DRAFT

EPA NEW ENGLAND

REGIONAL 

CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013
2

Disclaimer

To the extent this document mentions or discusses statutory or regulatory authority, it does so for 

informational purposes only. This document does not substitute for those statutes or regulations, 

and readers should consult the statutes or regulations to learn what they require. Neither this 

document, nor any part of it, is itself a rule or a regulation. Thus, it cannot change or impose 

legally binding requirements on EPA, States, the public, or the regulated community. Further, 

any expressed intention, suggestion or recommendation does not impose any legally binding 

requirements on EPA, States, tribes, the public, or the regulated community. Agency decision 

makers remain free to exercise their discretion in choosing to implement the actions described in 

this Plan. Such implementation is contingent upon availability of resources and is subject to 

change. 
3

Preface

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is committed to identifying and responding to 

the challenges that a changing climate poses to human health and the environment.

Scientific evidence demonstrates that the climate is changing at an increasingly rapid rate, 

outside the range to which society has adapted in the past. These changes can pose significant 

challenges to the EPA’s ability to fulfill its mission. The EPA must adapt to climate change if it 

is to continue fulfilling its statutory, regulatory and programmatic requirements. The Agency is 

therefore anticipating and planning for future changes in climate to ensure it continues to fulfill 

its mission of protecting human health and the environment even as the climate changes. 

In February 2013, the EPA released its draft Climate Change Adaptation Plan to the public for 

review and comment. The plan relies on peer-reviewed scientific information and expert 

judgment to identify vulnerabilities to EPA’s mission and goals from climate change. The plan 

also presents 10 priority actions that EPA will take to ensure that its programs, policies, rules, 

and operations will remain effective under future climatic conditions. The priority placed on 

mainstreaming climate adaptation within EPA complements efforts to encourage and mainstream 

adaptation planning across the entire federal government.

Following completion of the draft Climate Change Adaptation Plan, each EPA National 

Environmental Program Office, all 10 Regional Offices, and several National Support Offices 

developed a Climate Adaptation Implementation Plan to provide more detail on how it will carry 

out the work called for in the agency-wide plan. Each Implementation Plan articulates how the 

office will integrate climate adaptation into its planning and work in a manner consistent and 

compatible with its goals and objectives.

Taken together, the Implementation Plans demonstrate how the EPA will attain the 10 agencywide priorities presented in the Climate Change Adaptation Plan. A central element of all of 

EPA’s plans is to build and strengthen its adaptive capacity and work with its partners to build 

capacity in states, tribes, and local communities. EPA will empower its staff and partners by 

increasing their awareness of ways that climate change may affect their ability to implement 

effective programs, and by providing them with the necessary data, information, and tools to 

integrate climate adaptation into their work.

Each Program and Regional Office’s Implementation Plan contains an initial assessment of the 

implications of climate change for the organization’s goals and objectives. These “program 

vulnerability assessments” are living documents that will be updated as needed to account for 

new knowledge, data, and scientific evidence about the impacts of climate change on EPA’s 

mission. The plan then identifies specific priority actions that the office will take to begin 

addressing its vulnerabilities and mainstreaming climate change adaptation into its activities. 

Criteria for the selection of priorities are discussed. An emphasis is placed on protecting the most 

vulnerable people and places, on supporting the development of adaptive capacity in the tribes, 

and on identifying clear steps for ongoing collaboration with tribal governments.
4

Because EPA’s Programs and Regions and partners will be learning by experience as they 

mainstream climate adaptation planning into their activities, it will be essential to evaluate their 

efforts in order to understand how well different approaches work and how they can be 

improved. Each Implementation Plan therefore includes a discussion of how the organization 

will regularly evaluate the effectiveness of its adaptation efforts and make adjustments where 

necessary.

The set of Implementation Plans are a sign of EPA’s leadership and commitment to help build 

the nation’s adaptive capacity that is so vital to the goal of protecting human health and the 

environment. Working with its partners, the Agency will help promote a healthy and prosperous 

nation that is resilient to a changing climate.

Bob Perciasepe

Deputy Administrator

September 2013
5
6

Prepared by the EPA New England Regional Adaptation Plan Workgroup

Workgroup Members:

Office of Ecosystem Protection:

Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch 

Mel Coté, Manager, Ocean and Coastal Protection Unit

Cynthia Greene, Manager Energy and Climate Unit

Lisa Grogan-McCulloch, Energy and Climate Unit

Ken Moraff, Deputy Office Director

Alison Rogers, Oceans and Coastal Protection Unit, ORISE Fellow

Jessica Hing, Air Permits, Toxic, Indoor Programs Unit, Schools

Marybeth Smuts, Air Permits, Toxic, Indoor Programs Unit Public Health/Indoor Air

Michael Stover, Indian Program Manager

Norman Willard, Energy and Climate Unit

Steve Winnett, Water Quality Branch

Shutsu Wong, Energy and Climate Unit

Office of Environmental Stewardship

Roy Crystal, Assistance and Pollution Prevention

Joanna Jerison, Chief Superfund Legal Unit

Rob Koethe, Toxics and Pesticides Unit

Thomas D’Avanzo, Director Assistance and Pollution Prevention

Office of Site Remediation and Restoration

Sherry Banks, Emergency Response and Removal II

Elsbeth Hearn, Emergency Response and Removal I

Ginny Lombardo, Federal Facilities

John Podgurski, Response & Removal II Branch

Office of Regional Counsel

Tim Williamson, ORC air

Mark Stein, ORC water

Office of Administration and Resource Management

Alice Kaufman, Manager Facilities Unit

Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation

Greg Hellyer, Ecosystem Assessment Unit

Alan Vanarsdale, Ecosystem Assessment Unit

Office of the Regional Administrator

Emily Zimmerman, Communications

Amy Braz, Environmental Justice

Kathleen Nagle, Children’s Health

Kristen Conroy, Children’s Health

Rosemary Monahan, Smartgrowth
7

Table of Contents

List of Figures......................................................................................................................................................... 9

List of Tables.......................................................................................................................................................... 9

I. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION (RCAP) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........12

II. EXISTING AND FORECASTED CONDITIONS ....................................................................15

III. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................................24

GOAL 1: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality.................................................................. 24

A. Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts.............................................................................................24

B. Program-Specific Vulnerabilities ....................................................................................................................24

Ozone (O3) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)...............................................................................................................24

Particulate Matter (PM)......................................................................................................................................25

Indoor Air............................................................................................................................................................25

Mercury...............................................................................................................................................................25

C. Enforcement and Compliance ........................................................................................................................25

GOAL 2: Protecting America’s Waters.................................................................................................................. 26

Cross-Program Water Management...................................................................................................................26

A. Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts.............................................................................................26

B. Program-Specific Vulnerabilities ....................................................................................................................27

Water Quality Standards.....................................................................................................................................27

Monitoring, Assessing, and Reporting ................................................................................................................28

Total Maximum Daily Loads................................................................................................................................28

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System...............................................................................................30

Nonpoint Source Management ..........................................................................................................................30

Wetlands.............................................................................................................................................................31

Ocean Dumping and Dredging ............................................................................................................................32

National Estuary Program...................................................................................................................................32

Drinking Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Infrastructure...........................................................................32

Drinking Water Quality .......................................................................................................................................33

C. Enforcement and Compliance ........................................................................................................................33

GOAL 3: Cleaning up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development ..................................................... 34

A. Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts.............................................................................................34

B. Program-Specific Vulnerabilities ....................................................................................................................36

Longer-term Cleanups (e.g., Superfund Remedial, Superfund Removal, RCRA Corrective Action, TSCA)..........36

Emergency Response Program ...........................................................................................................................38

RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facilities.................................................................................................39

Oil Program and Underground Storage Tanks....................................................................................................40

C. Enforcement and Compliance ........................................................................................................................41

GOAL 4: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution.................................................................... 41

A. Pesticides........................................................................................................................................................41

B. Enforcement, Compliance and Pollution Prevention .....................................................................................42

Enforcement .......................................................................................................................................................42
8

Pollution Prevention ...........................................................................................................................................42

Facilities and Operations ..................................................................................................................................... 43

A. Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts.............................................................................................43

B. Facility-Specific Vulnerabilities.......................................................................................................................43

Tribal and Vulnerable Populations....................................................................................................................... 44

A. Air ...................................................................................................................................................................46

B. Water..............................................................................................................................................................48

C. Waste and Pesticides......................................................................................................................................49

Cross-Cutting Vulnerabilities................................................................................................................................ 49

A. Energy.............................................................................................................................................................49

B. Communications.............................................................................................................................................50

IV. PRIORITY ACTIONS.................................................................................................................51

GOAL 1................................................................................................................................................................. 52

GOAL 2................................................................................................................................................................. 53

GOAL 3................................................................................................................................................................. 57

GOAL 4................................................................................................................................................................. 58

FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS............................................................................................................................... 59

TRIBAL AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS ............................................................................................................ 59

CROSS CUTTING ACTIONS .................................................................................................................................... 59

COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 60

V. MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION.......................................................................................61

REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................63
9

List of Figures

Figure 1: Route 107 Stockbridge, VT, August 29, 2011...............................................................................12

Figure 2: Daily Peak PM2.5 Air Quality Index ...............................................................................................12

Figure 3: Projected New Hampshire Summers...........................................................................................15

Figure 4: Extreme Heat in Boston ...............................................................................................................16

Figure 5: Percentage Change in Very Heavy Precipitation .........................................................................17

Figure 6: Projected 100-Year Flood Zone in Boston ...................................................................................19

Figure 7: New England Tribes .....................................................................................................................46

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of State Adaptation Planning Efforts............................................................................23
10

List of Acronyms

ANR Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

AST Above Ground Storage Tanks

BAT Best Available Control Technology Economically Achievable.

BCT Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology

BIP Balanced indigenous populations

BMP Best Management Practices

BPT Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available 

CAA Clean Air Act

CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (in the National Estuary 

Program)

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CT Connecticut

CWA Clean Water Act

DEP Department of Environmental Protection

DOT Department of Transportation

EGU Electric Generating Units

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

F Temperature in Fahrenheit degrees

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIFRA Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

FRP Facility Response Plans

GCCN EPA Region I’s Global Climate Change Network

GIS Geographic Information System (a mapping tool)

HUD Housing and Urban Development

IPCC International Panel on Climate Change

LiDAR Light Detection and Radar (a tool to determine topography using light beams 

shot from an airplane)

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NARS National Aquatic Resource Surveys

NECIA Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment

NH New Hampshire

NY New York

NEON National Ecological Observatory Network 

www.neoninc.org/about/overview

NEP National Estuary Program

NEWMOA Northeast Waste Management Officials Association

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

MA Massachusetts

ME Maine

OA Ocean Acidification

OPA Oil Pollution Act

PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyl
11

pH pH scale measures how acidic or basic a substance is. It ranges from 0 to 14. 

A pH of 7 is neutral. A pH less than 7 is acidic, and a pH greater than 7 is basic.

PM2.5 Particulate Matter 2.5 microns

PPA Performance Partnership Agreement

PPG Performance Partnership Grants

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RI Rhode Island

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SPCC Spill Prevention and Control Countermeasures

SUPERFUND Superfund is the federal government's program to clean up the nation's 

uncontrolled hazardous waste sites

TITAN Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act

UNH EPSCoR University of New Hampshire Experiment Program to Stimulate Competitive 

Research (EPSCoR) www.epscor.unh.edu/whats-epscor

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USG Unhealthy for Sensitive Group

USGCRP United States Global Climate Research Program is a Federal program that 

coordinates and integrates global change research across 13 government 

agencies to ensure that it most effectively and efficiently serves the Nation and 

the world. USGCRP was mandated by Congress in 1990.

http://www.globalchange.gov/home

UST Underground Storage Tanks

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

VT Vermont

WARNs Water and Wastewater Agency Response Networks
12

I. Regional Climate Change Adaptation (RCAP) 

Executive Summary

Climate change and its associated impacts to air, water and waste systems are challenging EPA’s 

mission of protecting the environment and public health. One impact, increasing extreme 

precipitation, has already taken a large toll on New England’s environment. In August 2011, 

tropical storm Irene dumped three to five inches of rainfall throughout Vermont over two days, 

with many areas receiving more than seven inches. Extensive flooding caused millions of 

dollars of damage to infrastructure. Wells and public water systems were submerged and 

contaminated with chemicals and pathogens, degrading safe drinking water supplies.1

Figure 1: Route 107 Stockbridge, VT, August 29, 20112

Two months later, an unseasonably early 

October snowstorm dumped one to two 

and a half feet of snow, felled trees and 

resulted in significant power outages 

across the New England region. 

Increased usage of local generators and 

wood stoves in response to the loss of 

power led to unhealthy ambient air 

conditions, particularly for sensitive 

groups.3

 

For over 40 years, EPA New England

has been protecting the region’s 

environment and public health through 

the implementation of air, water and waste programs. EPA New England has been working on 

climate mitigation, greenhouse gas reduction strategies, since 2000 and since 2009 has had a 

multi-media Global Climate Change Network that has educated EPA staff and worked on 

climate mitigation and adaptation. 

Figure 2: Daily Peak PM2.5 Air Quality Index4

In 2009, President Obama established an 

Interagency Climate Change Task Force. 

He called on that task force to develop 

recommendations for adapting to climate 

change with the goal of promoting a healthy 

and prosperous nation resilient to climate 

change. The Task Force’s 2010 report 

recommended that every Federal Agency 

develop a Climate Change Adaptation Plan. 

EPA’s national Climate Adaptation Plan 

was developed and released for public 

comment on February 8, 2013. In 2011, 

EPA’s Administrator Lisa Jackson asked 
13

that all EPA regional and program offices develop climate adaptation plans to detail how we will 

carry out the work in the agency-wide plan, taking into account the impacts on EPA’s regional 

mission and operations. In September 2012, EPA New England convened 30 employees 

knowledgeable in their media programs and asked them to assess the risks and impacts of

climate change that are and will be pertinent to the region’s mission and responsibilities, and to 

develop a plan of action to address these risks and impacts within the region.

This draft regional climate adaptation plan outlines existing conditions in New England and how 

we will incorporate the challenges of climate change into our programs and operations. Based on 

global, regional and state specific scientific research and modeling projections, EPA New 

England staff determined the vulnerabilities for our programs and facilities and identified priority 

actions for both the chronic and episodic impacts of climate change. 

The major chronic impacts reviewed include:

• Heat – Since 1970 the average annual temperature rose 2° F and the average winter 

temperature 4° F.

5

• Extreme Precipitation – Over the past 50 plus years the Northeast has seen a 74% 

increase in the amount of precipitation falling in very heavy events (defined as the 

heaviest 1% of all daily events).

6

• Sea Level Rise - By 2100 it is expected to rise by 30 – 79 inches.7

The episodic impacts include:

• Flooding - In August 2011, tropical storm Irene hit New England. In Vermont alone,

recovering from the widespread damage and destruction is expected to cost between $700 

million and $1 billion dollars.8

 

• Ocean Storm Surge – In October 2012, Super Storm Sandy caused a storm surge of 9.2 ft 

in NY City9 . The coastal areas of CT and RI were also significantly affected. 

According to The Boston Harbor Association report, if the storm had hit Boston 5.5 

hours earlier on the high tide it would have caused a 5 foot storm surge that would have 

flooded 6.6% of Boston.10

For this plan, regional programs were reviewed and the vulnerabilities of these programs to one 

or more of the above impacts were determined. For example, an increase in heat could increase 

the number of unhealthy ozone days. Priority actions to address the vulnerabilities were then 

drafted. Over 100 actions were identified. Each priority action was evaluated based on its 

ability to reduce risk, whether the action would protect a critical asset, whether it would be easy 

to implement (i.e., whether it would be “low-hanging fruit”), whether it would leverage other 

larger efforts, EPA’s unique role and capacity, the time frame to accomplish and the funding 

needed. 

The final section of the plan lays out how these actions will be incorporated into the region’s 

existing programs and how we will measure our progress. For instance, the Agency works with 

the states and tribes on an annual basis to determine activities that EPA will fund. We will work 

with the states and tribes to incorporate climate adaptation into those activities. Additionally, the 

Region has a Global Climate Change Network (GCCN) made up of staff and managers from 

every office in the Region and each year the GCCN develops a strategy for activities it expects to 
14

accomplish for both climate change mitigation and adaptation. The priority actions identified in 

this plan will be incorporated into the GCCN strategy on an annual basis.

In order to gather stakeholder input, we have held ten webinars with the air, water and waste 

interstate organizations whose members come from the six New England states air, water and 

waste environmental agencies, New England nongovernmental organizations, the New England 

Environmental Business Council, tribal leaders, tribal environmental managers and tribal historic 

preservation officers. All of their input has been incorporated into this plan.

EPA New England will continue to evaluate the science and impacts of climate change and will 

update the vulnerabilities and priority actions for our programs in order to reduce risk to New 

England’s health and environment. 
15

II. Existing and Forecasted Conditions

Forecasted Climate Change Impacts in New England of Concern for EPA’s Regional Mission 

and Operation

New England is well known for its varying seasons, rocky 

coastline, extensive beaches, and mix of both urban and 

rural settings. Over the last several decades, New England 

has experienced noticeable changes in its climate. New 

England is and will be uniquely impacted by climate 

change due to its population distribution, geography, 

seasons and weather patterns. Below is a summary of 

existing conditions and forecasts for New England climate 

change impacts. As indicated by the references, a key 

source of existing and forecasted information is taken from 

the 2009 publication by the United State Global Climate 

Research Program (USGCRP), Global Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States. Where appropriate, we have 

also included information used by New England States 

when considering climate change impacts within their 

respective states.

Population Distribution in New England

New England has a population of over 14 million, with a 

large portion of the population located along a coast that 

spans approximately 6,100 miles. From 1960 to 2008, Maine and New Hampshire had the 

highest increase in the share of population in coastline counties.

11 From 2010 to 2030, New 

England’s population is projected to increase by eight percent.12

Demographics

According to the Census, the population in the nation is aging. As compared with the rest of the

nation, New England has a larger proportion of the elderly and baby boomers (14.4%) than the 

rest of the nation (13%).

13 Four of New England’s six states are more densely populated than the 

nation’s average.14 Rhode Island and Massachusetts are the second and third most densely 

populated states with 91% of its population in urban areas; and Connecticut is fourth with as 

much as 88% of its population in urban areas.15

Figure 3: Projected New Hampshire 

Summers17
16

Increases in Air Temperature

Since 1970, the average annual temperature in the Northeast has risen by 2°F and the average 

winter temperature has increased by 4°F.16 This trend is projected to continue. As shown in 

Figure 3, by 2100 New Hampshire's summers could be as warm as North Carolina's summers are 

today.17

Over the same period, Boston is projected to experience 

an increase in the number of days reaching 100°F - from 

an average of one day per year between 1961 and 1990 to 

as many as 24 days per year by 2100.18 (See Figure 4.) 

Under a higher emissions scenario identified by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 

Hartford, CT could see as many as 30 days per year with 

temperatures reaching 100°F.19 These rising temperatures 

have potential impacts on public health, ranging from 

heat-related stress to infectious diseases. This is further 

explained in Public Health Impacts below. 

A potential exception to this trend of general warming in 

New England has been suggested by the Houlton Band of 

Maliseets, a federally-recognized tribe on the 

Meduxnekeag River in Maine. They cite a reference that 

suggests the eastern Maine coast may experience a 

general cooling trend. Professor Emeritus George Jacobson, Climate Change Institute and

School of Biology and Ecology at the University of Maine, suggests that the reason for that is as 

follows: the current cold coastal climate east of Penobscot Bay results from the twice-a-day high 

tides in the Bay of Fundy, which bring to the surface the cold, deep water that has come into the 

Gulf of Maine through the narrow Northeast Channel. This upwelling of cold water is expected 

to continue in the future, and may limit the warming of the coastal ambient air, resulting in the 

eastern coastal area of Maine remaining relatively cool, despite considerable warming inland.20

Seasonal Shift

Increased air temperatures have already resulted in shifts in the seasonal patterns in New 

England and that trend is projected to continue. In the winter, more precipitation is falling as 

rain rather than snow, and as a result, there is a reduced snowpack. A 2011 Vermont Agency of 

Natural Resources group of publications noted that the timing and form of precipitation affects 

the quantities of water stored in surface waters and aquifers, potentially affecting the availability 

of water for human use.21 The publications also state that in the spring, the ice on lakes and 

rivers melts earlier, resulting in earlier peak river flows. The publications forecast that, 

combined with reduced snowpack, earlier snow melt is anticipated to lead to an increase in 

frequency of summer droughts.22 In addition, both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and 

Vermont note that the duration, timing, and frequency of seasonal precipitation and flooding are

changing, resulting in impacts on the hydrologic cycle and aquatic habitats and the organisms

that depend on them, including migratory fish and aquatic insects.23, 24 In Vermont they are 

Figure 4: Extreme Heat in Boston18
17

concerned that summer low flows from increased drought frequency may also reduce aquatic 

habitats and make them more isolated, and that lower flows may lead to higher water 

temperatures, reducing the amounts of dissolved oxygen. Lastly, Vermont notes that all of these 

changes have the potential to shift prevalent fish species and reduce cold-water fish populations, 

potentially allowing new species to gain competitive advantages.25 

In a Climate Change Adaptation White Paper Series, Vermont stated that a changing climate 

may cause species to shift their distribution on the landscape to follow the presence of preferred 

or essential habitats.26 In this paper, Vermont identified the invasion of Asian long-horned beetle 

as well as woolly adelgid while Maine has seen Asian shore crab and Eurasian water milfoil.27 

Wooly adelgid is an insect that is native to Japan that threatens Eastern Hemlock trees.28

Changes in Precipitation Patterns

Warmer temperatures increase the rate 

of evaporation of water into the 

atmosphere, in effect increasing the 

atmosphere's capacity to "hold" 

water.29 Increased evaporation may dry 

out some areas and increase 

precipitation in other areas. In fact, 

drought and increasing heavy 

precipitation are not mutually exclusive 

and may even happen in the same 

locations. While winter precipitation is 

projected to increase along with 

temperature, little change is projected 

for summer rainfall.30 Combined with 

greater evaporation from higher 

temperatures and earlier winter and 

spring snowmelt, the summer and fall 

drought risk for the Northeast is 

projected to increase.

31 At the same 

time, in the Northeast, heavy 

precipitation events have increased more dramatically over the past 60 years than in the rest of 

the country. As shown in Figure 5, in the northeast, the amount of very heavy precipitation 

events from 1958 to 2011 has increased by 74%.32 This increasing trend is projected to continue 

into the future. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts projects that rainfall during the wettest five 

days of each year will increase 10% by mid-century and by 20% by 2100.33 

Sea Level Rise

Between 1880 and 2011, absolute global sea level rose at an average rate of 0.07 inches per year; 

however, from 1993 to 2011, average sea level rose at a rate of 0.11 to 0.13 inches per year, 

nearly twice the long term trend.34 The IPCC has projected that the sea level will rise between 7 

and 24 inches by the end of the 21st century.35 However, this projection does not include the 

influence of the melting of the polar ice sheets. The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 

Figure 5: Percentage Change in Very Heavy Precipitation32

The map shows percent increase in the amount of precipitation falling in very heavy

events (defined as the heaviest 1% of all daily events) from 1958 to 2011 for each 

region. There are clear trends toward a greater amount of very heavy precipitation 

for the nation as a whole, and particularly in the Northeast and Midwest. (Figure 

source: updated from (Karl et al. 2009) with data from NCDC)
18

Program, which does include contributions from the melting arctic ice sheets, predicts sea-level 

will rise approximately 30 to 60 inches by the end of the century.36 Two New England States --

New Hampshire and Massachusetts -- cite a 2008 study by Pfeffer, J. T. et al37 that includes the 

contribution to sea level rise from the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets 

which suggests that, sea levels could rise as much as 79 inches by 2100.38 The City of Boston 

projects that the Boston’s sea level rise will range from 24 to 72 inches by the end of the century, 

depending on how quickly the ice in Greenland and Antarctica melt.39 

In June of 2012, a USGS study published in Nature Climate Change stated that between 1950-

1979 and 1980-2009, sea levels between Cape Hatteras and Boston rose approximately three to 

four times faster than the global average.

40 Taking subsidence at a rate of six inches per century

into account, the state of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council has begun to 

plan for a 36 to 60 inch sea level rise by 2100 and they have codified their projection in state 

regulations.41 Other states, such as Massachusetts, also cite subsidence as a potential factor 

influencing the magnitude of local sea level rise.42 

Increased Flooding and Storm Surges

In the past 50 years, there has been an increase in flooding in New England, both in coastal and 

inland areas threatening manmade and natural infrastructure. New England’s industrial 

development in the 19th century was along its rivers where the water could be used as a source of 

energy. Many of these facilities still exist today and are vulnerable to river flooding. Between 

1955 and 1999, floods accounted for $16.97 million in damage annually in Vermont alone.43 In 

2011, tropical storm Irene dumped three to five inches of rainfall throughout the state over two 

days, with many areas receiving more than seven inches.44 The extensive flooding caused 

millions of dollars of damage to Vermont’s infrastructure including damage to 500 miles of road 

and 200 bridges. The cost of rebuilding this infrastructure is estimated to be up to 250 million.45

Wells and public water systems were submerged and contaminated with chemicals and 

pathogens, thereby affecting safe drinking water supplies.46 A state-wide drinking water advisory 

was issued to warn citizens of the possibility of harmful chemicals or bacteria in their flooded 

wells. Approximately 30 public water systems issued “boil water” notices, affecting 

approximately 16,590 people. Seventeen municipal wastewater treatment facilities also reported 

compromised operations47and private water supply wells were also affected. The Vermont 

Department of Health distributed over 3,000 free bacterial sample kits for homeowners to test 

their wells. Of the test kits returned to the Department for testing, 37% were positive for total 

coliform (of the 37, 8% were positive for E.coli). Lastly, hazardous waste spills increased by a 

factor of fourteen during the first week after tropical storm Irene.48 Projecting forward, Vermont 

anticipates the increasing probability of high-flow events could be as high as 80%.

49 

Coastal flooding is also an issue for New England. It is expected that the combination of a 

projected increase in heavy precipitation and sea level rise will lead to more frequent, damaging 

floods in the Northeast.50 Less winter precipitation falling as snow and more as rain will also 

increase the number and impact of flooding events as the frozen ground is unable to absorb the 

winter rain. Sea level rise, storm surges, hurricanes, erosion, and the destruction of important 

coastal ecosystems will likely contribute to an increase in coastal flooding events, including the 

frequency of current "100-year flood" levels (severe flood levels with a one-in-100 likelihood of 

occurring in any given year). Figure 6 shows the current Federal Emergency Management 
19

Agency 100-year flood zone (hatched darker blue) as well as the extent of the projected 100-year 

flood zone in 2100 (lighter blue) for the waterfront/Government Center area of Boston under a 

“higher-greenhouse gas emissions scenario” used by the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment 

(NECIA) in a report titled Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast.

51 What is now considered a 

once in a 100-year coastal flood in Boston is expected to occur, on average, as frequently as 

every two to three years by mid-century and once every other year by late-century – under either 

emissions scenario identified by NECIA.

Figure 6: Projected 100-Year Flood Zone in Boston51

Increase in Fresh and Ocean Water Temperature and Acidification

In addition to changes in the level of the sea, the physical and chemical properties of the ocean 

are changing. As the air temperature warms, it warms the ocean. Globally, sea surface 

temperatures have been higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable 

observations began in 1880.52 Warmer fresh and salt waters hold less dissolved oxygen making 
20

“hypoxia”1 more likely, fostering harmful algal blooms, and changing the toxicity of some 

pollutants.53 

The pH level of seawater has decreased significantly since 1750, and is projected to drop much 

more dramatically by the end of the century if carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations continue to 

increase as the oceans absorb this CO2.

54 According to the 2011 Massachusetts’ Climate Change 

Adaptation Report, pH levels are projected to decrease by 0.1- 0.3 by 2100, making the ocean 

more acidic.55 As EPA stated in the draft National Water Program 2012 Strategy: Response to 

Climate Change,

56 scientific research over the last 10 years indicates serious implications of 

ocean acidification for ocean and coastal marine ecosystems. In its 2010 report, Ocean 

Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean, the National 

Research Council57 concludes that ocean chemistry is changing at an unprecedented rate due to 

human-made CO2 emissions. The report also states that “while the ultimate consequences are 

still unknown, there is a risk of ecosystem changes that threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected 

species, and other natural resources of value to society.” Of particular concern in New England 

is the threat that acidification has for shellfish populations, especially soft shelled clams, and 

research on this issue is underway in Maine and elsewhere. 

Public Health Impacts

Extreme heat events can and have impacted human health. A three day heat wave (temperatures 

reaching triple digits on two days) in Chicago in 1995 led to nearly 700 heat-related deaths.58 

The possibility of similar heat waves are increasingly likely in New England as projections for 

the number of days per year over 100°F grow (see Figure 4). In September 2010, Maine 

experienced a heat wave in which many schools closed due to excessive heat and the fact that 

schools do not have air conditioning. During this heat wave, the National Weather Service issued 

an advisory warning that “the high heat and humidity combined with the long duration of the 

current heat wave would make conditions uncomfortable and potentially dangerous especially in 

hot buildings without air conditioning or proper ventilation.”59

The combination of warmer temperatures and extreme weather events encourages the spread of infectious 

diseases in new areas and affects many aspects of human health.60 Changes in vector-borne 

diseases are already being seen in the Northeast with Spotted Fever Rickettsiosis, a tick borne 

infection, reported in 4 of the 6 states. Babesiosis, or animal malaria also carried by ticks may 

threaten the blood supply. This newly reportable disease has been growing in the northeast and 

is now reported in every New England state.61

Every summer over the last 10 years, New England suffered with an average of 36 days of

unhealthy air (days of exceedances ranged from 11-53). In New England, high ozone levels 

usually occur between 1:00 and 7:00 pm from May through September.62 It is expected that with 

an increase in temperature, New England will see more days with unhealthy air quality.

Particulate pollution is also an air quality issue in New England. Particulate pollution is 

produced by a wide variety of natural and manmade sources, including factories, power plants, 

municipal solid waste incinerators, construction activity, fires, natural windblown dust, and 

 1 Hypoxia occurs when dissolved oxygen declines to the point where aquatic species can no longer survive)
21

motor vehicles, especially diesel engines. With increased temperatures, there is a corresponding 

increase in electricity demand due to the increase in air conditioning use, which leads to 

increases in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates. 

Built Environment-Housing and Indoor Air

In the United States, citizens spend over 90% of their time inside with an estimated 70% of that 

time spent in their homes. The US Census’s American Housing Survey in 2009 reported that 

nearly 6 million housing units have moderate to severe physical infrastructure problems.63 The 

National Center for Healthy Homes citing this Census study states that the most common 

problems in American housing are water leaks from the outside (11%) and inside (8%), roofing 

problems (6%) and damaged walls (5%). According to the Census’s American Community 

Survey Summary from 2007-2011, only 14% of the homes in the nation were built before 1939. 

In New England 28% of the homes were built before 1939.64 These older homes were built prior 

to many of the new construction codes and may be more susceptible to structural problems. In 

addition, the northeast has a higher percentage of multi-family structures; 63% of family homes 

in the northeast are single family homes, as opposed to 83% in the United States as a whole.65 

New England housing units also rely more on the use of fuel oil or kerosene. In New 

Hampshire, Vermont and Maine over 50% rely on these fuels for heating vs. only 7% in the 

entire nation.66 These fuels are delivered by fuel trucks and those deliveries could be disrupted

by severe weather events. All of these factors combined indicate that New Englanders are 

potentially exposed to more indoor pollutants than those in other parts of the US.

Adaptation Planning Underway in New England

Because of the susceptibility of New England to climate change impacts, New England federal, 

regional, state agencies, and non-government organizations have already begun addressing this 

issue. New England states in particular have been out in front of the nation in planning for both 

climate mitigation and adaptation. Table 1 summarizes the adaptation efforts of the New 

England states, and the adaptation activities are expanded upon below: 

• In 2005, the Governor’s Steering Committee on Climate Change for Connecticut

produced a Climate Change Action Plan focusing on greenhouse gas emissions. In 2010, 

the Adaptation Subcommittee of the Governor’s Steering Committee produced a report 

“The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural 

Resources and Public Health,” detailing the potential impacts of climate change. In 2011, 

this subcommittee produced a draft report addressing adaptation strategies in light of 

identified impacts, “Connecticut Climate Change Preparedness Plan.” This report has not 

been finalized. 

• In 2007, the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute was asked by Governor 

Elias Baldacci to conduct a preliminary analysis on the impact of climate change on the 

state.67 The resulting report was titled “Maine’s Climate Future: An Initial Assessment.” 

In 2009, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) was charged 

by the 124th Maine Legislature to build upon the “Maine’s Climate Future” report, 

convening a stakeholder group and evaluating the available options for adaptation. 

Maine DEP’s report was published in 2010 as “Adapting to Climate Change in Maine.” 
22

• In 2008, Massachusetts’ Global Warming Solutions Act led to the establishment of a 

Climate Change Adaptation Advisory Committee that produced a report on adaptation 

strategies in light of predicted climate changes for the state. The report, published in 

2012, provided conclusions and recommendations by the committee regarding anticipated 

climate change and future adaptation strategies. In addition, the report provides sectorspecific impacts and adaptation strategies. 

• In December 2007, Governor Lynch of New Hampshire established a Climate Change 

Policy Task Force, charging the group with the development of a Climate Action Plan for 

New Hampshire. The report was published in March 2009. The final report focused on 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions to address climate change but also identified 

anticipated future impacts of climate change on various sectors: agriculture, forestry and 

waste, electric generation, transportation and land use. 

• In 2010, Rhode Island’s Climate Change Commission was established through the state’s 

Climate Risk Reduction Act. In November 2012, a progress report was produced;

summarizing key climate risks and vulnerabilities to those risks, identifies existing 

climate change adaptation initiatives, and highlights the areas that have yet to be

addressed. In addition, in Section 145 “Climate Change and Sea Level Rise” of Rhode 

Island’s Coastal Resources Management Program, Rhode Island has codified in 

regulation that future policies, plans, and regulations proactively plan for and adapt to 

climate change and sea level rise.68 

• From 2010 to 2012, Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources (Vermont ANR) developed 

a series of sector-based white papers as part of an initial education effort. Sectors 

included: agriculture, water resources, recreation, forestry, public health, public safety, 

fish and wildlife, and transportation. Vermont ANR expects to have a vulnerability 

assessment and adaptation strategy for Vermont lakes, rivers, forests, and wetlands, 

including those natural communities and the organisms that inhabit them in 2013. 
23

Table 1: Summary of State Adaptation Planning Efforts

State Summary of Adaptation Effort

Connecticut Initial Adaptation Plan Complete (Draft Climate Change Preparedness 

Report, 2011: http://ctclimatechange.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Draft2011-Connecticut-Climate-Change-Preparedness-Plan.pdf, The Impacts of 

Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural 

Resources and Public Health, 2010: http://ctclimatechange.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/Impacts-of-Climate-Change-on-CT-Ag-Infr-Nat-Resand-Pub-Health-April-2010.pdf)

Maine Initial Adaptation Plan Complete (Maine Adaptation Report, 2010: 

http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=369026&an=1, Maine’s 

Climate Future, 2009: 

http://climatechange.umaine.edu/research/publications/climate-future) 

Massachusetts Initial Adaptation Plan Complete (Climate Change Adaptation Report, 2011: 

http://www.mass.gov/eea/air-water-climate-change/climate-change/climatechange-adaptation-report.html) 

New 

Hampshire

Initial Adaptation Planning Process Underway (Climate Action Plan, 2009: 

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/air/tsb/tps/climate/action_plan/docum

ents/nhcap_final.pdf) 

Rhode Island Initial Adaptation Planning Process Complete (Adapting to Climate Change in 

the Ocean State, 2012: 

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Reports/Climate%20Change%20Commission%20P

rog%20Report%20Final%2011%2015%2012%20final%202.pdf) 

Vermont Initial Adaptation Planning Process Underway (Vermont Climate Change 

White Papers, 2010-2012: 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Adaptation.html)

In addition to state activity related to adaptation, there are adaptation planning activities 

occurring at the municipal level as well. For example, Boston, MA; Cambridge, MA; Portland, 

ME; Scarborough-Old Orchard Beach, ME; and several communities in New Hampshire and the 

Metropolitan Area Planning Council, a regional planning agency that serves over one hundred 

cities and town in Metropolitan Boston, are all engaged in adaptation planning.69 In 2011, EPA 

New England, in coordination with the Institute for Sustainable Communities, launched the New 

England Municipal Sustainability Network (NEMSN), which fosters peer to peer communication 

between municipal sustainability practitioners across the region on key priorities including 

climate change adaptation. In December of 2011 the NEMSN sponsored climate adaptation 

training for themselves. At the federal level, in 2010, the New England Federal Partners Climate 

Workgroup was formed and it includes 17 federal agencies and their staff including NOAA, 

EPA, FEMA, and Department of Interior who are working and coordinating on climate change 

adaptation and mitigation activities.
24

III. Vulnerability Assessment

This section contains a preliminary assessment of the vulnerabilities of key EPA New England 

programs to the impacts of climate change. It builds on the work presented in Part 2 of EPA’s 

agency-wide Plan,70 and is structured by the goals in EPA’s FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan.71 

These vulnerabilities were identified by the EPA New England Adaptation Planning Workgroup. 

Note that EPA New England has not conducted a quantitative vulnerability assessment, but has 

qualitatively evaluated the nature and magnitude of risks associated with climate change impacts. 

This assessment is based on best professional judgment within EPA at this time and may change 

in the future as our understanding of climate science evolves.

GOAL 1: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air 

Quality

A. Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts

Communities within New England face public health and environmental challenges from 

ambient and indoor air pollution. Climate change will increase these challenges. EPA New 

England partners with federal, state, tribal and local agencies to protect public health and the 

environment by directly implementing programs that address air quality (indoor and outdoor), 

toxic pollutants, climate change, energy efficiency, pollution prevention, industrial and mobile 

source pollution, radon, acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, and radiation protection. 

Several program areas are vulnerable to future climate conditions that may be characterized by 

elevated baseline temperatures, increased frequency and duration of heat waves, more extreme 

swings in weather conditions (drought and precipitation events), and more severe hurricanes and 

coastal storms. These future conditions will present challenges to EPA to achieve its core 

mission.

B. Program-Specific Vulnerabilities 

Ozone (O3) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

New England has made progress in attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone but problem areas remain in southern New England Although there are 

continuing NOx and volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reductions from ongoing 

control strategies for on-road and non-road mobile sources and fossil-fueled fired power plants, 

future climate conditions may make it more difficult to attain the NAAQS for ozone. 

Impacts on O3 and NOx programs:

• Increased emissions from biogenic sources such as trees and the potential for increased 

NOx emissions from fossil-fuel burning power plants operating during peak electricity 

demand periods with increased temperatures. 

• Increased rate of ozone production in the atmosphere with increased temperatures.

• Additional O3 production and inter-regional transport due to prolonged heat waves, 

stagnation and increases in upwind emissions, and length of the ozone season may be 

extended into early spring and late fall. 
25

Particulate Matter (PM)

Similarly, New England has seen much progress in attaining and maintaining the NAAQS for 

PM2.5.

Impacts on PM program:

• Due to increased regional temperatures, there is the potential to see increases in certain 

air pollutants from power plants (e.g., sulfur dioxide [SO2], particulate matter less than 

2.5 micrometers in diameter [PM2.5], etc.) during peak electricity demand, which may 

contribute to other local air quality problems.

• Increased use of emergency generators to meet peak demand due to higher temperatures. 

• PM2.5 violations from local increases in PM2.5 due to the use of backup electricity (e.g., 

generators) and heat (e.g., wood stoves, fireplaces) sources because of increased extreme 

weather events and resulting power outages.

• PM2.5 violations from local increases in PM2.5 due to the uncontrolled burning of storm 

debris after intense weather events. 

Indoor Air 

Impacts on indoor air program:

• Increases in mold and other indoor air pollutants due to increase in flooding or leaks from 

storm events. In addition, increased exposures as people spend more time inside due to 

extreme events. 

Mercury

Impacts on mercury program:

• Increased mercury emissions from legacy deposits from dramatic warming of the boreal 

forests in the Northern Hemisphere (Canada, Siberia and Northern Europe). 

• Mercury in soils and vegetation may be emitted with increased wildfires adding to the

global atmospheric reservoir. 

• Mercury deposition in New England waters and subsequent mercury contamination of 

fish and wildlife may continue and possibly increase with the increase in extreme weather 

events. 

• Precipitation events will incorporate a fraction of this global pool in rain and snow, thus 

contributing to mercury pollution in the region. Therefore, local and regional efforts to 

achieve water quality loading thresholds (Total Maximum Daily Loads, TMDLs) may be 

more difficult to achieve.

C. Enforcement and Compliance

Region 1 conducts both Clean Air Act (CAA) enforcement and compliance assistance to the 

regulated community on meeting EPA air quality regulations. Increasing resource demands as a 

result of climate change impacts could put additional strain on the use of declining resources for 

these Enforcement/Compliance activities.
26

Impacts on enforcement and compliance programs:

• Increased power plant peaking demand could increase the likelihood of emergency 

generators being used to meet the peak demand due to increased temperatures and higher

mean summer temperatures. 

• There may be an increased burden on compliance and enforcement staff to respond to an 

increased number of industry inquiries for regulatory interpretations and CAA 

applicability determinations to ensure consistent application of regulatory requirements 

across the country.

• Major storm or heat events could result in an increased number of requests for temporary 

waivers from regulatory requirements, including requirements for gasoline and diesel 

fuels.

GOAL 2: Protecting America’s Waters

Cross-Program Water Management

While considerable progress has been made since the enactment of the Clean Water Act and the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, America’s waters continue to be threatened by pollutants including 

excess nutrient loadings, stormwater runoff, invasive species and drinking-water contaminants. 

EPA works with states and tribes to develop nutrient limits and to restore and protect the quality 

of the nation’s streams, rivers, lakes, bays, oceans and aquifers. EPA also uses its authority to 

address urban rivers; to ensure safe drinking water; and to reduce pollution from nonpoint and 

industrial dischargers. 72 

At EPA New England, protection of regional waters occurs through ten programs: 

1. Water Quality Standards; 

2. Monitoring, 

3. Assessing and Reporting; 

4. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs); 

5. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); 

6. Nonpoint Source Management; 

7. Wetlands; 

8. Dredging/Ocean Dumping; 

9. National Estuary Program; 

10. Drinking Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Infrastructure; and 

11. Drinking Water Quality. 

A. Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts

In March 2012, EPA published the draft 2012 National Water Program Climate Change 

Strategy73 which describes the following impacts to water resources. 

• Increases in water pollution due to warmer air and water temperatures and changes 

in precipitation patterns, causing an increase in the number of waters categorized as 

“impaired,” with associated impacts on human health and aquatic ecosystems.
27

• Impacts on water infrastructure and aquatic systems due to more extreme weather 

events, including heavier precipitation and tropical and inland storms.

• Changes to the availability of drinking water supplies due to increased frequency, 

severity and duration of drought, changing patterns of precipitation and snowmelt, 

increased evaporation, and aquifer saltwater intrusion, affecting public water supply, 

agriculture, industry, and energy production uses.

• Waterbody boundary movement and displacement as rising sea levels alter ocean and 

estuarine shorelines and as changes in water flow, precipitation, and evaporation affect 

the size of wetlands and lakes.

• Changing aquatic biology due to warmer water and changing flows, resulting in 

deterioration of aquatic ecosystem health in some areas.

• Collective impacts on coastal areas resulting from a combination of sea level rise, 

increased damage from floods and storms, coastal erosion, salt water intrusion to drinking 

water supplies, and increasing temperature and acidification of the oceans.

• Indirect impacts due to unintended consequences of human response to climate change, 

such as those resulting from carbon sequestration and other greenhouse gas reduction 

strategies. 

In New England, EPA has identified additional impacts that include:

• Flooding from increasingly frequent and intense rain events as well as intense tropical 

storms will tax aging infrastructure, including combined sewer systems, wastewater and

drinking water facilities and adversely impact water quality.

• Dense coastal development and shoreline armoring with sea walls and other hardening 

structures will wetland migration and lead to loss of wetlands as the sea level rises.

• Increases in the extent of storm surge and coastal flooding will cause erosion and 

property damage to the densely populated coasts. 

• Sea level rise may increase saltwater intrusion to coastal freshwater aquifers, resulting in 

water resources that are unusable without desalination. Increased evaporation or reduced 

recharge into coastal aquifers exacerbates saltwater intrusion.

• Sea level rise will lead to direct and indirect losses for the region’s energy infrastructure 

(e.g., power plants and located along the coast, marine facilities that receive oil and gas 

deliveries), including equipment damage from flooding or erosion. Damaged energy 

facilities also may be a source of pollution.

• Aquatic ecosystem species composition and distribution will change due to sea level rise, 

increased water temperatures, salinity distribution and ocean circulation, changes in 

precipitation and fresh water runoff, and acidification. This will also result in potential 

for new or increased prevalence of invasive species.

B. Program-Specific Vulnerabilities 

Water Quality Standards

Water Quality Standards are the foundation of the Clean Water Act – they designate the goals 

and uses for water bodies, setting criteria to protect those uses, and establishing provisions to 

protect water bodies from pollutants. States, territories, and authorized tribes establish water 

quality standards, and EPA reviews and approves those standards.
28

Impacts on Water Quality Program:

• Salinity changes may create a need to reclassify some water bodies from fresh to salt 

water. 

• Recreation and shell fishing season onset and duration may change.

• Use Attainability Analyses for water bodies may change and standards may become 

unattainable due to changing conditions. 

• Assessing health risks may become more uncertain (e.g. the possibility that ocean 

acidification may increase metals toxicity). 

• The relative contribution of snowmelt vs. groundwater flow to stream flow could change,

affecting stream temperature regimes and biological conditions.

• Stream ecosystems will be affected directly, indirectly, and through interactions 

with other stressors. Biological responses to these changes include altered 

community composition, interactions, and functions. Effects will vary regionally 

and present biomonitoring challenges for water-quality agencies that assess the 

status and health of ecosystems. 

• Some designated uses and their associated criteria may need to be removed or 

changed based on monitored changes (e.g., intermittent streams may be dry for 

longer periods of time in summer and no longer support certain aquatic life 

forms). 

• Some standards (i.e., pollutant-specific goals) may need to change to reflect more 

sensitive environmental conditions (e.g., sediment criteria may need to be 

developed to reflect increases in sediment loads).

Monitoring, Assessing, and Reporting

Our nation's waters are monitored by state, federal, and local agencies, universities, dischargers, 

and volunteers. Water quality data are used to characterize waters, identify trends over time, 

identify emerging problems, determine whether pollution control programs are working, help to 

direct pollution control efforts to where they are most needed, and respond to emergencies such 

as floods and spills.

Impacts on Monitoring Program:

• Current location of monitors may no longer be appropriate in order to effectively monitor 

and assess changes and to provide access to the monitors (e.g. sea level rise, precipitation, 

temperatures, stratification).

• Current detection protocols, criteria, monitoring and analysis may not be 

sufficient to detect ocean acidification and/or salinity.

• Current timing of monitoring may not be sufficient in order to pick up seasonal shifts and 

the full range of climate vulnerability, especially for recreational and aquatic life uses.

• The current number of monitors used may not be sufficient to assess an increased number 

of 303(d) impairment listings due to the increased stresses. 

Total Maximum Daily Loads

Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are 

required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise 

degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The 

law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop 
29

a Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of 

a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.

Impacts on TMDL Program:

Over the past decade, EPA Region 1’s cross-program effort to address stormwater-related water 

quality impairments has provided valuable experience in how to develop and implement TMDLs 

that address multiple environmental stressors resulting from various flow regimes. For example, 

impervious surfaces in urban environments deliver a mix of pollutants and increased flow to 

rivers and streams resulting in soil erosion, stream bank scouring, deposition of sediment and 

nutrients increases in receiving waters. The increasing amount of impervious surfaces in urban 

areas causes less precipitation to infiltrate into the ground, which may cause streams to 

experience much lower base flows during dry conditions, along with low dissolved oxygen, 

increased eutrophication, and higher stream temperatures. Flashy streamflow conditions (i.e., 

rapid increases in streamflow and velocity in response to rainfall, followed by rapid recovery to 

pre-storm conditions) related to excessive stormwater runoff and corresponding droughts are 

anticipated to become even more frequent and/or intense in response to further climate change.

Stormwater TMDLs now being implemented effectively on a sub-watershed basis involve the 

use of surrogates for the mix of pollutants in stormwater (i.e., impervious cover, or flow).

Innovative and flexible approaches to TMDL development like this show promise for addressing 

the complex challenges of climate change. For instance, under the surrogate approach, TMDL 

end-points are tied to aquatic life use protections in State water quality standards, which provide 

environmental protection based on whatever the current conditions happen to be (rather than 

future projections based on past conditions). The technical basis for aquatic life use-based 

TMDLs is derived from significant investments over the past 35 years developing state ambient 

biological monitoring programs in our Region. Bioassessments (using ambient assemblages of 

macroinvertebrates, fish, or algae that integrate the effects of multiple stressors over time), in 

concert with physical and chemical monitoring data, now support the water quality assessment of 

aquatic life use attainment for these surrogate TMDLs, and provide clear environmental 

indicators of stream health under whatever the existing conditions are. 

Summary of anticipated water quality programmatic climate change vulnerabilities includes:

• Challenges in quantitatively demonstrating how implementation of current stormwater 

BMPs (occurring primarily through permitting programs), and NPS BMPs, will address 

future changes in climate;

• Increased number of impaired waters requiring monitoring and assessment under both 

wet and dry conditions;

• More restoration and protection challenges for watershed protection and NPS programs; 

• Increased need for efforts to support local and state partners in additional local land use 

planning, stormwater and wastewater TMDL implementation actions needed to achieve 

the TMDL endpoints (water quality standards);

• More compliance issues in impaired watersheds for NPDES and SDW programs;

• Increased need for resources at federal, state, and local levels to address these challenges.
30

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Water pollution degrades surface waters making them unsafe for existing uses, including 

drinking water, fishing, swimming, and other water recreation. As authorized by the Clean Water 

Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls 

water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United 

States. NPDES permits have a five year permitting cycle.

Impacts on the NPDES program:

• Current thermal discharge limits may not sufficiently account for increasing temperatures 

of the influent and receiving waters.

• Balanced indigenous populations (BIP) in receiving waters may shift due to water 

temperature increases

• Fish entrainment of different fish species could occur at power plant and industrial water

intakes with increased cooling water demand.

• Increased extreme precipitation and stormwater runoff will cause an increase in erosion 

and sedimentation in receiving waters.

• Reduced flows in streams, especially during summer months, will likely not dilute 

wastewater treatment plant and other facility effluents as they do now.

• Water quality standards and BAT/BPT/BCT (Best Available Control Technology 

Economically Achievable / Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available / 

Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology) technology-based limitations may not 

account for site-specific effects of: 

o changing ambient loading of metals and chemicals from acid deposition, 

leaching of contaminated groundwater into discharge infrastructure or movement 

of pollutants resulting from flooding, extreme precipitation and atmospheric 

exchange, 

o increasing difficulty of meeting permit requirements due to growing frequency of 

extreme precipitation events, storm surge and sea level rise,

o changes in discharge toxicity of specific pollutants (such as ammonia), 

cumulative effects of pollutants and persistence of certain pollutants due to 

changing ambient surface water and air temperatures.

• A facility’s climate change mitigation or adaptation measures may not conform to 

BAT/BPT/BCT technology-based limitations.

Nonpoint Source Management

Nonpoint source pollution comes from many diffuse sources and is caused by rainfall and 

snowmelt runoff that picks up natural and human made pollutants and deposits them in lakes, 

rivers, wetlands, coastal waters and ground water. State nonpoint source programs, developed 

under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 Program, are working to meet this challenge. 

Impacts on the Nonpoint Source Management program:

• Accounting for greater quantities of runoff and pollutant effluents, with more variability, 

from both urban and suburban stormwater and agricultural sources. 

• Increasing heavy precipitation days and more concentration of runoff in intense storms is 

likely to be more damaging to aquatic habitats, and carry more erosion-related pollutants 

into water bodies. 
31

• Extended drought conditions that may cause inadequate stream flows and further stress 

aquatic systems, including the vegetation that is used in riparian areas and in management 

practices to filter, treat, and infiltrate effluent flows (e.g. best management practice

[BMP] utility may need to be reevaluated under future conditions).

• Increased need to respond to requests for assistance from municipalities regarding 

stormwater management implementation and financing methods.

• Increased sediment could negatively impact pumped storage hydroelectric plants

Wetlands

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to concur with permits issued by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers to allow dredging or filling of wetlands. Wetlands function to protect 

ecosystems, streams and other aquatic resources. Wetlands provide four crucial functions for 

helping to make the Nation more resilient in response to climate change:

• Coastal protection in the face of sea level rise and increased hurricane intensity, including

the ability to reduce wave energy;

• Protecting Water Supplies in the face of increased drought conditions by providing 

groundwater recharge and maintaining minimum stream flows;

• Flood mitigation in the face of increased precipitation and storm frequency in the 

northeastern United States. The capacity of wetlands and headwater streams to reduce 

flood peaks, detain stormwater, and filter pollutants is critical to the protection of life, 

property, and water quality;

• Wetlands can serve to sequester carbon.

Impacts on wetlands program (coastal and inland wetlands):

• Wetland migration due to sea level rise that inundate or submerge the wetlands.

• Variability in salinity levels, caused by drought, sea level rise, and increased precipitation

and changes in the plant and animal species that inhabit the wetlands as well as potential 

impacts on endangered species and/or critical habitats. 

• Increased sedimentation and nutrient loading, with increased precipitation potentially 

changing wetland characteristics and structures. 

• Drying out of seasonal wetlands with increased drought, which may also potentially 

change wetland characteristics. 

• Changes in soil dynamics may also affect wetland characteristics, such as hydrology, 

size, and sediment types. 

• Physical damage or elimination of wetlands and dune structures that protect them due to 

hurricanes and other seasonal changes.

• Changes in temperature and rainfall patterns can affect the nature and distribution of 

inland wetlands. Decreased precipitation and increased temperatures (greater evaporation 

and less frequent flooding), can result in loss of vernal pools and shallow emergent 

wetland. These changes can affect the plant and animal species that inhabit the wetlands 

and may cause potential impacts on endangered species and/or critical habitats. Sea level 

rise may submerge/inundate wetlands, potentially changing wetland characteristics (e.g. 

designation from fresh to saltwater wetland).

• Sea level rise and increased storm activity will increase erosion of salt marshes. For 

coastal marshes, if sea levels rise at a rate that exceeds the accumulation of substrate 
32

(marsh sediments) the coastal wetlands will break down due to inundation, erosion and 

intrusion by salt water.

Ocean Dumping and Dredging

The Ocean Dumping and Dredged Materials Management programs established by Congress in 

1972, prohibits ocean dumping of materials that would unreasonably degrade or endanger human 

health or the marine environment.

Impacts on the Ocean Dumping and Dredging program:

• Increase need and frequency for dredging due to increased precipitation intensity, and 

severe storms that may cause erosion and sedimentation of streams, rivers, and harbors. 

• Earlier sedimentation due to shorter winters and earlier snowmelts. 

• Shifting sediments and forming of shoals in harbors that impede safe navigation and may 

require emergency dredging.

• Need for dredged materials to protect shorelines, beaches, dunes and marshes from sea 

level rise.

National Estuary Program

The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established in 1987 to restore and protect the physical, 

chemical, and biological integrity of “estuaries of national significance” by focusing our Clean 

Water Act authorities in these highly productive ecosystems. There are 28 NEPs across the 

country, six of which are entirely or partially within EPA New England. The NEPs promote 

technical transfer of information, expertise, and best management practices to accelerate and 

embellish implementation of “core” Clean Water Act programs. Lessons learned by the NEPs are 

shared across the network of 28 programs nationally, as well as with other coastal watersheds 

facing similar water pollution and water quality impairments. This approach has proven to be a 

success over the past 25 years and the NEP is seen as a model for other comprehensive 

watershed and community-based programs. 

Impacts on the NEP Program:

• Biological communities are vulnerable to sea level rise, warming ocean temperatures, 

acidification, and increased sedimentation and erosion caused by extreme precipitation 

events as well as other impacts described in other water programs above.

Drinking Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Infrastructure

The Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act are the two primary federal laws that 

protect water quality and specifically drinking water quality. Both laws include provisions that 

authorize EPA to award annual grants to states to help capitalize their State Revolving Fund 

(SRF) programs, which support construction and maintenance of wastewater, stormwater, and 

drinking water treatment and conveyance infrastructure. The following are some of the most 

significant threats to water infrastructure posed by climate change.

 

Impacts on Drinking Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Infrastructure Programs:

• Damage to infrastructure due to increases in flooding from extreme precipitation, storm 

surges, loss of wetlands, and sea level rise.

• Source water intake changes may be needed due to droughts and summertime extreme 

heat.
33

• Coastal infrastructure may be impacted by sea level rise.

• Pathogen growth may be fostered due to warmer waters and may test the reliability of 

drinking water disinfection. 

• Additional pollutant loadings of nutrients, pesticides, and other chemicals may challenge

drinking water treatment. 

• Fresh water supplies for all uses, particularly drinking water, may be at risk in coastal 

areas with sea level rise.

• Coastal aquifers may experience salt water intrusion where withdrawals are outstripping 

recharge and increased pressure head from higher sea levels may worsen this problem. 

• Community drinking water intakes may end up in brackish waters as the salt front 

migrates up coastal rivers and streams.

• There may be an impairment of ability to treat wastewater or provide drinking water in 

the aftermath of extreme weather events due to compromised energy infrastructure.

Drinking Water Quality

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of 

Americans' drinking water. EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the 

states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards.

Impacts on Drinking Water Quality Program:

• Changes in aquifer recharge due to earlier ice breakup causing earlier peak river flows

may require changes in source and demand management.

• Increased runoff and turbidity due to more precipitation falling as rain than as snow.

• Source and demand management changes due to short-term droughts lasting 1-3 months 

and more frequent days of extreme heat.

• Threats to source water quality due to flooding, storm surges, coastal flooding, loss of 

wetlands, and sea level rise.

• Diminished reliability of future water supply may require water supply management and 

water demand management practice changes. 

• Changes in the salt front of estuaries and tidal rivers due to sea level rise and fresh water 

flow changes may result in increased pressure to manage freshwater reservoirs to increase 

flows and attempt to maintain salinity regimes, in order to protect estuarine productivity 

and drinking water supplies. Water quality standards in watersheds experiencing 

reservoir depletion may need to reflect these conditions. 

• Biological expectations may need to be adjusted due to saltwater intrusion.

• May become harder to meet drinking water standards due to higher flows with associated 

erosion and sedimentation and lower flows and increased pollutant contamination and 

reduced dissolved oxygen.

• Increased contaminants in public drinking water sources and supplies due to runoff from 

increased rain events.

C. Enforcement and Compliance

• Extreme weather events can do significant and potentially long-term damage to drinking 

water facilities and sewage treatment plants, resulting in contaminated drinking water and 

the discharge of untreated sewage in violation of applicable requirements. Such damage 
34

will increase the burden on Enforcement/Compliance programs to respond to these 

violations and water quality impairments resulting from such damage. 

• It may be physically more difficult to conduct compliance evaluations and inspections in 

the field due to harsher weather conditions and extreme weather events. The weather 

conditions could have an adverse effect both on the physical well-being of inspectors, as 

well as on equipment used to monitor and test compliance. Weather conditions and the 

aftermath of extreme weather events may affect our ability to actually collect samples 

and determine compliance.

• Impacts on Enforcement/Compliance resources for enforcement of wetlands regulations 

could be particularly impacted by the response to storm surges in vulnerable areas (see 

wetlands section, above).

GOAL 3: Cleaning up Communities and Advancing Sustainable 

Development

Contaminated site cleanup and waste/petroleum management occur under a variety of EPA 

programs, most commonly Superfund (i.e., remedial, time-critical and non-time critical

removals, and emergency response), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic 

Substance Control Act (TSCA) (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls – PCBs), Clean Air Act (CAA) 

(e.g., asbestos), and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). A high percentage of cleanups, including most 

Brownfields sites, are regulated through State programs. 

A. Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts 

The potential climate change impacts described below broadly apply to each of the cleanup and 

management programs; however, the implications of these climate change impacts may differ by 

program. 

For New England, the impacts that could most likely pose risks to contaminated sites (including 

controlled, uncontrolled, and undiscovered contamination), waste management facilities, and 

petroleum storage facilities are sea level rise, extreme storm events (precipitation and wind), 

temperature extremes, and decreasing precipitation days and increasing drought intensity. Ocean 

acidification and increased water temperatures may also pose additional risks to coastal 

petroleum storage facilities and affect the natural bio-degradation of oils released to the 

environment. Potential environmental conditions arising from these impacts and specific 

examples illustrating how they could influence contaminated sites are described below. The 

likelihood and severity of climate change impacts can also be expected to vary considerably from 

site to site depending on the location, cleanup technologies and approaches, and many other 

factors. 
35

Sea Level Rise: Sea level rise will affect coastal areas in every New England state except for 

Vermont. The impact on contaminated sites, waste management facilities, and petroleum storage 

facilities may be partially mitigated because sea level rise is expected to occur gradually over the 

course of decades. This may allow additional time to appropriately plan for and respond to these 

changing conditions (e.g., construction of berms, removal of wastes, and completion of shorterterm treatment activities). 

As a result of sea level rise, contaminated sites, waste management facilities, and petroleum 

storage facilities located in vulnerable areas could be subject to inundation and salt water 

intrusion. Inundation may lead to the release and dispersal of contaminants, physical damage to 

remediation-related structures, degradation of coastal aquifers (thereby impacting cleanup 

performance goals), and other adverse impacts. Saltwater intrusion may also impair habitat 

restoration efforts; cause corrosion of underground tanks, piping, and other equipment; and may 

lead to changes in soil/water chemical and biological properties, altering the toxicity, transport, 

and natural degradation of contaminants. 

Extreme Storm Events: Existing climate studies suggest that New England has been 

experiencing more intense storm events. Unlike sea level rise, which predominantly affects 

coastal areas, extreme storm events can impact a much wider range of contaminated sites. These 

impacts could include: 

• flooding of surface water bodies and surrounding land areas due to heavy precipitation 

events (i.e., regional drainage)

• flooding of coastal areas and rivers from storm surge due to higher intensity hurricanes 

• increased local surface runoff 

• increased infiltration of storm water into soils and elevation of water tables 

• increased wind damage and dispersion of contaminants 

Because much of the historical development of industry and commerce in New England occurred 

along rivers, coasts, and other water bodies, these areas often have a higher density of 

contaminated sites, waste management facilities, and petroleum storage facilities. This increases 

the number of these sites and facilities potentially vulnerable to flooding. Potential 

consequences of this flooding include the spread of contaminants through erosion, dissolving of 

contaminants, physical entrainment and deposition of soils or sediments, and flotation and 

rupture of tanks or drums. Flooding and high winds may also result in the delay or impairment 

of remedial operations, and damage to remediation and waste/petroleum management structures, 

contaminated buildings, utilities and other related infrastructure. In addition, the increased 

amounts of infiltration and runoff, and higher water table levels, could impact the performance of 

remediation systems and require management of greater volumes of clean and contaminated 

ground- and surface-water. In this way, increased precipitation events and hurricanes may

potentially impact sites even if they are remote from coastal areas and rivers. 

In addition, prior to the enactment of environmental laws, industrial wastes were routinely 

discharged to these water bodies. As a result, many contaminants may exist within the layers of 

sediment that accumulated over the years. Increased water flows due to extreme storm events 

could potentially re-suspend these sediments and increase the risk of exposure, or damage 

sediment caps, which are engineered covers intended to prevent contaminated sediments from 
36

migrating. Furthermore, river flooding could also potentially cause the breaching or failure of 

dams — such as old mill dams which are numerous in New England — resulting in the spread of 

contaminated sediment previously contained by the dams. Such events could also cause flooding 

impacts to sites or chemical facilities downstream. 

Temperature Change: The direct consequence of elevated temperatures on contaminated site 

cleanups is expected to be relatively limited. However, elevated temperatures could lead to 

increased pressurization of storage containers, volatilization of hazardous materials, and other 

factors which may affect design and operation of remediation systems and emergency response 

actions. Worker health and safety concerns during site operations may also be impacted by 

higher temperatures (e.g., handling of pressurized drums, heat stress to responders). 

Decreasing Precipitation Days/Increasing Drought Intensity: Decreasing precipitation 

compounded by higher ambient temperatures may increase drought conditions that could 

adversely impact the function of remediation systems (e.g., vegetative layers on landfills, 

phytoremediation). Droughts also may increase the potential for wildfires that could further 

damage remediation systems, and cause contaminant releases from facilities used to manage 

hazardous materials and wastes, and from buildings containing asbestos and other hazardous

construction materials. 

Ocean Acidification: The acidification of sea water may adversely impact the corrosion and 

degradation of pipelines and construction materials (e.g. concrete pads/berms) used to convey, 

store, or contain petroleum products at coastal facilities.

Increased Water Temperatures: Increased water temperatures may lead to a change in native 

or endemic organisms available for biotic degradation of petroleum released to the environment. 

B. Program-Specific Vulnerabilities 

Longer-term Cleanups (e.g., Superfund Remedial, Superfund Removal, RCRA Corrective 

Action, TSCA)

Longer-term response cleanups such as those occurring under the Superfund remedial and 

removal programs and the RCRA corrective action program are intended to significantly reduce 

the dangers associated with the threats of and actual releases of hazardous substances, pollutants 

and contaminants that pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. Many of 

these cleanups are also viewed as “permanent” solutions, and thus must be “protective” of 

human health and the environment. 

Impacts on Longer-term Cleanups:

Cleanups where waste is left in place (e.g., landfills, cap-in-place remedies) or involve treatment 

that occurs over a long period of time (e.g., ground water pump & treat systems) could be 

especially vulnerable to changes in climate. For remedies that are typically of much shorter 

duration (e.g., soil vapor extraction, enhanced thermal treatment), the impacts of climate change 

are more predictable and easier to factor into the selection and design of a particular remedy. 

Some specific programmatic vulnerabilities are:
37

• Climate change introduces uncertainties into the underlying assumptions that could affect 

the selection and design of future remedies (e.g., precipitation records and floodplain 

maps used for remedy selection and design may not account for future climate change 

impacts) potentially leading to: 

o more extensive and costly remedies, such as excavation and removal of wastes, for 

sites that are potentially vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding 

o designs that are based on conservative engineering assumptions to reflect uncertainty 

over future environmental conditions (e.g., planning for increased surface water 

runoff or infiltration from extreme storm events)

• There could be physical damage to structures and other components of the site remedy 

due to extreme flooding, hurricanes, winter rain/ice storms, and increased drought 

conditions.

• In some cases, cleanups that were once believed to be protective may no longer meet that 

standard as changes in climate occur. This could result in extensive and potentially 

costly redesign, and potentially create an extra demand on EPA and State legal and 

technical resources.

• Sites that were previously not considered or were excluded from cleanup programs may 

now require reconsideration under site assessment programs (e.g., changes in the 

direction and extent of contaminated ground water; collapse of abandoned, structurally 

unstable buildings containing asbestos, lead paint, and other hazardous construction 

materials). 

• The validity of past and ongoing modeling/monitoring could be affected by changing 

environmental conditions (e.g., changing groundwater flow, groundwater and surface 

water salinity and other chemical properties).

• Assumptions made for the use and value of natural resources may be affected by changes 

to those natural resources (e.g., degradation of an aquifer due to salt water intrusion). 

• Time-critical removal actions, which often bridge the gap between emergency response 

actions and longer-term remedial actions, may involve unique challenges resulting from 

climate change impacts, such as:

o The preliminary assessment/site investigation (PA/SI) phase of time-critical 

removal actions does not currently include potential climate change impacts, and 

the associated risk may not be factored into cleanup prioritization. 

o The remedy selection process that provides the foundation for more permanent 

remedies may not adequately consider climate impacts. 

o Time-critical removals often involve labor intensive operations, leading to 

additional vulnerabilities from acute impacts of climate change (e.g. flooding and 

ground water level, temporary or long-term power outages, extreme heat). These 

impacts may lead to increased costs, decreased productivity, and increased

migration of contaminants. 

o The available capacities for off-site disposal, waste transport, construction 

equipment, and laboratory services may be overwhelmed by extreme storm events 

that may generate large volumes of hazardous materials and debris (including 

household hazardous waste). The intermixing of hazardous materials and debris 

complicates the separation, collection, and transport of these materials and also 

increases disposal costs. Temporary, on-site staging of hazardous materials and 
38

debris may also be adversely affected by flooding and other conditions that limit 

usable land space.

o Extreme storm events may create chaotic conditions that increase health and 

safety risks to personnel during time-critical removal and emergency response 

actions (e.g., unstable buildings/structures; release and intermingling of hazardous 

materials; physical hazards; contamination by biological wastes from the flooding 

of waste water treatment facilities, sewers, etc.).

o Flooding may lead to increased need for dewatering, water treatment and other 

remediation processes that can add greatly to the cost of cleaning up the site. 

Emergency Response Program

EPA coordinates and implements a wide range of activities to ensure that adequate and timely 

response measures are taken in communities affected by hazardous substances and oil releases 

where state and local first responder capabilities have been exceeded or where additional support 

is needed. EPA’s emergency response program responds to chemical, oil, biological and 

radiological releases and large-scale national emergencies, including homeland security 

incidents. 

Impacts on Emergency Response Program:

• Releases of hazardous materials or chemicals through high winds, flooding, and storm 

surge and a need for increased frequency and intensity of emergency response for both 

hazardous materials and oil. Current response resources, including laboratory services, 

may not be adequate for responses to extreme events. Specific impacts include:

o The industrial mill infrastructure along New England Rivers poses a unique threat to 

the region. Many of these structures contain hazardous chemicals, oil, and 

contaminated soil directly adjacent to streams and rivers that may release with 

extreme storms and flooding events. Old, structurally unstable mill buildings 

containing containerized hazardous substances or hazardous material as part of the 

structure (e.g., asbestos, lead paint, PCBs) may collapse due to storm forces and cause 

releases that could warrant response actions. Potential for failure of aging mill dams 

will increase as frequency and intensity of storms stress the structures, leading to 

potential impact to chemical and oil facilities downstream. 

o Increased number of brown/black outs could adversely impact the operation of 

chemical facility processes and equipment, leading to potential releases of hazardous 

materials (e.g., runaway reactions).

o Coastal hazardous material and oil facilities may be impacted by extreme storm 

events (e.g., storm surge). The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has jurisdiction 

over hazardous material and oil spills along the coast, but the U. S. EPA has 

interagency agreements in place to support the USCG during responses.

o Collection of household hazardous waste (HHW) and biological waste collection or 

mitigation may be included in EPA’s mission during extreme weather events. In 

preparation for more frequent events, additional planning may be necessary to plan 

for response to these wastes

• Pest type and range may change with climate changes and there may be an increase or 

change in type of pesticides stored and transported across the region resulting in potential 

increase in releases.74
39

• Additional planning for emergency response may be needed:

o The impacts of increased blackouts/brownouts, severe storm damage, and other 

adverse conditions may need to be incorporated into current national and area 

contingency plans.

o Facility Response Plans (FRP) and Spill Prevention and Control Countermeasures 

(SPCC) plans may not adequately consider climate change impacts.

o Current regional debris management plans rely on historical climate assumptions and 

do not address the increasing uncertainty in climatic extreme events.

o Additional planning may be needed as Stafford Act declarations (federal emergency 

declarations) may be more frequent with a changing climate.

o Current energy infrastructure (oil, natural gas, nuclear) in New England may not 

include climate change assumptions for emergency planning. 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facilities

The Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates, among other things, the 

treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Owners/operators of these treatment, 

storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities must generally obtain a permit for those activities. 

Facilities that generate hazardous waste and store it for 90 days or less are also regulated under 

RCRA. In New England, the individual states are authorized to implement this program in lieu 

of EPA. 

In order to operate as a TSD facility, the owner/operator must comply with numerous technical 

requirements which ensure that covered activities can be conducted in a manner that is protective 

of human health and the environment. These requirements apply to on-going hazardous waste 

management units (e.g., drum and tank storage, surface impoundments, waste piles), as well as to 

the closure (i.e., cleaning and decommissioning) of those units that are no longer in use. TSD 

facilities must also conduct cleanup of past and present releases of hazardous constituents. 

Impacts on RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facilities: 

The same climate change impacts that could affect contaminated site cleanups may also affect 

the management and operation of hazardous waste facilities. Some examples are: 

• Tanks containing hazardous waste could be damaged by high winds or flying debris 

during hurricanes

• Integrity of drums and drum storage areas could be compromised by flooding, allowing 

drums to be floated out of containment barriers, or cause intermingling of incompatible 

wastes, etc.

• The potential for failure of process equipment (e.g., pressure relief valves, emergency 

vent fans and pumps) could increase with increases in winter rain and ice storms.

• Over-pressurization of tanks containing volatile wastes and the emergency venting of 

these wastes could occur with extreme ambient temperatures.

• Buildings or other structures used for indoor storage of waste piles could be damaged or 

flooded in a hurricane causing the release of this material.

• Emergency evacuation routes for facility personnel and the surrounding community, as 

well as facility access by fire and other emergency response vehicles, could be flooded 

or otherwise restricted due to an extreme storm event. 
40

While the New England states are authorized to implement the RCRA hazardous waste 

management program, EPA retains oversight authority to ensure compliance with the statute 

and regulations and there may be a need for increased coordination to respond to climate 

change impacts. 

Some specific programmatic vulnerabilities for EPA in its oversight role are:

• Uncertainties in the underlying assumptions that could affect the design, operation and 

management of hazardous waste facilities, including contingency planning (e.g., RCRA 

TSD facilities must meet specific requirements if waste management units are located 

within a 100-year floodplain).

• Financial assurance estimates for closure/post-closure may not reflect changing climate 

change impacts on those activities.

Oil Program and Underground Storage Tanks

The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) was signed into law in August 1990. The OPA improved the 

nation's ability to prevent and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that expand the 

federal government's ability, and provide the money and resources necessary, to respond to oil 

spills. To reduce the likelihood of a spill, regulations issued under CWA Section 311(j) 

(published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Part 112) require facilities that store oil 

in specified threshold amounts to prepare spill prevention, control, and countermeasure (SPCC) 

plans and to adopt certain measures to keep releases from reaching navigable waters. Certain 

types of facilities that pose a greater risk of release must also develop plans to respond promptly 

to clean up any spills that do occur75. It is estimated that there are between 1,000 and 12,000 

SPCC facilities per state and 200 FRP facilities in New England. 

EPA created the Office of Underground Storage Tanks to carry out a Congressional mandate to 

develop and implement a regulatory program under RCRA for underground storage tank (UST) 

systems. EPA works with its state, territorial, and tribal partners to prevent and clean up releases 

from UST systems. The greatest potential threat from a leaking UST is contamination of 

groundwater, the source of drinking water for nearly half of all Americans. EPA, states, and 

tribes work together to protect the environment and human health from potential UST releases.76

Impacts on the Oil and Underground Storage Tank Programs: 

• Secondary containment and flooding of coastal facilities may be compromised by sea 

level rise.

• Increase in precipitation and floods may have many impacts, as follows:

o Decrease the effectiveness of secondary containment.

o Increase flow and pressure to underground infrastructure/structures i.e. pipelines, 

wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, and paper mills. Increased flow and 

pressure to containment systems may result in back feed and flow of product 

resulting in increased discharges of oil.

o Decrease tank headspace thereby displacing buffer space available to prevent 

overflow/ overfill, potentially leading to increased oil spills. 

o Increase weathering of underground and aboveground storage tanks (ASTs and 

USTs). 
41

o Increase flow and changes of navigable water depth, thereby increasing difficulty 

in preparing and implementing planning distance, booming strategies, and 

cleanup strategies.

• Failure of infrastructure (e.g. pipelines, and secondary containment) and damage or 

displacement of tanks due to increased intensity of hurricanes and resulting winds and 

storm surges. Damage to storage tanks would increase the likelihood of spills to 

navigable waters, coastlines and oceans. 

• Increased degradation and weathering of pipelines and infrastructure due to ocean 

acidification could result in oil spills. 

• Higher ambient temperatures that decrease the viscosity of heavy oil and the lowering of 

water tables due to drought conditions may potentially increase the mobilization of oil 

spills.

• Change in native or endemic organism availability for biotic degradation of oil due to 

increase in water temperatures. 

C. Enforcement and Compliance

• There may be an increased demand for compliance monitoring support during 

emergency/disaster situations (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, wildfires), and 

it may be difficult to deploy compliance experts in a timely manner to the areas where 

assistance is needed. Infrastructure failures may also result in regulatory violations which 

could require a state or federal enforcement response.

GOAL 4: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing 

Pollution

A. Pesticides

EPA and the states (usually the State Department of Agriculture) register or license pesticides for 

use in the United States. In addition, anyone planning to import pesticides for use in the U.S. 

must notify EPA. EPA receives its authority to register pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

EPA's Pesticides program covers: 

• Evaluating Potential New Pesticides and Uses 

• Providing for Special Local Needs and Emergency Situations 

• Reviewing Safety of Older Pesticides 

• Registering Pesticide Producing Establishments 

• Enforcing Pesticide Requirements

• Risk assessment 

• Pesticide Field Programs 
42

Impacts on Pesticides Program:

• New pest problems in will occur in New England, many of which will be from exotic 

invasive species. 

• Changes in pests and pest pressures due to increases in temperatures and variations in 

rainfall patterns. 

• Increase in fungal organisms in agricultural and non-agricultural settings due to extreme 

rainfall. 

• Changes in chemical and non-chemical agricultural practices due to extreme storms and 

farmers’ inability to work in their fields (e.g. increases in the likelihood of run-off and 

off-target movement of chemical products; limits on the potential use of certain nonchemical methods such as cultivation because it may not be possible to bring heavy farm 

equipment onto wet fields and saturated soils). 

• Increased use of aerial applications resulting in increased pesticide drift due to extreme 

storm events. 

• Increase in dry condition pests due to drought (e.g. mites that feed on a variety of field, 

vegetable and fruit crops). 

These changes in pesticide choices and quantities will require changes to the pesticide applicator 

certification and training programs. Changes in chemical selection could result in new and 

increased chemical exposures, especially for indoor applications. Types of new pest problems 

could include:

• Indoor and outdoor molds and microorganisms which are controlled by disinfectant 

pesticide products; 

• Public health pests such as mosquitoes and ticks; 

• Forest pests, 

• Aquatic pests including weeds; and 

• Various agricultural pests including weeds, insects and plant diseases. 

B. Enforcement, Compliance and Pollution Prevention

Enforcement 

As with other regulatory programs, climate impacts noted above could cause an increased strain 

on Enforcement/Compliance resources because of an increased need to respond to changes in 

pesticide choices and application methods.

Pollution Prevention 

The long term response to climate change may create demands on EPA and state pollution 

prevention programs due to the need to provide additional assistance to the regulated community. 

As an example, there may be increased demand for assistance regarding mitigation methods for 

reducing GHG emissions. Green Chemistry resources will be in greater demand as businesses 

and the public seek more sustainable substitutes for materials used for manufacturing and other 

industrial and commercial activities.
43

Facilities and Operations

Climate change poses a range of risks to EPA New England’s facilities and operations. The 

following sections detail the general risks and then delve into the risks specific to each facility. 

Note that each facility does not operate in isolation; the climate impacts experienced by each 

facility will be greatly influenced by the larger systems (utilities, transportation, communities) of 

which it is a part. 

A. Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts77

From the facilities and operations perspective, the vulnerabilities associated with climate change 

encompass issues of energy security, water quality and supply, severe weather and flooding 

damage, personnel safety, physical security, and communications interruptions. Facilities and 

operations support the broader agency mission of protecting air, water, and human health 

through the provision of functional, appropriate, and safe working spaces for personnel. Beyond 

the infrastructure and utilities that serve EPA rented or owned facilities and the operations that 

support the function of those facilities, broader impacts of climate change on transportation and 

communication systems are also vulnerabilities that can hamper EPA New England’s efforts to 

meet agency goals. While telework policies are in place to address these vulnerabilities, the 

magnitude of these impacts may extend to those alternate work locations, causing significant 

disruption to employee work and ultimately hampering fulfillment of the EPA New England 

mission. 

However, while operations may be vulnerable in the areas described above, EPA New England

has developed a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) to maintain emergency functions should 

any particular facility or location be compromised. This plan provides guidance for continued 

uninterrupted operations and the performance of essential functions during emergency situations. 

The COOP includes provisions for physical relocation from current facilities and resource 

planning for up to 30 days. 

B. Facility-Specific Vulnerabilities 

The Boston McCormack office building located in Boston, MA is approximately 0.5 miles from 

the Boston waterfront and sits at an elevation of approximately 12.3 feet (2.76 meters) above 

mean sea level.78 The building is a massive granite structure, serviced by underground utilities 

for water, natural gas and steam heating. All building mechanical systems are on the 17th floor 

roof. Most notable about this facility is its position as a part of a larger urban community. While 

impacts can be explored with the view that the building sits in isolation from the rest of the city, 

more likely, the experience of impacts will be moderated and influenced by its proximity to other 

buildings and infrastructure of significance. 

The impacts and risks associated with higher water levels from sea level rise, storm surge or 

flooding include: building damage, inaccessibility of the building to employees, and damage to 

the larger utility systems that support the operation of the McCormack building. In addition, 

mobile equipment (e.g. vehicles, emergency response resources, etc.) stored in the building’s 

basement may be vulnerable to flooding. However, the structural soundness of the building will 

limit the impacts of extreme weather on the building itself, and the location of mechanical 
44

systems on the 17th floor will limit the damage to critical building equipment. In addition, the 

McCormack building is equipped with a natural gas fueled backup generator. 

The Boston office utilizes a parking garage for Government Owned Vehicles. The vehicles are 

on the ninth floor of the parking structure and are not susceptible to flooding concerns because of 

the high elevation. However, access to this facility may be hampered by local flooding, affecting 

the usability of those vehicles. 

EPA rents warehouse space on Boston’s waterfront, which sits at 9.2 feet (2.79 meters) above 

mean sea level.79 The building is not staffed with EPA or contract employees and serves only 

for warehousing excess equipment. While the area may be subject to flooding due to sea level 

rise and other impacts as discussed for the McCormack building, EPA’s direct impact will be 

negligible for two reasons. First, while flooding may limit access to the facility, it is anticipated 

that EPA will not sustain any damages or loss because EPA’s rented space is on the fourth floor 

of the building. Second, as a rented space, EPA has the flexibility to retreat and relocate as 

needed. 

The Chelmsford Lab is built high on a hill approximately 40 miles from Boston Harbor, at an 

elevation of 156.2 feet (47.61 meters) above mean sea level80 obviating any risks of sea level rise 

or direct flooding. However, surrounding roads may be flooded during extreme storms.

The power grid near the Chelmsford Lab is particularly susceptible to several hour power 

interruptions due to rain and wind. Due to the existing weaknesses of the power grid, the Lab is 

equipped to manage short interruptions. At this facility, oil fueled backup generators have been 

sufficient for up to 44 hours of backup power and can be extended by additional fuel deliveries. 

EPA’s Emergency Response Warehouse is located approximately 30 miles from Boston Harbor 

at the intersection of Rtes 138 and I-93 in an industrial park. At an elevation of 73.3 feet (22.36 

meters) above mean sea level,81 the likelihood of sea level rise impacts is very low. Impacts to 

the larger transportation systems may affect accessibility, but similar to the McCormack 

building, those impacts are a part of the larger context and beyond EPA’s control and 

jurisdiction. The susceptibility of this facility and its access roads to flooding due to nearby 

rivers and water bodies is currently unknown. Impacts to this warehouse may affect the access 

to and availability of emergency response resources that are stored at this location.

Tribal and Vulnerable Populations

The impacts of climate change may disproportionately impact tribal communities and vulnerable 

populations, including children.

Tribal Communities

EPA values its unique government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes in planning and 

decision making. This trust responsibility has been established over time and is further expressed 

in the 1984 EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian 
45

Reservations and the 2011 Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes. These 

policies recognize and support the sovereign decision-making authority of tribal governments.

Supporting the development of adaptive capacity among tribes is a priority for the EPA. Tribes 

are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to the integral nature of the 

environment within their traditional lifeways and culture. There is a strong need to develop 

adaptation strategies that promote sustainability and reduce the impact of climate change on 

Indian tribes.

EPA engaged tribes through a formal consultation process in the development of the Agency’s 

Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Tribes identified some of the most pressing issues as erosion, 

temperature change, drought and various changes in access to and quality of water. Tribes 

recommended a number of tools and strategies to address these issues, including improving 

access to data and information; supporting baseline research to better track the effects of climate 

change; developing community-level education and awareness materials; and providing financial 

and technical support. At the same time, tribes challenged EPA to coordinate climate change 

activities among federal agencies so that resources are better leveraged and administrative 

burdens are reduced. 

This Implementation Plan identifies specific steps that will be taken to partner with tribal 

governments on an ongoing basis to increase their adaptive capacity and address their 

adaptation-related priorities. These collaborative efforts will benefit from the expertise provide 

by our tribal partners and the Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) they possess. TEK is a 

valuable body of knowledge in assessing the current and future impacts of climate change and 

has been used by tribes for millennia as a valuable tool to adapt to changing surroundings. 

Consistent with the principles in the 1984 Indian Policy, TEK is viewed as a complementary 

resource that can inform planning and decision-making.

Networks and partnerships already in place will be used to assist tribes with climate change 

issues, including the National Tribal Operations Committee, Regional Tribal Operations 

Committees, the EPA-Tribal Science Council, and the Institute for Tribal Environmental 

Professionals and the Indian General Assistance Program (IGAP). Additionally, efforts will be 

made to coordinate with other Regional and Program Offices in EPA, since climate change has 

many impacts that transcend media and regional boundaries. Transparency and information 

sharing will be a focus, in order to leverage activities already taking place within EPA Offices 

and tribal governments.

There are 10 federally recognized tribes (see Figure 7 82) in New England and climate change 

may have the potential to disproportionately impact tribal communities compared to non-tribal 

communities. 
46

Environmental Justice

The impacts of climate change raise environmental justice issues. Environmental justice focuses 

on the health of and environmental conditions affecting minority, low-income, and indigenous 

populations. EPA places emphasis on these populations because they have historically been 

exposed to a combination of physical, chemical, biological, social, and cultural factors that have 

imposed greater environmental burdens on them than those imposed on the general population. 

Climate change is likely to exacerbate existing and introduce new environmental burdens and 

associated health impacts in communities dealing with environmental justice challenges across 

the nation.83 

Children

The impacts of climate change can have unique effects on the health of children. Children are 

different from adults in how they interact with their environment and how their health may be 

affected. 

Below is a list of potential impacts on tribal populations, environmental justice communities, and 

children, broadly organized by EPA programs. 

A. Air

Impacts on tribal programs: 

• Potentially higher health risk of methyl mercury contamination due to higher fish and 

shellfish consumption by tribal members compared to the average consumer. 

Figure 7: New England Tribes82
47

• Potentially higher risk of exposure to increase in mercury and cadmium as well as other 

pollutants as it concentrates in moose liver consumed by the Maine tribal populations.

• Potentially higher mercury exposure from tribal members’ reliance on wood stoves for 

home heating, and increased air transport and deposition of mercury or other 

contaminants that bioaccumulate on wood bark.

• Higher incidence of asthma as indoor air exposure to mold and second-hand smoke 

exposure increases with more time spent indoors due to more extreme weather events.

• Sustenance practices may be impacted with warmer ambient temperatures and extended 

warmer seasons as predator tick populations impact moose and deer hunting, invasive 

plant species impact agronomic practices such as fiddlehead harvesting and blueberry 

farming, and invasive insects such as the emerald ash borer impact native practices 

involving black ash species (e.g. basket-making for harvesting). 

• Moose populations may decline due to warmer mean temperatures in summer and winter.

• Forestry operations and changes of species from hardwoods such as oak and maple to 

more spruce and fir populations with temperature increase.

Impacts on vulnerable populations:

• Higher incidences of respiratory illnesses for communities already disproportionately 

impacted by air pollution and related health impacts due to increases in tropospheric 

ozone concentrations.

• Increase in health risks from worsening indoor environmental conditions due to increases 

in mold and other indoor air pollutants as a result of increased flooding or leaks from 

storm events. 

• Increase risk to low-income households from extreme heat events due to lack of air 

conditioning or failure to use air-conditioning to cut down on associated energy costs.

Impacts on children:

• Increased levels of ozone may lead to a number of adverse health effects in children, such 

as shortness of breath, chest pain when inhaling deeply, wheezing and coughing, 

temporary decreases in lung function, and lower respiratory tract infections. 

• Increased levels of particle pollution could cause increased exposure to children. In New 

England, more than 1.7 million children ride a diesel-powered bus to and from school 

every day, spending on average, an hour and a half each weekday in a school bus.84 

Childhood exposure to particulate matter has been associated with respiratory symptoms, 

decreased lung function, development of chronic bronchitis, and worsening of asthma. 

Children’s exposure to particle pollution can result in increased hospital admissions, 

emergency room visits, absences from school and restricted activity days.

• If radon is present in schools, higher incidence of exposure to radon with more time spent 

indoors due to more extreme weather events.
48

B. Water

Impacts on tribal programs:

• Coastal infrastructure may be impacted by sea level rise including the Passamaquoddy 

Pleasant Point wastewater treatment facility that is located near sea level with an ocean 

outfall discharge.

• Ocean acidification may have a particularly acute impact on the coastal tribal members, 

including Passamaquoddy, Mashpee Wampanoag and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay 

Head (Aquinnah) who depend on shellfish harvesting for sustenance practices, 

employment and economic development.

• Lobster shell wasting disease that may be linked to climate change has also been raised 

as a concern.

85

• Damage to wildlife and fish habitat, potentially altering spawning habitat by increasing 

siltation due to sea level rise. 

• Cold water fish species such as trout and salmon may be more susceptible to poisons, 

parasites and disease, and stunted fish growth, as well as increased juvenile mortality 

resulting from lower oxygen levels due to warmer waters

• Fishery habitat including nesting sites and increased fish mortality due to flooding of 

tribal rivers as a result of increased snowfall and rapid snowmelt. Tribal communities 

depend on sustenance fishing.

Impacts on vulnerable populations:

• Increase in severity and frequency of extreme storms can result in catastrophic effects for 

coastal environmental justice communities with limited resources to prepare and respond 

to natural disasters.

• Increase risk of exposure to hazardous substances as flooding from more intense and 

frequent storms and sea-level rise may lead to contaminant releases from Corrective 

Action sites, Superfund sites, Brownfield sites and landfills which often are located in 

close proximity to environmental justice communities.

• Impacts to water infrastructure may put vulnerable and economically deprived 

communities at risk, both for access to clean and safe water as well as for their ability to 

respond to emergencies during extreme events.

Impacts on children: 

• Extreme weather also can result in the breakdown of sanitation and sewer systems, 

increasing the likelihood of water-borne illness. Children are especially susceptible to 

such illness due to their developing immune systems. 

• School drinking water supplies may be compromised. New England schools are 

responsible for providing safe drinking water to their students, staff and visitors. Many 

school systems do not have access to a nearby public water supplier and provide drinking 

water by operating their own onsite well water system.

• Increases in the extent of storm surge and coastal flooding will cause erosion and 

property damage to schools along the densely populated coasts.
49

C. Waste and Pesticides

No tribal impacts were identified that would be different from the impacts of the surrounding 

community for these programs.

Impacts on vulnerable populations:

• Potential changes in pesticide exposures may exacerbate existing burdens placed on 

children, agricultural workers and other groups who may be disproportionally affected.

Impacts on Children:

• Schools may experience a higher incidence of exposure to chemicals and pesticides 

increases with more time spent indoors due to more extreme weather events.

Cross-Cutting Vulnerabilities

A. Energy

Managing electricity and natural gas facilities to meet environmental goals and reliability 

standards will be challenged by long term temperature increases and increased extreme weather 

events. 

Temperature increases will increase energy demand, particularly on peak summer days. As 

demand increases, additions and adjustments to the electric generating system need to be made. 

Many of the typical responses to these increases may increase air pollution emissions.

Additionally, since thermal power plants operate at lower capacities in the summer versus the 

winter, the higher ambient temperatures get, the less efficient the power plants are over a greater 

portion of the year, resulting in the consumption of more fuel, thus more emissions, to produce 

an equivalent amount of usable energy. In addition, higher cooling water temperatures during 

summer months also mean that the power plant will operate at less than its peak capacity. As a 

result, as long-term temperatures increase, the overall efficiency of most power plants will 

decrease, resulting in higher emissions per megawatt-hour produced over a larger portion of the 

year. This situation will not be unique to New England, and New England will also be adversely 

impacted by additional pollution moving into the region as a result of similar situations in 

upwind states and control areas. 

The increased frequency of extreme weather events will impact the integrity of the energy 

system and can lead to the disruption of electrical service. During the cold weather season, 

residents without power are forced to utilize alternative methods of heating such as wood stoves 

or fireplaces. The resulting increase in wood burning can contribute to elevated ambient fine 

particle (PM2.5) pollution concentrations. This phenomenon was observed in the several days of 

“unhealthy for sensitive groups” (USG) PM2.5 concentration measured in the Springfield, MA 

area following the October 29, 2011 snowstorm.

86 Power losses usually result in the increased 

usage of local generators which produce much more pollution per unit of usable energy than a 

typical power plant. In addition, since both drinking and waste water require substantial amounts 

of energy, long term disruptions in energy infrastructure can result in negative public health 
50

outcomes related to an inability to provide clean water or treat wastewater. Restoration of such 

capabilities within acceptable environmental parameters should be a priority for emergency 

response restoration efforts as well.

Sea level rise will also lead to direct and indirect losses for the region’s energy infrastructure 

(e.g., power plants located along the coast, marine facilities that receive oil and gas deliveries), 

including equipment damage from flooding or erosion. 

Air Issues/Impacts:

• Increased criteria pollutants due to increased electric demand resulting from heat waves 

and generally higher temperatures. And, New England will be impacted from similar 

situations in upwind states/control areas.

• Increased levels of criteria pollutants may result from decreased capacities of electric 

generating units resulting from long term temperature increases. Long term temperature

increases may require a proportionally higher number of electric generating units (EGUs)

to provide equivalent amounts of power.

Water Issues/Impacts

• Decreased power output from power plants resulting from increases in waterbodies that 

supply cooling water to the plant.

• The Region may be requested to allow enforcement forbearance to allow the discharge of 

heated water into water bodies that exceed the temperature limits in violation of the 

power plant’s NPDES permit, in order to permit electrical generation.

• Impairment or inability to treat wastewater or provide drinking water in the aftermath of 

extreme weather events.

B. Communications

Effective communication to stakeholders is critical to meeting EPA’s mission. The following are 

impacts on communications at EPA New England.

• As communities are impacted by severe storms, impaired waters, contaminated flood 

waters, and other impacts of climate change, current communication mechanisms 

regarding the environment and public health during these periods may not be sufficient to 

ensure that communities receive the appropriate guidance on how to react to these events

and protect public health. 

• Current mechanisms of communications with states, cities and towns, and guidance 

regarding how to best handle climate change impacts and vulnerabilities may not be 

sufficient.

• Current mechanisms regarding how EPA communicates information may not be 

sufficiently easy to access and understandable to the audience in need, both during 

emergency events and when conducting communication on climate change impacts.
51

IV. Priority Actions

The EPA New England climate change programmatic vulnerability assessment points to the 

specific program and operations that may be impacted by the projected climate changes. Based 

on these vulnerabilities, EPA New England identified priority actions it could take to ensure that 

we can continue to accomplish our mission and operate at our multiple locations. These priorities 

represent EPA New England’s commitment to address the known programmatic vulnerabilities, 

and to continue to identify other vulnerabilities that may occur over time due to climate change.

The workgroup developed a set of criteria to take into consideration when evaluating the priority 

actions. The following qualitative criteria were considered. . 

• Timeframe when risk would occur?

• Magnitude of impact of risk on environment or health?

• Magnitude of impact on EPA program?

• Does the action reduce the risk?

• Does the action protect a critical resource/investment?

• Does the action address “low-hanging fruit” that would be easy to accomplish?

• Would the action leverage a larger effort outside of EPA?

• Does EPA have a unique role or capacity to address this issue?

• What is the timeframe of the problem that this action would be addressing?

Could the action be accomplished within current budgets or would additional funds be 

necessary?

Taking these criteria into account, priority actions were determined for each strategic 

goal. The following section summarizes the priority actions for each goal. 
52

GOAL 1 

Ozone and NOx

1. Work with other Regions and HQ air program managers to develop a strategy, in context 

to other programmatic priorities, on how to incorporate climate adaptation into air quality 

programs (e.g., SIP, permits).

2. Develop new VOC and NOx control strategies with the States to offset effects from 

higher peak temperatures if necessary. 

PM

3. Devote more Regional staff time to providing the public with “Burn Wise” information, 

and work with the States and Tribes to inform the public about unhealthy air quality.

4. Work with the States to analyze further control strategies for wood combustion to avoid 

PM2.5 violations.

Indoor Air

5. Prepare information and recommendations regarding mold and other indoor air quality 

issues for distribution to the public due to increase in extreme events and flooding, and 

residents spending more time indoors.

6. Enhance messaging on the dangers from backup electricity sources (e.g. generators) and 

heat sources (e.g., wood stoves, fireplaces) that might be used more frequently due to 

power outages. 

7. Devote more Regional staff time as needed to answer indoor air calls from the public. 

Enforcement

8. Enhance Regional compliance assistance efforts to insure emergency generators are 

properly used, and are in compliance with applicable state and federal requirements. 

9. Enhance Regional compliance monitoring efforts to insure that air pollution sources are 

properly controlled and in compliance with applicable state and federal requirements.

Tribal Programs

10. Work with New England tribes to monitor and assess local mercury deposition trends and 

advise them on potential additional health precautions to take, if and when trends indicate 

increases in atmospheric deposition and corresponding increasing mercury levels in fish. 
53

GOAL 2 

Water Quality Standards

1. Revise water quality criteria to reflect climate change impacts. 

2. Change water body classifications (salt v. fresh water) or Integrated Report designations 

(e.g., causes of impairment) to reflect climate change impacts. 

Monitoring Assessment and Listing

3. Continue to support EPA’s National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS), which provide 

ongoing assessment of the ecological condition of statistically representative samples of 

wadeable streams, large rivers, wetlands and coastal resources. 

4. Continue to support development and use of novel, effective ecological monitoring and 

condition assessment protocols, including Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN). 

5. Implement collaborative year-round monitoring of high-quality (reference) wadeable 

streams, with other water resources to follow as feasible, for temperature, flow, physical 

habitat, biological resources, and other water quality parameters such as nutrients, as 

proposed in the state, tribal and federal Northeast (New England and NY) stream climate 

change monitoring network. 

6. Work with HQs to develop and implement a national monitoring program for ocean 

acidification (OA), which is caused by the dissolution and reaction of carbon dioxide 

(CO2) into ocean water. 

7. Modify freshwater, estuarine, and marine sampling protocols and locations based on 

effects of climate change, including sea level rise, considering the need for a long term 

monitoring record. 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

Over the past decade, EPA Region 1’s cross-program effort to address stormwater-related water 

quality impairments has provided valuable experience in how to develop and implement TMDLs 

that address multiple environmental stressors resulting from various flow regimes. For example, 

impervious surfaces in urban environments deliver a mix of pollutants and increased flow to 

rivers and streams resulting in soil erosion, stream bank scouring, deposition of sediment and 

nutrients increases in receiving waters. The increasing amount of impervious surfaces in urban 

areas causes less precipitation to infiltrate into the ground, which may cause streams to 

experience much lower base flows during dry conditions, along with low dissolved oxygen, 

increased eutrophication, and higher stream temperatures. Flashy streamflow conditions (i.e., 

rapid increases in streamflow and velocity in response to rainfall, followed by rapid recovery to 

pre-storm conditions) related to excessive stormwater runoff and corresponding droughts are 

anticipated to become even more frequent and/or intense in response to further climate change.

Stormwater TMDLs now being implemented effectively on a sub-watershed basis involve the 

use of surrogates for the mix of pollutants in stormwater (i.e., impervious cover, or flow).

Innovative and flexible approaches to TMDL development like this show promise for addressing 

the complex challenges of climate change. For instance, under the surrogate approach, TMDL 

end-points are tied to aquatic life use protections in State water quality standards, which provide 

environmental protection based on whatever the current conditions happen to be (rather than 

future projections based on past conditions). The technical basis for aquatic life use-based 

TMDLs is derived from significant investments over the past 35 years developing state ambient 
54

biological monitoring programs in our Region. Bioassessments (using ambient assemblages of 

macroinvertebrates, fish, or algae that integrate the effects of multiple stressors over time), in 

concert with physical and chemical monitoring data, now support the water quality assessment of 

aquatic life use attainment for these surrogate TMDLs, and provide clear environmental 

indicators of stream health under whatever the existing conditions are.

8. Promote use of hydrologic information to the extent available and adequate that takes 

climate change effects into consideration during development of both TMDLs and 

NPDES permits. 

9. Promote close collaboration among TMDL, NPDES, and NPS program staff during 

stormwater TMDL development and public outreach, in order to help MS4s and other 

stakeholders understand the need for more detailed local watershed planning for stream 

restoration actions and the use of structural and non-structural BMPs as part of postTMDL implementation.

10. To address new information and evolving circumstances, focus climate change adaptation 

on the selection and design of more effective TMDL implementation. For example: 

• Promote selection of BMP types that perform well under varying climate 

conditions, such as certain low impact development practices.

• Promote consideration of projected precipitation changes during the design of 

stormwater BMPs and other practices built to accommodate or treat specific storm 

sizes or runoff volumes, especially when these investments are anticipated to have 

life expectancies of 30 years of more. 

• Support BMP studies to evaluate how resilient BMPs are to climate change, and 

whether additional capacity is warranted to address future concerns, such as 

flooding or groundwater recharge.

Cross-Program Water Management

In line with EPA’s agency-wide climate change priorities and strategic measures, Region 1 

priority actions will continue to focus on cross-program stormwater management, and will 

continue interagency collaboration and development of decision-making tools capable of 

promoting environmentally sound and cost-effective management actions. For example:

11. 2010 RARE-funded project, Assessing Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure Stormwater 

BMPs at the Small Watershed Scale (WQ Branch & ORD/Narragansett). 

12. 2011 ORD Green Infrastructure-funded project, Development of an Integrated Watershed 

Management Optimization Decision Support Tool, which accounts for water supply, 

wastewater, stormwater, in-stream conditions, groundwater, and land use to achieve 

optimal actions to achieve water quantity-related management goals at least cost 

(collaboration among WQ and SDW programs).

13. Major regional meeting in 2012 was co-sponsored with USFWS and USGS on 

temperature data and monitoring which has prompted NE CSC research projects on 

climate change impact on headwater systems (areas of aquatic refugia), and development 

of a multi-agency regional stream temperature framework and database for New England 

(ME, NH, CT, RI, and MA) and the Great Lakes States (MN, WI, IL, MI, IN, OH, PA, 

NY). 
55

14. Subject to available funding, Optimizing Stormwater/Nutrient Management – Region 1 

Opti-Tool, to develop a user-friendly (spreadsheet) tool allowing optimization of 

structural and non-structural BMPs, and account for BMP pollutant removal, stormwater 

flow control performance, and estimated cost (collaboration among TMDL and NPDES 

programs). 

15. Subject to available funding, estimate how stormwater controls would work cumulatively 

to address future changes to precipitation patterns in order to determine whether or not 

modification of the levels of control is warranted. 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits

16. Review water treatment requirements as reduced water flows in streams, especially 

during summer months, will not dilute treatment plant effluents as they do now, so more 

treatment may be needed to maintain current water quality standards. 

17. Stormwater permits will need to account for increased extreme precipitation and erosion 

and sedimentation.

18. Promote the soak up the rain program. 

19. Permits with temperature limits (e.g. electric generating units) will need to account for 

increased water temperatures in receiving waters and changes in balanced, indigenous 

populations (BIP). 

Non Point Source (NPS)

20. Promote appropriately sized best management practices (BMPs). 

21. Promote demand management ways to preserve base stream flow levels. 

22. Find additional sources of funding for NPS abatement. 

23. Promote appropriately sized transportation infrastructure. 

24. Identify and use drought resistant species to aid in infiltration in BMPs. 

Wetlands (coastal and inland)

25. Increase use of invasive species control plans and their implementation in coastal 

wetlands. 

26. Increase protection for vernal pools. 

27. Promote beneficial uses of dredged material such as for beach nourishment, and marsh 

restoration as well as the potential use of thin layer dredged material disposal in eroding 

coastal wetlands. 

28. Review and comment on Corps permit applications for coastal engineering structures to 

evaluate potential adverse impact on coastal wetlands, considering sea level rise and 

marsh migration potential. 

29. Recommend consideration of “living shorelines” where appropriate to restore eroding 

wetlands and protect shorelines as an alternative to hard engineering structures. 

30. Prioritize restoration work for wetlands that have room to migrate. 

31. Work with HQs and other regions to determine how to take into account seasonal 

variabilities in precipitation for “Waters of US” determinations. 
56

Dredging/Ocean Dumping

32. Promote beneficial uses of dredged material such as for beach nourishment, and marsh 

restoration as well as the potential use of thin layer dredged material disposal in eroding 

coastal wetlands. 

33. Establish emergency dredging protocols to prepare for increased erosion and 

sedimentation associated with more extreme precipitation.

34. Promote Regional Sediment Management approaches to better understand sediment 

dynamics and potentially reduce the need for, or frequency of, dredging. 

35. Modify dredging windows to better align with changes in seasonality (earlier fish 

migration and spawning). 

National Estuary Program (NEP)

36. Through the Climate Ready Estuaries program, assist state and local partners conduct 

vulnerability assessments, prepare adaptation plans, and develop tools to facilitate these 

activities, like the Connecticut Adaptation Resources Toolkit.

37. Promote the New England Environmental Finance Center’s use of the Coastal Adaptation 

to Sea Level Rise Tool (COAST) to raise awareness among coastal cities and towns 

about the economic impact of sea level rise and storm surge on coastal property and 

infrastructure.

38. Develop guidance for different coastal habitat types (dunes, dams, etc.) restoration 

activities to account for sea level rise. 

39. Revise and update Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) to 

address vulnerabilities to climate change and include adaptation measures. 

40. Prioritize wetlands that have room to migrate for restoration.

41. Promote implementation of more effective erosion and sediment controls to adapt to 

increasing heavy precipitation events and storm intensity. 

42. Develop guidance for shellfish restoration that takes into account ocean acidification. 

Drinking Water, Wastewater, Stormwater Infrastructure

43. Educate and encourage use of Water and Wastewater Agency Response Networks 

(WARNs) to promote specialized water sector mutual aid and recovery in events of 

infrastructure damage or other emergencies. 

44. Through the Climate Ready Water Utilities program, educate facility operators on using 

localized climate projections to help identify specific vulnerabilities, including 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)

mapping of flood zones. Facilities should then update and train staff on revised 

Emergency Response Plans as needed. 

45. Promote the WaterSense program to help utilities implement water 

efficiency/conservation measures to reduce or delay the need for system expansion and 

reduce energy use. 

46. Encourage utilities to compile an inventory of utility assets to help determine the 

location, importance and condition of each asset, which will lead to an improved 

response in emergency situations. Provide assistance to municipalities and others on use 

of asset management methods. 

47. Promote green infrastructure projects, such as low impact development (LID), to help 

manage wet weather and improve water quality, reduce hydraulic loads on combined 
57

sewers, and reduce the risk of flooding. Increase public understanding of the need to 

implement and finance stormwater management systems. 

48. Develop outreach and tools for flood proofing infrastructure. 

49. Promote opportunities such as periodic larger-scale system evaluations, planned 

upgrades, or new construction to incorporate climate-change considerations into facility 

design. Educate utilities on tools to seek federal funding (FedFUNDS tool) and other 

opportunities to address needed improvements. 

Quality and Availability of Safe Drinking Water

50. Promote source water protection and watershed management activities to protect water 

supplies from increased threats to water quality and to increase recharge to aquifers. Use 

natural flood control vegetation for protection. 

51. Encourage source redundancy and flexibility for seasonal adjustments to meet demand, 

water quantity and availability. 

52. Provide new information, as available, on specific threats to water quality and sources, 

such as: cyanobacteria, drinking water bacterial requirements and water sector general 

vulnerabilities.

53. Promote erosion and sediment controls. 

54. Promote monitoring of weather conditions and trends, use modeling and mapping to 

better prepare and adapt for expected changes, including in emergency response plans. 

GOAL 3

Longer-term Cleanups (e.g., Superfund Remedial, Superfund Time-Critical 

Removal, RCRA Corrective Action, TSCA) and RCRA Hazardous Waste Management 

Facilities

1. Include consideration of potential climate change impacts in EPA New England 

management reviews of Superfund National Priority List (NPL) sites.

2. In conjunction with the New England Waste Management Officials’ Association 

(NEWMOA) and member state agencies, initiate an interagency dialog to plan and 

coordinate efforts to consider climate change impacts at contaminated site cleanups and 

RCRA hazardous waste management facilities. 

3. Identify and assess the potential vulnerability of NPL sites within delineated GIS-mapped 

zones (i.e., sea level rise, flooding due to storm surge, and flooding due to higher 

precipitation events) based on a consideration of site-specific factors (e.g., local 

topography, design and duration of cleanup remedies, potential risk to the cleanup).

4. Based on the findings from the evaluation of potentially vulnerable NPL sites, develop an 

action plan to evaluate the vulnerability of other contaminated sites (e.g., Brownfields, 

Superfund Time-Critical Removal, RCRA corrective action) and RCRA Hazardous 

Waste Management Facilities. 

5. Develop and conduct training on considering climate change impacts in site cleanups for 

EPA and state project managers. 

6. Work with HQs to revise technical guidance (e.g., relating to 5-year reviews, 

management reviews, remedial investigation/feasibility studies, remedial design, 

sediment management) to address consideration of climate change impacts. 
58

7. Coordinate with HQs and FEMA and other federal agencies to update, as necessary, 

reference maps and data (e.g., 100- year flood plain, precipitation from 100-year storm 

events) to aid in the evaluation, design and implementation of cleanup response actions. 

Emergency Response

8. Continue coordination among program offices to plan for potential coordination during 

emergency response actions.

9. Utilize the GIS-based EPA FlexViewer platform to prepare for and respond to climate 

change impacts in New England. 

10. Provide training to responders in preparation and response of climate change impacts 

with option for state agencies to participate in the training (e.g. potential for increased 

pesticide responses, extreme storm events, Stafford Act declarations, incident command 

structure, etc.). 

11. Conduct an assessment of current regional resources and response framework to 

determine if resource levels and existing plans would be sufficient to adequately respond 

to an extreme event, such as a hurricane or large storm.

12. Incorporate climate change impact planning into regional contingency plans (e.g. debris 

management plans, area contingency plans, etc.). 

13. Assess interagency agreements with the Coast Guard to determine how coastal impacts 

from climate change will be addressed. 

14. Coordinate with OEME to assess whether current regional laboratory capabilities will be 

sufficient during responses to extreme events and whether the infrastructure can sustain 

potentially increasing demands over time.

Oil Program (e.g., Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)/ Facility 

Response Plans (FRP) Facilities)

15. Develop, conduct, and/or maintain training on climate change impacts for EPA, USCG 

and state counterparts.

16. Enhance GIS-based mapping tools to incorporate climate change impacts and identify 

vulnerable zones to aid in planning.

17. Conduct management reviews of SPCC/FRP New England Facilities within potential 

impact zones to aid in setting inspection targets. 

18. Develop technical guidance to aid in climate change impact planning. 

19. Continue monitoring efforts to determine if SPCC and FRP regulated facilities are 

impacted by climate change.

20. Coordinate with OEME to identify specific research needs.

GOAL 4

Ensuring Safety of Chemicals:

1. Increase EPA support for pesticide enforcement and education – direct and through states 

and tribes. 

2. Develop new relationships with additional federal (or other) agencies for new pesticide 

related problems (e.g., USDA).

3. Change regional oversight to meet new priority areas. 
59

4. Provide pollution prevention assistance to states, businesses, and others that promote 

sustainable practices. Implement regional Green Chemistry strategy to promote 

development of more sustainable manufacturing methods and materials.

FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

1. Develop/codify storm event pre-deployment strategies for government owned vehicles 

(currently informally included in the COOP). Develop/codify storm event predeployment strategies for vehicles and equipment stored in the garage and ground floor 

of the McCormack building. 

2. Develop extended contingency/telework plans for employees (management/human 

resources.)

3. Ensure Continuity of Operations Plan can also address situations that extend beyond 30 

days. 

4. Conduct further research to assess the risks of flooding associated with nearby water 

bodies, rivers, lakes and ocean. 

5. Work toward developing a deeper understanding of how flooding occurs through storm 

surge in urban areas, given that the impacts of sea level rise and storm surge are not well 

understood, particularly for the McCormack building. 

TRIBAL AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

1. Work with EPA programs to target climate adaptation efforts in the most vulnerable 

communities, including tribes.

2. Educate vulnerable populations about climate adaptation. Provide assistance to tribes (if 

requested) in developing their adaptation plans. 

3. Expand use of existing communication tools and develop a comprehensive contact list of 

organizations representing vulnerable populations as a resource for preparedness and 

response to extreme events.

4. Utilize GIS-based mapping tools to identify coastal vulnerable populations that could be 

potentially subject to an increased sea level rise, flooding due to storm surge, and 

flooding due to higher precipitation events. 

CROSS CUTTING ACTIONS

1. Utilize GIS-based mapping tools to delineate New England zones that could be 

potentially subject to an increased sea level rise, flooding due to storm surge, and 

flooding due to higher precipitation events. 

2. Leverage21st century 'big data' science initiatives relevant to New England climate 

change such as NEON, UNH EPSCoR and other novel environmental monitoring 

technologies.

3. Incorporate climate change adaptation into performance partnership agreements 

(PPA)/performance partnership grants (PPG) state program requirements. 

4. Develop and implement adaptation plans with state and local partners to address risks to 

habitats, infrastructure, and human populations; estuarine and coastal area plans will be 

initiated first. 
60

5. Deliver technical assistance programs to communities on smart growth topics such as 

how to achieve compact, walkable, transit-oriented development.

6. Work with the Partnership for Sustainable Communities (HUD, DOT, EPA, FEMA, and 

USDA Rural Development) to help communities become more disaster resilient, and 

ensure that our programs don’t support non-resilient development in vulnerable locations.

7. Develop and implement adaptation training for all staff.

COMMUNICATIONS

1. EPA R1 Drinking Water program will work with States and tribes to improve 

effectiveness when providing requested assistance to States and tribes in emergency 

events by doing training to our Regional Water Team volunteers on doing phone call 

damage assessments on an event-specific basis. 

2. EPA R1 Drinking Water program will work with State programs to improve data 

collection and sharing by revising our damage assessment forms as needed per each 

State’s preference. 

3. Increase education to states, tribes, cities, and municipalities on common climate change 

impacts and guidance for the impacted. 

4. Evaluate how EPA can ensure that we are easily accessible and responsive to tribes and 

states during and after large storms or other emergency events. 

5. Streamline how EPA communicates information so that it is easy to access and 

understandable to the audience in need. These efforts should be coordinated with federal, 

tribal, and state partners. 
61

V. Measurement and Evaluation

This section describes how EPA New England will incorporate priority actions into its programs 

and how these actions will be measured. 

A. Measure: Integrate climate adaptation priority actions into the GCCN strategy annually and 

into other planning documents as needed.

Evaluation: Include consideration of climate impacts into at least 3 processes (e.g., permitting, 

grant solicitation, enforcement integrated strategies, Invasive Species Control Plans) in the 

GCCN FY 14 plan. Annually thereafter, review the vulnerabilities and priority actions to update 

according to the current science and actions taken by others to determine what to address in the 

annual GCCN Strategy.

B. Measure: Work with states and tribes to integrate climate adaptation into State-EPA planning 

mechanisms (e.g. PPA/PPGs, begin preliminary discussion in FY 14). Work with grantees and 

local communities to integrate climate adaptation into planning mechanisms.

Evaluation: All NE states and at least some of the tribes will incorporate adaptation into at least 

one program action and planning mechanism. Grantees and local communities incorporate 

adaptation into their planning.

C. Measure: EPA New England will work with EPA national Program offices on national 

program climate adaptation guidance (e.g., oil program, streamlining of FIFRA registration 

process, dredging)

Evaluation: Participation in workgroups as invited.

D. Measure: Improve preparedness for extreme events, including incorporating climate change 

impacts (e.g., flooding, storm surge) into planning documents (e.g. Emergency Planning 

documents) and outreach (e.g., guidance use of back-up power and alternative heating sources).

Evaluation: EPA will develop response protocols and tools for public outreach; Dialogue with 

Region 2 to learn from Super Storm Sandy experience.

E. Measure: Collaborate with other federal agencies, academics and NGOs in New England 

regarding climate change impacts (e.g. coordinating with NEFP, NROC, etc.)

Evaluation: Identify and act on collaboration opportunities to increase scientific understanding 

and to increase resiliency.

F. Measure: Train EPA employees and states and tribes where appropriate on how to consider 

impacts of climate change in their EPA duties and obligations.

Evaluation: 90% participation in climate adaptation training.
62

G. Measure: Conduct outreach on climate change impacts to affected stakeholders (E.g., Soak 

Up The Rain, outreach to vulnerable population, Burn Wise)

Evaluation: Development of outreach tools and outreach campaigns or events.
63

References 1 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. January 4, 2012. “Lessons from Irene: Building resilience as we rebuild.”

Accessed November 6, 2012: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Pubs/Irene_Facts.pdf. 2 Photo source: Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans). 

3 National Weather Service Forecast Office. October 29, 2011. 

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=box. 

AIRNow. October 29, 2011. www.airnow.gov 4 Image source: AIRNow. October 31, 2012. www.airnow.gov 5 National Climatic Data Center (2011). “Mean Number of Days with Maximum Temperature 90 Degrees F or 

Higher (Data through 2002)”. 6 United States Global Change Research Program. “Draft National Climate Assessment Report”. January 2013.

7 Pfeffer, J. T. et al. (2008). “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise.” 

Science, 321(5894) pp. 1340-1343. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5894/1340.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. March 2009. “New Hampshire Climate Action Plan: A 

Plan for New Hampshire's Energy, Environmental and Economic Development Future”. 

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, “Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA):Climate 

Change and the Cryosphere”. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Gaustadalléen 21, N-0349 Oslo, 

Norway, 2011.

8 State of Vermont. “Update on Vermont’s Recovery from Tropical Storm Irene.” 

http://www.vtstrong.vermont.gov/Portals/0/Documents/IreneRecoveryreportspw.pdf. 9 Douglas, E., P. Kirshen, V Li., C.Watson, J. Wormser, “Preparing for the Rising Tide.” 2013. 10 Douglas, E., P. Kirshen, V Li., C.Watson, J. Wormser, “Preparing for the Rising Tide.” 2013. 11. Wilson, Steven G and Thomas R. Fischetti, “Coastline Population Trends in the United States: 1960 to 2008.” US 

Census Bureau, May 2010.

12 U.S. Census Bureau, “Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005.” Internet Release Date: 

April 21, 2005

13 U.S. Census Bureau, “Statistical Abstract of the United States”; 2012. 14 U.S. Census Bureau, “Statistical Abstract of the United States”; 2012. 15 U.S. Census Bureau, “Statistical Abstract of the United States”; 2012. 16 Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States” New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 17Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States” New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 18 Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States” New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 19 Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States” New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 20 University of Maine. “Maine’s Climate Future: An Initial Assessment”. February 2009. 21 Pealer and Dunnington. “Climate Change and Vermont’s Waters.” Vermont Climate Change Adaptation White 

Paper Series, 2011.

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Pubs/AdaptationWP_ClimateChangeandWaterReources.pdf. 22 Betts, A. K. “Climate Change in Vermont”, 2011. (Prepared for the State of Vermont.) 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Pubs/VTCCAdaptClimateChangeVTBetts.pdf 23 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Adaptation 

Advisory Committee. “Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report”, September 2011.

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/energy/cca/eea-climate-adaptation-report.pdf
64

 24 Pealer and Dunnington. “Climate Change and Vermont’s Waters.” Vermont Climate Change Adaptation White 

Paper Series., 2011. 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Pubs/AdaptationWP_ClimateChangeandWaterReources.pdf. 25 “Climate Change and Vermont’s Waters.” Vermont Climate Change Adaptation White Paper Series. 26 Austin, John. “Fish and Wildlife Conservation and Climate Change Adaptation in Vermont.” Vermont Climate 

Change Adaptation White Paper Series. March 2012.

27 University of Maine. February 2009. Maine’s Climate Future: An Initial Assessment.

http://climatechange.umaine.edu/files/Maines_Climate_Future.pdf 28 Orwig, David A, David R. Foster and David L. Mausel. “Landscape patterns of hemlock decline in New England 

due to the introduced hemlock woolly adelgid.” Journal of Biogeography, 29, 1475-1487. 29 Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States” New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 30 Frumhoff, P.C., J.J. McCarthy, J.M. Melillo, S.C. Moser, and D.J. Wuebbles. “Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: 

A Report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment.” 2006. Union of Concerned Scientists. 

31 United States Global Change Research Program. “Draft National Climate Assessment Report”. January 2013. 32 United States Global Change Research Program. “Draft National Climate Assessment Report”. January 2013. 33 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Adaptation 

Advisory Committee. “Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report”, September 2011.

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/energy/cca/eea-climate-adaptation-report.pdf 34 Environmental Protection Agency. “Climate Change Indicators in the United States, 2012.” 2nd Edition. 

November 2012. 

35 Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States” New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 36 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, “Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA):Climate 

Change and the Cryosphere.” Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Gaustadalléen 21, N-0349 Oslo, 

Norway, 2011.

37 Pfeffer, J. T. et al.” Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise.” Science, 321

(5894) pp. 1340-1343, 2008. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5894/1340. 38 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. “New Hampshire Climate Action Plan: A Plan for New 

Hampshire's Energy, Environmental and Economic Development Future”. March 2009. 

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/air/tsb/tps/climate/action_plan/documents/nhcap_final.pdf

39 City of Boston. “Sea Level in Boston Harbor.” http://www.cityofboston.gov/climate/sealevelriseboston.asp 40 Sallenger, A. H. Jr, Doran, K. S. & Howd, P. A. “Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North 

America.” Nature Climate Change. June 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1597. 41 Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council Regulations. “Section 145: Climate Change and Sea Level 

Rise.” Coastal Resources Management Council Program. March 2008. 42 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Adaptation 

Advisory Committee. “Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report”, September 2011. 43 Dupigny-Giroux, L.-A., 2002: Climate variability and socioeconomic consequences of Vermont’s natural hazards: 

a historical perspective. Vermont History. 44 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. “Lessons from Irene: Building resilience as we rebuild.” January 4, 2012. 

Accessed November 6, 2012: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Pubs/Irene_Facts.pdf. 45 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. “Lessons from Irene: Building resilience as we rebuild.” January 4, 2012. 

Accessed November 6, 2012: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Pubs/Irene_Facts.pdf. 46 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. “Lessons from Irene: Building resilience as we rebuild.” January 4, 2012. 

Accessed November 6, 2012: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Pubs/Irene_Facts.pdf. 47 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. “Lessons from Irene: Building resilience as we rebuild.” January 4, 2012. 

Accessed November 6, 2012: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Pubs/Irene_Facts.pdf.
65

 48 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. “Lessons from Irene: Building resilience as we rebuild.” January 4, 2012. 

Accessed November 6, 2012: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Pubs/Irene_Facts.pdf. 49 Dolan, K. “Climate Change and Public Safety.” Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Climate Change White 

Papers. May 2011. 50 Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States” New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 51 Frumhoff, P.C., J.J. McCarthy, J.M. Melillo, S.C. Moser, and D.J. Wuebbles. “Confronting Climate Change in the 

U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions.” Synthesis report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment 

(NECIA). Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 2007. 52 Environmental Protection Agency. “Climate Change Indicators in the United States, 2012.” 2nd Edition. 

November 2012.

53 US EPA, “National Water Program 2012 Strategy: Response to Climate Change”, December 2012. 54 Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States” New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 55 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Adaptation 

Advisory Committee. “Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report”, September 2011.

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/energy/cca/eea-climate-adaptation-report.pdf 56 US EPA, “National Water Program 2012 Strategy: Response to Climate Change”, December 2012. 57 “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean.” National Academies 

Press, 2010. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12904. 58 Cooney, Catherine M. “Preparing a People: Climate Change and Public Health.” Environmental Health 

Perspectives. April 2011. 59 Curtis, Abigail. “Midcoast schools close early due to heat, air quality.” Bangor Daily News, September 1, 2010. 60 Githeko, A. et al. 2001. Climate change and vector-borne diseases: a regional analysis. Environ. Health Perspect. 

109(suppl 2): 223-233. 61 Adams,D. et al. 2013. Summary of Notifiable Diseases- United States,2011. Morbidity and mortality weekly 

Report 60(53): 1-117. 62 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Ground-level Ozone (Smog) Information.” 

http://www.epa.gov/region1/airquality/. 63 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Housing Survey”, 2009. 64 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey”, 2007-2011. 65 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey”, 2007-2011. 66 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey”, 2007-2011.

67 Jacobson, G.L., I.J. Fernandez, P.A. Mayewski, and C.V. Schmitt (editors). “Maine’s Climate Future: An Initial 

Assessment.” Orono, ME: University of Maine. 2009. Available at 

http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/mainesclimatefuture/ 68 Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council Regulations. “Section 145: Climate Change and Sea Level 

Rise.” Coastal Resources Management Council Program. March 2008. 69City of Cambridge. “City to Prioritize Preparations for Climate Change Impacts by participating in New National 

Adaptation Program.” November 17, 2010. 

http://www.cambridgema.gov/citynewsandpublications/news/2010/11/cityofcambridgetoprioritizepreparationsfo

rclimatechange.aspx.

Metropolitan Area Planning Council. “Long Range Planning for Sea Level Rise.” June 2012. 

http://www.mapc.org/sealevelrise.

City of Boston. “A Climate of Progress: City of Boston Climate Action Plan Update 2011.” April 2011. 

http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/A%20Climate%20of%20Progress%20-

%20CAP%20Update%202011_tcm3-25020.pdf 70 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Draft Climate Change Adaptation Plan.” 2013. 
66

 71 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “FY2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan: Achieving Our Vision”. September 

2010. 

72 Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “FY2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan: Achieving Our Vision”. 

September 2010. 

73 US EPA, “National Water Program 2012 Strategy: Response to Climate Change”, December 2012. 74 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Adaptation 

Advisory Committee. “Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report”, September 2011.

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/energy/cca/eea-climate-adaptation-report.pdf

Jacobson, G.L., I.J. Fernandez, P.A. Mayewski, and C.V. Schmitt (editors). “Maine’s Climate Future: An Initial 

Assessment.” Orono, ME: University of Maine. 2009. Available at 

http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/mainesclimatefuture/. 

Karlsson, Lee. “Vermont Climate Change Health Effects Adaptation.” Vermont Agency of Natural Resrouces 

Climate Change Adaptation White Paper Series. May 2011. 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Pubs/VTCCAdaptHealthEffects%20.pdf. 75 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Oil Storage Facility Spill Prevention and Planning.” Waste Site Cleanup 

and Resuse in New England. March 2012. http://www.epa.gov/region1/superfund/er/oilstor.html. 76 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Semiannual Report of UST Performance Measures: End of Fiscal Year 

2011 (October 2010-Septevember 30, 2011)”. November 2011. http://www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca_11_34.pdf 77 This information is mostly derived from US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Administration and 

Resources Management’s Draft “High-Level Assessment of EPA’s Vulnerabilities to Climate Change”. 78 Vertical accuracy of 0.49 feet (0.15 meters). Elevation based on MassGIS – LiDAR Terrain Data, accessible at: 

http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/lidar.html. 79 Vertical accuracy of 0.49 feet (0.15 meters). Elevation based on MassGIS – LiDAR Terrain Data, accessible at: 

http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/lidar.html. 80 Vertical accuracy of 0.49 feet (0.15 meters). Elevation based on MassGIS – LiDAR Terrain Data, accessible at: 

http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/lidar.html. 81 Vertical accuracy of 0.49 feet (0.15 meters). Elevation based on MassGIS – LiDAR Terrain Data, accessible at: 

http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/lidar.html. 82 Map developed by EPA New England’s GIS Center. Tribal seals from individual tribes’ websites. 83 Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States” New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 84 US Environmental Protection Agency. “Healthy Kids: Public Health Outreach at EPA New England,” March 2011.

85 Wall, Dennis. “Tribal Climate Change Profile: Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point.” Institute for Tribal 

Environmental Professional, Northern Arizona University. 2008. 86 National Weather Service Forecast Office. October 29, 2011. 

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=box. 

AIRNow. October 29, 2011. www.airnow.gov
Draft Deliberative: For Internal Review Only

67