DOCSLIB.ORG

Application of SLAMM to Coastal Connecticut Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Application of SLAMM to Coastal Connecticut Final Report Application of SLAMM to Coastal Connecticut Final Report Prepared for: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission Lowell, MA Emily Bird Project Manager Environmental Analyst Prepared by: Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. Jonathan Clough President Amy Polaczyk Research Associate Marco Propato Research Associate NEIWPCC Report NEIWPCC Contract 2013-022 January 2015 NOTICE This report was prepared by Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. in the course of performing a project funded by an agreement awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency to the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (hereafter NEIWPCC) in partnership with the Long Island Sound Study.. Although the information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection agency under agreement LI-96144501 to NEIWPCC, it has not undergone the Agency’s publications review process and therefore, may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred. The viewpoints expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Long Island Sound Study, NEIWPCC, or EPA, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or causes constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Further, NEIWPCC, the State of Connecticut, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NEIWPCC, the State of Connecticut, and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ iii Figure Listing ................................................................................................................. vi Table Listing ................................................................................................................. viii Acronyms and Abbreviations List ..................................................................................... x 1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Model Summary ................................................................................................................ 1 2 Methods.................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Input Raster Preparation...................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Elevation Data ........................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Elevation transformation ............................................................................................. 7 2.2.3 Wetland Layers and translation to SLAMM .................................................................. 8 2.2.4 Dikes and Impoundments ............................................................................................ 9 2.2.5 Percent Impervious ................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Model Timesteps .............................................................................................................. 11 2.4 Sea Level Rise Scenarios .................................................................................................. 11 2.5 Historic sea level rise rates ................................................................................................ 12 2.6 Tide Ranges ..................................................................................................................... 13 2.6.1 Elevations expressed in half tide units (HTU) ............................................................. 13 2.7 Wetland Boundary Elevation ............................................................................................. 14 2.8 Accretion Rates ................................................................................................................ 15 2.8.1 Tidal Salt Marsh ....................................................................................................... 15 2.8.1.1 Irregularly-flooded marsh ...................................................................................... 18 2.8.1.2 Regularly-flooded Marsh ....................................................................................... 18 2.8.2 Accretion Rates of Other Wetlands ............................................................................ 22 2.9 Erosion Rates ................................................................................................................... 22 2.10 Model Calibration ............................................................................................................ 23 2.11 Model Setup .................................................................................................................... 27 2.11.1 Area 1 - Fairfield County .......................................................................................... 28 Fairfield County Site Description ............................................................................................ 28 Fairfield County Site Parameters ............................................................................................ 29 Application of SLAMM to Coastal Connecticut iii Fairfield County Site Calibration and Parameters ..................................................................... 31 2.11.2 Area 2 - New Haven and Middlesex Counties ............................................................. 34 New Haven and Middlesex Counties Site Description .............................................................. 34 New Haven and Middlesex Counties Site Parameters ............................................................... 34 New Haven and Middlesex Counties Site Calibration ............................................................... 37 2.11.3 Area 3 - New London County .................................................................................... 39 New London County Site Description ..................................................................................... 39 New London County Site Parameters ...................................................................................... 40 New London County Site Calibration ...................................................................................... 41 2.12 Uncertainty Analysis Setup ............................................................................................... 45 2.12.1 SLR by 2100 ............................................................................................................ 46 2.12.2 Digital Elevation Map Uncertainty ............................................................................. 48 2.12.3 Vertical Datum Correction ........................................................................................ 49 2.12.4 Great Diurnal Tide Range ......................................................................................... 50 2.12.5 Wetland Boundary Elevation ..................................................................................... 51 2.12.6 Erosion .................................................................................................................... 52 2.12.7 Accretion ................................................................................................................. 52 2.12.7.1 Accretion Point Estimate Uncertainty...................................................................... 52 2.12.7.2 Mechanistic Accretion Model Uncertainty ............................................................... 54 3 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................ 56 3.1 Entire Study Area ............................................................................................................. 56 3.2 Southwest Coast Watershed .............................................................................................. 64 3.3 Housatonic River Watershed ............................................................................................. 71 3.4 South Central Coast Watershed ......................................................................................... 75 3.5 Connecticut River Watershed ............................................................................................ 81 3.6 Southeast Coast Watershed ............................................................................................... 85 3.7 Thames Watershed ........................................................................................................... 90 3.8 Pawcatuck Watershed (CT portion) ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Connecticut Wildlife Jan/Feb 2017
    January/February 2017 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISIONS OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, AND FORESTRY January/February 2017 Connecticut Wildlife 1 From the Volume 37, Number 1 ● January/February 2017 Director’s Published bimonthly by Desk Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Bureau of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Winter provides a unique, www.ct.gov/deep and sometimes inhospitable, Commissioner Robert Klee window to the natural world around us. While nighttime snowshoeing Deputy Commissioner after a recent snowstorm, my headlamp and a half moon revealed the Susan Whalen Chief, Bureau of Natural Resources travelings of the more adventurous wildlife, with intrepid grey squirrels William Hyatt and white-tailed deer among the more plentiful trail tracks in the snow. Director, Wildlife Division Rick Jacobson More wondrous still is star-gazing on the coldest, clearest nights. Magazine Staff A recent midnight walk with our youngest daughter Amanda was Managing Editor Kathy Herz among the most moving. It was the first time she enjoyed a clear and Production Editor Paul Fusco unblemished view of the Milky Way, and lent to pointing out some of Contributing Editors: Mike Beauchene (Fisheries) Penny Howell (Fisheries) the more prominent constellations – Orion with its noticeable three star Christopher Martin (Forestry) belt and my favorite Canis Major, the greater dog containing Sirius – Circulation Trish Cernik the dog star. Wildlife Division With all of that, Amanda was greatly taken with the most familiar of 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860-424-3011) Office of the Director, Recreation Management, Technical Assistance, constellations – the Big Dipper – and the ability to follow the outer lip Natural History Survey of the dipper to the North Star.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey
    imiF.NT OF Tim BULLETIN UN ITKI) STATKS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY No. 115 A (lECKJKAPHIC DKTIOXARY OF KHODK ISLAM; WASHINGTON GOVKRNMKNT PRINTING OFF1OK 181)4 LIBRARY CATALOGUE SLIPS. i United States. Department of the interior. (U. S. geological survey). Department of the interior | | Bulletin | of the | United States | geological survey | no. 115 | [Seal of the department] | Washington | government printing office | 1894 Second title: United States geological survey | J. W. Powell, director | | A | geographic dictionary | of | Rhode Island | by | Henry Gannett | [Vignette] | Washington | government printing office 11894 8°. 31 pp. Gannett (Henry). United States geological survey | J. W. Powell, director | | A | geographic dictionary | of | Khode Island | hy | Henry Gannett | [Vignette] Washington | government printing office | 1894 8°. 31 pp. [UNITED STATES. Department of the interior. (U. S. geological survey). Bulletin 115]. 8 United States geological survey | J. W. Powell, director | | * A | geographic dictionary | of | Ehode Island | by | Henry -| Gannett | [Vignette] | . g Washington | government printing office | 1894 JS 8°. 31pp. a* [UNITED STATES. Department of the interior. (Z7. S. geological survey). ~ . Bulletin 115]. ADVERTISEMENT. [Bulletin No. 115.] The publications of the United States Geological Survey are issued in accordance with the statute approved March 3, 1879, which declares that "The publications of the Geological Survey shall consist of the annual report of operations, geological and economic maps illustrating the resources and classification of the lands, and reports upon general and economic geology and paleontology. The annual report of operations of the Geological Survey shall accompany the annual report of the Secretary of the Interior. All special memoirs and reports of said Survey shall be issued in uniform quarto series if deemed necessary by tlie Director, but other­ wise in ordinary octavos.
    [Show full text]
  • Pawcatuck River Watershed TMDL Factsheet
    Pawcatuck River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) What is a TMDL? A TMDL can be thought of as a water pollution budget. Any waterbody that needs a TMDL is overspending its daily budget for a substance. These waterbodies are considered to be polluted or impaired by CT DEEP. The amount of the substance must be reduced to a lower level for the waterbody to be within its budget. The goal for all waterbodies is to have substance concentrations within their planned budgets. Pollution Sources All sources of pollution are reviewed while developing a TMDL. This includes sources that are caused by manmade structures such as a sewage treatment plant and sources that reach waterbodies as surface runoff during rain. The TMDL process also builds in a cushion to account for any unknown 98% reduction sources to a waterbody. Piece by Piece To create a TMDL, the waterbody is cut into pieces known as segments. These segments are like pieces of a puzzle. Each Figure 1 Sample Bacteria Comparison piece is reviewed for available data and pollution levels. A budget is determined for each piece as are the reduced budget goals. Reaching these goals allows for a waterbody to meet the planned budget. This will reduce pollution and improve water quality. Fix what is Broken The TMDL provides goals for the waterbody and attempts to identify sources of water pollution. During the process there are suggestions made to fix known sources. These efforts will reduce the amount of the polluting substance that is reaching a waterbody. As suggested fixes are implemented, the results will be protection of natural resources and cleaner water.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimated Water Use and Availability in the Pawtucket and Quinebaug
    Estimated Water Use and Availability in the Pawtuxet and Quinebaug River Basins, Rhode Island, 1995–99 By Emily C. Wild and Mark T. Nimiroski Prepared in cooperation with the Rhode Island Water Resources Board Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5154 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Wild, E.C., and Nimiroski, M.T., 2007, Estimated water use and availability in the Pawtuxet and Quinebaug River Basins, Rhode Island, 1995–99: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5154, 68 p. iii Contents Abstract . 1 Introduction . 2 Purpose and Scope . 2 Previous Investigations . 2 Climatological Setting . 6 The Pawtuxet River Basin . 6 Land Use . 7 Pawtuxet River Subbasins . 7 Minor Civil Divisions . 17 The Quinebaug River Basin . 20 Estimated Water Use . 20 New England Water-Use Data System .
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving Connecticut's Bridges Report Appendix
    Preserving Connecticut's Bridges Report Appendix - September 2018 Year Open/Posted/Cl Rank Town Facility Carried Features Intersected Location Lanes ADT Deck Superstructure Substructure Built osed Hartford County Ranked by Lowest Score 1 Bloomfield ROUTE 189 WASH BROOK 0.4 MILE NORTH OF RTE 178 1916 2 9,800 Open 6 2 7 2 South Windsor MAIN STREET PODUNK RIVER 0.5 MILES SOUTH OF I-291 1907 2 1,510 Posted 5 3 6 3 Bloomfield ROUTE 178 BEAMAN BROOK 1.2 MI EAST OF ROUTE 189 1915 2 12,000 Open 6 3 7 4 Bristol MELLEN STREET PEQUABUCK RIVER 300 FT SOUTH OF ROUTE 72 1956 2 2,920 Open 3 6 7 5 Southington SPRING STREET QUINNIPIAC RIVER 0.6 MI W. OF ROUTE 10 1960 2 3,866 Open 3 7 6 6 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 MARKET STREET & I-91 NB EAST END I-91 & I-84 INT 1961 4 125,700 Open 5 4 4 7 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EB AMTRAK;LOCAL RDS;PARKING EASTBOUND 1965 3 66,450 Open 6 4 4 8 Hartford INTERSTATE-91 NB PARK RIVER & CSO RR AT EXIT 29A 1964 2 48,200 Open 5 4 4 9 New Britain SR 555 (WEST MAIN PAN AM SOUTHERN RAILROAD 0.4 MILE EAST OF RTE 372 1930 3 10,600 Open 4 5 4 10 West Hartford NORTH MAIN STREET WEST BRANCH TROUT BROOK 0.3 MILE NORTH OF FERN ST 1901 4 10,280 Open N 4 4 11 Manchester HARTFORD ROAD SOUTH FORK HOCKANUM RIV 2000 FT EAST OF SR 502 1875 2 5,610 Open N 4 4 12 Avon OLD FARMS ROAD FARMINGTON RIVER 500 FEET WEST OF ROUTE 10 1950 2 4,999 Open 4 4 6 13 Marlborough JONES HOLLOW ROAD BLACKLEDGE RIVER 3.6 MILES NORTH OF RTE 66 1929 2 1,255 Open 5 4 4 14 Enfield SOUTH RIVER STREET FRESHWATER BROOK 50 FT N OF ASNUNTUCK ST 1920 2 1,016 Open 5 4 4 15 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EB BROAD ST, I-84 RAMP 191 1.17 MI S OF JCT US 44 WB 1966 3 71,450 Open 6 4 5 16 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EAST NEW PARK AV,AMTRAK,SR504 NEW PARK AV,AMTRAK,SR504 1967 3 69,000 Open 6 4 5 17 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 WB AMTRAK;LOCAL RDS;PARKING .82 MI N OF JCT SR 504 SB 1965 4 66,150 Open 6 4 5 18 Hartford I-91 SB & TR 835 CONNECTICUT SOUTHERN RR AT EXIT 29A 1958 5 46,450 Open 6 5 4 19 Hartford SR 530 -AIRPORT RD ROUTE 15 422 FT E OF I-91 1964 5 27,200 Open 5 6 4 20 Bristol MEMORIAL BLVD.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbody Regulations and Boat Launches
    to boating in Connecticut! TheWelcome map with local ordinances, state boat launches, pumpout facilities, and Boating Infrastructure Grant funded transient facilities is back again. New this year is an alphabetical list of state boat launches located on Connecticut lakes, ponds, and rivers listed by the waterbody name. If you’re exploring a familiar waterbody or starting a new adventure, be sure to have the proper safety equipment by checking the list on page 32 or requesting a Vessel Safety Check by boating staff (see page 14 for additional information). Reference Reference Reference Name Town Number Name Town Number Name Town Number Amos Lake Preston P12 Dog Pond Goshen G2 Lake Zoar Southbury S9 Anderson Pond North Stonington N23 Dooley Pond Middletown M11 Lantern Hill Ledyard L2 Avery Pond Preston P13 Eagleville Lake Coventry C23 Leonard Pond Kent K3 Babcock Pond Colchester C13 East River Guilford G26 Lieutenant River Old Lyme O3 Baldwin Bridge Old Saybrook O6 Four Mile River Old Lyme O1 Lighthouse Point New Haven N7 Ball Pond New Fairfield N4 Gardner Lake Salem S1 Little Pond Thompson T1 Bantam Lake Morris M19 Glasgo Pond Griswold G11 Long Pond North Stonington N27 Barn Island Stonington S17 Gorton Pond East Lyme E9 Mamanasco Lake Ridgefield R2 Bashan Lake East Haddam E1 Grand Street East Lyme E13 Mansfield Hollow Lake Mansfield M3 Batterson Park Pond New Britain N2 Great Island Old Lyme O2 Mashapaug Lake Union U3 Bayberry Lane Groton G14 Green Falls Reservoir Voluntown V5 Messerschmidt Pond Westbrook W10 Beach Pond Voluntown V3 Guilford
    [Show full text]
  • S of West Hartford®
    WINTER 2020–21: Dennis House | Connecticut Pilots Take To The Skies | Home Offices | Cooking With Chocolate! SEASONS OF WEST HARTFORD® EASONS® OF WEST HARTFORD S WINTER 2020–2021 ® Where customer focus meets community focus. Serving you and the community. Today and tomorrow. We offer personal and business banking, great lending rates, and online and mobile banking. We help you look to the future with retirement savings and other services to help you thrive. We volunteer over 14,000 hours annually. The Liberty Bank Foundation is all about giving back with grants, scholarships and funding for education. We’d love to meet you! Visit liberty-bank.com to learn more about us or call us to make an appointment at any of our branches across Connecticut. liberty-bank.com MEMBER FDIC EQUAL HOUSING LENDER NMLS #459028 THE BEST Just Got Better STRENGTH IN EXPERIENCE. TWO INDUSTRY LEADERS UNITE. SEABURY PROUDLY ANNOUNCES PARTNERSHIP WITH HARTFORD HEALTHCARE Seabury has always been committed to expanding our continuum of care and providing the best healthcare services and resources to our Residents and Members. We are proud to announce that on November 1, 2020 Hartford HealthCare joined forces with Seabury to provide comprehensive on-site Primary Care from board-certified geriatricians and geriatric advanced practice nurse practitioners and home care. Call 860-243-4033 to Learn More Today! 200 Seabury Drive · Bloomfield, CT 06002 860-286-0243 · 800-340-4709 seaburylife.org · [email protected] YOUR HOLIDAY STARTS AT FOXWOODS Find the perfect present at the Tanger® Outlets at Foxwoods, dine out with family and enjoy an overnight stay.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashaway River Watershed Description
    Ashaway River Watershed Description This TMDL applies to the Ashaway River assessment unit Assessment Unit Facts (RI0008039R-02A), a 1.8-mile long stream located in (RI0008039R-02A) Hopkinton, RI (Figure 1). The Town of Hopkinton is Town: Hopkinton located in the southwestern corner of the state and is Impaired Segment bordered by Connecticut to the east and Westerly, RI, to Length: 1.8 miles the south. The Ashaway River is located in the Classification: Class A southwestern section of town along the Connecticut border. Direct Watershed: 28.2 mi2 (18060 acres) The Ashaway River watershed is presented in Figure 2 Imperious Cover: < 1% with land use types indicated. Watershed Planning Area: Wood – Pawcatuck The Ashaway River begins at the confluence of Parmenter (#23) Brook and the Green Fall River in the southwestern section of Hopkinton, near Route 216. The brook flows south parallel to Laurel Street through a residential area before it empties into the Pawcatuck River along the Connecticut border. The Ashaway River watershed covers 28.2 square miles in both Rhode Island and Connecticut, with the majority of the watershed located in Connecticut. Non-developed areas occupy a large portion (84%) of the watershed. Developed uses (including residential and commercial uses) occupy approximately 5%. Agricultural land uses occupy 7% and wetlands and other surface waters occupy 4%. Water/ The Town of Hopkinton is 44 square miles and has a Wetlands (4%) Agriculture population of approximately 8,000 people. Hopkinton has Non- (7%) Developed over 1,000 acres of open space supporting various (84%) Developed recreational activities, including hiking, fishing, and (5%) canoeing.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuity and Variability in Lithic Use During the Woodland Period In
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Master's Theses University of Connecticut Graduate School 5-12-2019 Continuity and Variability in Lithic Use During the Woodland Period in Coastal Southern New England: The iewV from the Laurel Beach II Site Daniel Zoto [email protected] Recommended Citation Zoto, Daniel, "Continuity and Variability in Lithic Use During the Woodland Period in Coastal Southern New England: The ieV w from the Laurel Beach II Site" (2019). Master's Theses. 1386. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/gs_theses/1386 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Connecticut Graduate School at OpenCommons@UConn. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of OpenCommons@UConn. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Continuity and Variability in Lithic Use During the Woodland Period in Coastal Southern New England: The View from the Laurel Beach II Site Daniel M. Zoto B.A., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2010 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts At the University of Connecticut 2019 i Copyright by Daniel M. Zoto 2019 ii APPROVAL PAGE Masters of Arts Thesis Continuity and Variability in Lithic Use during the Woodland Period in Coastal Southern New England: The View from the Laurel Beach II Site Presented by Daniel M. Zoto, BA University of Connecticut 2019 iii Acknowledgements There are truly far too many people to name that made this project possible. I have learned so much from so many individuals over the years, all of which has influenced this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Studio Architects, East Hartford, CT
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Title Page 2. Table of Contents 3. Letter of Transmittal 4. Qualifications Statement 5. Scope of Services 6. Staffing Plan 7. Resumes 8. Consultants 9. Specialized Expertise 10. Project Management 11. Litigation 12. Similar Projects 13. Schedule of Fees 14. Appendix A Consultant Bios, Resumes and References B Project Tear-out Sheets C References D 2013 Billable Rates and Reimbursables E Licenses F Sample Insurance Certificates G Firm Awards 15. Project Approach and Understanding of the Work 16. Town Forms Form 1 Submission Form Form 2 Acknowledgement Form Form 3 Proposal Checklist Capital Studio Architects 1379 Main Street East Hartford, Connecticut 06108 860.289.3262 fax 860.289.3163 capitalstudio.net QUALIFICATION STATEMENT Capital Studio Architects LLC, which began in 1998 by David G. Holmes and Patrick A. Mancuso, has served numerous municipalities throughout the state of Connecticut on various project types and sizes. Weve worked with departments of public safety, planning and development, public works and parks and recreation, among others, to enhance the communities they serve and create better experiences for their residents. With over 25 years of service to many of the municipalities in Connecticut, weve met the challenges set forth by our clients by producing thoughtful and responsible Architecture with a hands on approach. One, or both partners actively participate in all phases of projects and execute many of the duties required to complete the project, such as project organization, design consideration, document production and coordination and administration. It is this system that allows us to be competitive with our fees as well as deliver the work in a timely manner and within budget.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bibliography of Publications Relating to Water Resources in Connecticut, 1900-1970 William C
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Special Reports Connecticut Institute of Water Resources June 1970 A Bibliography of Publications Relating to Water Resources in Connecticut, 1900-1970 William C. Kennard Institute of Water Resources Jane S. Fisher Institute of Water Resources Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/ctiwr_specreports Recommended Citation Kennard, William C. and Fisher, Jane S., "A Bibliography of Publications Relating to Water Resources in Connecticut, 1900-1970" (1970). Special Reports. 8. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/ctiwr_specreports/8 I~:-,:: ,i~i ~a~f~xi-~:- - -~~;, - ., ,ifP~t- ,ii~ -Zi ·#- r. -, ,;i;_ n_ - ,1: ri_ ~ .- ~ - _i~,` I . - -I-: 4t-j . -~~~~ ,-. ;~~~~~~t-,I I I~~~~~~_: . -Y -5-- ,-, -3 t - - ~~~~~~-~~~.-,I.W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `_ ~ ~ ~~~~~ i-2.,, _~- -, -~- w ", --- ,'~,,~~--I ~l. ::, 'I ~ l--i-- iii- _'~._~~,__. ._, ~ ~ ~ - A-, !~._, ,--i-izs-- `11~ c. ?.-,; i,!·- -?-~' -7 ~ ~ '4 ,fc·v~~, _1, ~- - ,~, l ~-%~~~~ -- s:_ , _-11-~Iv ~ ---" ~ ~, ~ ~ .k~~~ -"- , --- -,- ", _n, -, _~~~~~~__l1-.7-I- j-_ t,- _~~~~~~2~~--_,~~~~. -",7 -~ i --,.~~~~t: !~,~ -. - .~- lkz~,~ ,_~,, __.. ~~I --,I ~,!:f~c-, ~~~~~~~,~ ~~~~~~~~,~~~-_'-_- ~~ -, - ' ·-I-b _-! - wv;-n7:.,.,- , ''..; :~·- :~~~~~~~~~~~~~i-- ill~,-:: ~- 4ut -- ~ ,, ~ ~ ---.:--'4~~.AC-W `: ~ ~ ~ ~ ,V~~~i.-- -~~~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-- ~~~Z-~;W'i- , . ~ - ~ !"''~~-~~-,~~r,--,i:1,3~~,fpf',~,':.--,~,,-,,-,"'-'v~_ 7,-, ,.,- "T - , ~ & ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-. t y~_`_1,1 , . -11~.~;,, I-.___;!i i 'I,.,: , P~'., ,~: ,''.-.~~:: --7 _ -.i, ; a , . -~- ~ - ` ~:- I ; - iIas,.,.f_.~_ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ,- , t-,i---!r,~ !4 , - _ -. _ i..n~ , ,, ~ ~ ~:-t~~,~-,_-- ~ , - ~ -,~~,_-- , * ,- Z- ,--- ~ _,-~ ~ _-- ,~",i-,d.,- ,,- . ,, .:,, , I_,-f7 , __" ~ ~~~ , - :, -i~:7%..~ -, -- ~ i W, s-,i,":, -I .-- ,-. I, ,"I- , - "__.1 _ _- -~-~ -t~ ,-.'.'~-~ -~ ,,~i- ~,~: --, ~ ~ -, -_- ;-,- ;~,11~l!~_!D__ __6, -, I , -- I- ',1-1 I.
    [Show full text]
  • New Englandersthat 2002-2003Was a Return to Business As Usual in the North- New England Temperatezone
    fter the previouswinter of record-breakingwarmth, it should have come as no surprise to New Englandersthat 2002-2003was a return to business as usual in the north- New England temperatezone. Over the Regionas a whole, averagetemperature ranked in the lowest 25% of winters on record, with statesbordering the Gulf of Maine •rt (Maine, New Hampshire,Massachusetts) ß colder than the Regional average. In Canbou manyareas, there was no hint of a Janu- ary or February thaw. Snowfall was roughly normal, although this was a result of below-averageprecipitation to ß Baxter SP the north and above-averageprecipita- tion to the south.The latter was aidedby five northeasters that swept ashore MAINE between mid-December and mid-Febru- ary ß ß Bangor The effects of this "normal" winter on Chaml)lain Island Pond New Englhnd'sbirdlife were generally ß Augusta pretty obvious.Early freezingof north- Mtl•. •t.besert I em lakes and rivers forced waterfowl and -- • i NF &Acadia NP ..... 10NT eaglessouth by mid-winter, and cold r • Wint,e- • MonheganI. temperatures in general probably _••au/•e Portland resulted in one of the lowest totals of lin- HAMPSHIRE gering half-hardiesin recent years. In rea,Bay.IßP_.nuL.. contrast,there werefour hummingbirds Pad.awayS•a -• •s•esor•noa•s in the Region,including Massachusetts's first Calliope Hummingbird and a Berkshire/_•SS•C•OSE•S ••½• •c, CapeAnn .... Selaphoruswell to the north in coastal •uny• f •Qu•? BOto•t•gen Maine. Carolina Wrens, a species not / •r,--h=H• •s. •h• BankPr•ir=etown known for its cold tolerance,managed to Litchfi• ., .
    [Show full text]