and Takings ....................................................................... 110 Needs Assessment for Local Jurisdictions ............................................................................... 112 Statewide Survey ............................................................................................................ 113 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 116 CHAPTER 5. ADAPTATION STRATEGIES FOR SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND THE SHORELINE ...... 119 Adaptation Planning Considerations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay
    Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Final Report Prepared for California Department of Fish & Game Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) 425 G Executive Court North Fairfield, CA 94534-4019 Prepared by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, PhD Environmental Research Consulting 41 Croft Lane Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567-1160 SSEP Contract No. P0775013 30 September 2009 Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Final Report Prepared by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, PhD Environmental Research Consulting 41 Croft Lane Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567-1160 USA Prepared at the Request of Carl Jochums California Department of Fish & Game Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) 425 G Executive Court North Fairfield, CA 94534-4019 Submitted to Bruce Joab, SSEP Coordinator and Contract Manager Office of Spill Prevention and Response CA Department of Fish and Game 1700 K Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone 916-322-7561 SSEP Contract No. PO775013 Note: This study was conducted in collaboration with Applied Science Associates (ASA), Inc., of South Kingston, RI, under SSEP Contract No. PO775010. ASA submitted a separate Final Report entitled Transport and Impacts of Oil Spills in San Francisco Bay – Implications for Response. i Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Methyl and Total Mercury Spatial and Temporal Trends in Surficial Sediments of the San Francisco Bay-Delta
    Methyl and Total Mercury Spatial and Temporal Trends in Surficial Sediments of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project Final Report Submitted to: Mark Stephenson California Department of Fish and Game Moss Landing Marine Labs 7544 Sandholdt Road Moss Landing, CA 95039 Submitted by: Wesley A. Heim Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 8272 Moss Landing Rd Moss Landing, CA 95039 [email protected] (email) 831-771-4459 (voice) Dr. Kenneth Coale Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 8272 Moss Landing Rd Moss Landing, CA 95039 Mark Stephenson California Department of Fish and Game Moss Landing Marine Labs 7544 Sandholdt Road Moss Landing, CA 95039 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent studies indicate significant amounts of mercury are transported into the Bay-Delta from the Coastal and Sierra mountain ranges. In response to mercury contamination of the Bay-Delta and potential risks to humans, health advisories have been posted in the estuary, recommending no consumption of large striped bass and limited consumption of other sport fish. The major objective of the CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project “Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay-Delta Watershed” is to reduce mercury levels in fish tissue to levels that do not pose a health threat to humans or wildlife. This report summarizes the accomplishments of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) at Moss Landing as participants in the CALFED Bay-Delta Mercury Project. Specific objectives of MLML and CDF&G include: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources
    C ULTURAL R ESOURCES B ACKGROUND R EPORT Cultural and Paleontological Resources In This Background Report Page Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 3 Prehistoric Overview ............................................................................................................... 3 Historic Setting ....................................................................................................................... 6 Paleontological Setting ......................................................................................................... 11 P AGE CUL‐ 1 C ITY OF S UISUN C ITY G ENERAL P LAN Regulatory Context .................................................................................................................. 12 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................................... 12 Health and Safety Code, Section 7052 and 7050.5 ................................................................. 15 California State Senate Bill 18 ............................................................................................... 15 Local Codes, Ordinances, and Regulations............................................................................ 16 Known Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Food Webs of the Delta, Suisun Bay, and Suisun Marsh: an Update on Current Understanding and Possibilities for Management Larry R
    OCTOBER 2016 SPECIAL ISSUE: STATE OF BAY–DELTA SCIENCE 2016, PART 2 Food Webs of the Delta, Suisun Bay, and Suisun Marsh: An Update on Current Understanding and Possibilities for Management Larry R. Brown1*, Wim Kimmerer2, J. Louise Conrad3, Sarah Lesmeister3, and Anke Mueller–Solger1 to species of concern; however, data from other Volume 14, Issue 3 | Article 4 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2016v14iss3art4 regions of the estuary suggest that this conceptual model may not apply across the entire region. * Corresponding author: [email protected] Habitat restoration has been proposed as a method 1 California Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey of re-establishing historic food web processes to Sacramento, CA 95819 USA support species of concern. Benefits are likely for 2 Romberg Tiburon Center, San Francisco State University Tiburon, CA 94920 USA species that directly access such restored habitats, 3 California Department of Water Resources but are less clear for pelagic species. Several topics Sacramento, CA 95691 USA require attention to further improve the knowledge of food webs needed to support effective management, including: (1) synthesis of factors responsible for ABSTRACT low pelagic biomass; (2) monitoring and research on effects of harmful algal blooms; (3) broadening This paper reviews and highlights recent research the scope of long-term monitoring; (4) determining findings on food web processes since an earlier benefits of tidal wetland restoration to species of review by Kimmerer et al. (2008). We conduct this concern, including evaluations of interactions of review within a conceptual framework of the Delta– habitat-specific food webs; and (5) interdisciplinary Suisun food web, which includes both temporal and analysis and synthesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Deconstructing Mare Island Reconnaissance in the Ruins
    Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/boom/article-pdf/2/2/55/381274/boom_2012_2_2_55.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 richard white Photographs by Jesse White Deconstructing Mare Island Reconnaissance in the ruins The detritus still he Carquinez Strait has become driveover country. Beginning around Vallejo and running roughly six miles to Suisun Bay, Grizzly Bay, and the Sacramento possesses a T River Delta, the Strait has, in the daily life of California, reduced down to the Carquinez and Benicia-Martinez bridges. Motorists are as likely to be searching for grim grandeur. their toll as looking at the land and water below. Few will exit the interstates. Why stop at Martinez, Benicia, Vallejo, Crockett, or Port Costa? They are going west to Napa or San Francisco or east to Sacramento. Like travelers’ destinations, California’s future also appears to lie elsewhere. Once, much of what moved out of Northern California came through these communities, but now the Strait seems left with only the detritus of California’s past. The detritus still possesses a grim grandeur. To the east, the Mothball Fleet— originally composed of transports and battleships that helped win World War II— cluster tightly together, toxic and rusting, in Suisun Bay. Just west of the bridges, Mare Island (really a peninsula with a slough running through it) sits across the mouth of the Napa River. The United States established a naval base and shipyard there in 1854, and the island remained central to US military efforts from the Civil Boom: A Journal of California, Vol. 2, Number 2, pps 55–69.
    [Show full text]
  • Suisun Marsh Fish Report 2018 Final.Pdf
    Trends in Fish and Invertebrate Populations of Suisun Marsh January 2018 - December 2018 Annual Report for the California Department of Water Resources Sacramento, California Teejay A. O'Rear*, Peter B. Moyle, and John R. Durand Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis October 2020 *Corresponding author: [email protected] SUMMARY Suisun Marsh, at the geographic center of the northern San Francisco Estuary, is important habitat for native and non-native fishes. The University of California, Davis, Suisun Marsh Fish Study, in partnership with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), has systematically monitored the marsh's fish populations since January 1980. The study’s main purpose has been to determine environmental and anthropogenic factors affecting fish distribution and abundance. Abiotic conditions in Suisun Marsh during calendar-year 2018 returned to fairly typical levels following the very wet year of 2017. Delta outflow was generally low, with higher-than- average outflows only occurring in April when Yolo Bypass flooded. Salinities in 2018 were about average, in part because of Suisun Marsh Salinity Control Gates operations in late summer. Water temperatures were mild, being higher than average in winter and autumn and slightly below average during summer. Water transparencies were typical in winter and spring but, as has become a pattern since the early 2000s, were higher than average in summer and autumn. Dissolved-oxygen concentrations were consistent throughout the year, with only two instances of low values being recorded, both in dead-end sloughs. Fish and invertebrate catches in Suisun Marsh in 2018 told two main stories: (1) many fishes benefit from higher flows and lower salinities in Suisun Marsh while some invasive invertebrates do not; and (2) Suisun Marsh is disproportionately valuable to fishes of conservation importance.
    [Show full text]
  • NMFS and USFWS Biological Assessment
    LOS GATOS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT / SOUTH TERMINAL PHASE III PROJECT NMFS and USFWS Biological Assessment Prepared for Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Avenue P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, California 94070-1306 and the Federal Transit Administration Region IX U.S. Department of Transportation 201 Mission Street Suite1650 San Francisco, CA 94105-1839 Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 2379 Gateway Oaks Drive Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95833 August 2013 NMFS and USFWS Biological Assessment Prepared for Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Avenue P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, California 94070-1306 and the Federal Transit Administration Region IX U.S. Department of Transportation 201 Mission Street Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105-1839 Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 2379 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95833 August 2013 This page left blank intentionally. Summary The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) which operates the San Francisco Bay Area’s Caltrain passenger rail service proposes to replace the two-track railroad bridge that crosses Los Gatos Creek, in the City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. The Proposed Action is needed to address the structural deficiencies and safety issues of the Caltrain Los Gatos Creek railroad bridge to be consistent with the standards of safety and reliability required for public transit, to ensure that the bridge will continue to safely carry commuter rail service well into the future, and to improve operations at nearby San Jose Diridon Station and along the Caltrain rail line. This Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Impact Analysis of Fine Particulate Matter in the San Francisco Bay Area
    Health Impact Analysis of Fine Particulate Matter In the San Francisco Bay Area 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is a complex mixture of suspended particles and liquid droplets in the atmosphere having aerodynamic diameters of 2.5 µm or less. An individual particle typically begins as a core or nucleus of carbonaceous material, often containing trace metals. These primary (directly emitted) particles usually originate from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels or biomass. Layers of organic and inorganic compounds are then deposited onto particles while they coalesce, causing the particles to grow in size. The deposited layers include secondary material that is not emitted directly. Secondary components instead form through chemical reactions of precursor gases released from combustion, agriculture, household activities, industry, vegetation, and other sources. As particles grow larger, gravity eventually causes them to settle onto surfaces. Most naturally emitted dust particles have diameters too large to be classified as PM2.5. Numerous studies have demonstrated PM2.5 to be deleterious to human health. Major human health outcomes resulting from PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory problems, leading to increased hospital admissions; cardiovascular symptoms, including chronic hardening of the arteries and acute triggering of heart attacks; and decreased life expectancy, potentially on the order of years. Smaller particles have increasingly more severe impacts on human health than larger particles. This occurs in part because smaller particles are able to penetrate more deeply into the human body. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has developed a computer program, named the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP), to estimate health impacts associated with changes in ambient levels of pollutants.
    [Show full text]