DOCSLIB.ORG

Otter Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Otter Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility Report VERMONT MARBLE COMPANY, J' PROCTOR, VERMONT : j+' - OTTER CREEK HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY REPORT HUNTINGTON FALLS DAM - BELDENS DAM CENTER RUTLAND DAM FEBRUARY 1979 INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. A MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. VERMONT MARBLE COMPANY, PROCTOR, VERMONT : COTTER CREEK HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY REPORT HUNTINGTON FALLS DAM = BELDENS DAM = CENTER RUTLAND DAM FEBRUARY 1979 - INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING-- COMPANY, INC. --- \ - A MORRISON-KMUDSEN COMPANY wgl!mmm EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vermont Marble Company (VMCO) owns and operates four hydroelectric projects in a 50-mile reach of Otter creek in west central Vermont. This study con- cerns three of the installations - Center Rutland, Beldens, and Huntington Falls. The fourth site is known as Proctor and will be studied separately. All four plants operate as run-of-river stations, and the limited reservoir storage capacity places severe limitations on any other type of operation. VMCO has been aware for some time that the physical condition of the' installa- tions is poor and that the concrete has suffered deterioration due to its age, repeated freezing and thawing, and the effects of trash. VMCO also recognizes that rehabilitation, upgrading, and replacement of many of the facilities is now necessary .to restore the structures to a satisfactory condition and to maximize energy production at each plant. The plants are presently operating at much lower outputs than can be obtained, because they do not use .the avail- able discharge and head. ... The results show that, under the assumptions made in this study, Beldens and Huntington Fa1 1s can be economically improved. The rehabi 1i tation of the Center Rutland plant did not look economically attractive. However, the improvement of Center Rutland should not be eliminated from further considera- tion, because it could become economically 'attractive if the cost of energy starts escalating at a rate of around 10 percent per year. The study included a brief appraisal of the existing generating facilities and condition of existing concrete structures, a geological reconnaissance of the sites, analysis of the power potential, flood studies, technical and economic investigations and comparative evaluations of the a1 ternati ves for developing the streamflow for power generation, selection of the, most suitable a1 ternative, financial analysis, preparation of drawings, and preparation. of detailed quan- tity and cost estimates. The sites and nearby surrounding'areas were inspected, and the condition of existing structures and equipment were appraised. The concrete needs repair; and the equipment is old, obsolete,- and in need of replacemer~t. The generating units are inefficient and a.re .undersized for economical exploi.tati,on.of the avai 1able hydraul i,c resources. No . .geological proh- lems were found during the field ins.pecti.ons that would prohihit construc- tion and the structure sites appear sound. Th.ere is some leakage at all sites that can he easily control led by presently available techniques. In general, the time has arrived when improvements and rehabilitation are, or soon will be, necessary. The environmental conditions were evaluated and found to be mostly favor- able. The few conditions that cannot be classified as favorable require only simple measures to rectify. No environmental impact was found that precludes proceeding with the contemplated improvements. Three basic pbi.losophies were.considered in formulating development alternatiyes. The first makes'maximum use of existing facilities and results in theminimum capital investment; however, it does not fully 'exploit the avail able hydraul ic resources. The second ful ly exploits the hydraulic resources, but requires the largest capital expenditure. The third philosophy is:intermediate between these two and, consequently, results in inte-rmediate capital investment. and .energy production. Four alternatiyes embodying these ph.ilosophies were.formulated and are shown in Table S-1. Technical evaluations were made of the components of each alternative to* eliminate the least feasible and reduce them to a more manageable number. The evaluations considered the unit size, number of units, total installed capacity, energy produced, topograp.hic and physical conditions of the site, and the upstream and downstream limitations. One large unit would be inoperative for almost half the time and was eliminated from consideration on an energy production basis. The unit size and upstream urbanization resulted in selecting a single development for Center Rutland. Upstream conditions restricted the leyel of the Beldens reservoir, and.the relocated. powerhouse was eliminated on a cost basfs. Huntington Falls r,emained as originally conceived. The nine components shown in Table S-2 remained after completion of these evaluations. TABLE S-1 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE I Upgrade existing facil ities, minimum cost and energy. 1. Center Rutl and Reservoir El. 507.0 2. Be1 dens Reservoir El. 284.0 3. ~untingtonFalls Reservoir El. 218.0 ALTERNATIVE I1 Maximum dam-raise, maximum costs and energy. 1. Center Rutl and Reservoir El. 514.0 2. Beldens Reservoir El. 284.0 3. Huntington Fa1 1s Reservoir El. 241.0 ALTERNATIVE I11 Intermediate -dam raise, intermediate costs and energy .- Condition A. 1. Center Rutl and Reservoir El. 509.0 2. Beldens Reservoir El'. 284.0 3. Huntington Fa1 1s Reservoir El. 230.0 ALTERNATIVE IV . Intermediate dam raise, intermediate costs and energy - Condition B. 1. Center Rutl and Reservoir El. 514.0 2. Beldens Reservoir El. 284.0; relocate powerhouse one mile downst ream. 3. ~untingtonFall s Reservoir El. 230.0 TABLE S-2 PROJECT SELECTION ELIGIBLE PROJECTS CENTER RUTLAND 1. Reservoir El. 509.0; 2-1,200 kW units. Identification Symbol CR/2-2.4-509 BELDENS 1. Reservoir El. 284.0; 3-2,100 kW units. Identification Symbol BEL/3-6.3-284 2: Reservoir El. 284.0; 2-2,100 kW units. Identification Symbol BEL/2-4.2-284 HUNTINGTON FALLS 1. Reservoir El. 241.0; 3-3,700 kW units. Identification Symbol HF/3-11.1-241 2. Reservoir El. 241.0; 2-3,700 kW units. Identif icat ion Symbol HF/2-7.4-241 3. Reservoir. El. 230.0; 3-3,100 kW units. Identification Symbol HF/3-9.3-230 " 4. Reservoir El. 230.0; 2-3,100 kW units. Identif icat i on Symbol HF/2-6.2-230 5. ~eservoirEl. 218.0; 2-2,300.k~ units. Identification Symbol HF/3-6.9-218 . 6. Reservoir El. 218.0; 2-2,300 kW units. Identification Symbol HF/2-4.6-218 Quantity and cost estimates were prepared, and the average annual eneryy production was computed for the nine projects. able' 5-3contains a summary of the data. The cost per. kilowatt. hour is discussed later. -. Economic evaluations were made for the nine eligible projects using the present worth method of analysis. The evaluations used 3, 5, and 7 per- cent escalation rates; 35-, 40-, and 50-year analysis periods; and dis- count rates from 6 through 11 percent. A computer was used to analyze a total of 81 cases for which the benefit/cost ratios and' internal rates of return were computed. These.eval.uations Were used on'ly to select a recommended .devel opment , which was subsequently further analyzed using oth.er methods of analysis . No analysis was made for zero escalation, because it is considered to be unrealistic; and th.e three rates selected are indicative of the escala- tion range to be expected. Escalation was uniformly applied to all costs and benefits for the first half of the analysis period and no further es- calation was used for the second half.. The minimum analysis period cor- responds to the useful life of some major project parts, especially the generating units. The l.ongest. represents .a usual ly acceptable standard .:. for hydroelectric economic-evaluation. The discount rates are considered to be .appl i cab1 e .to t.his type of development. Benefits are the value of energy that does not have to be purchased from an outside supplier and, accordingly, are based- on the price.recently paid. The demand charge, transmission charge, and energy mill rate were combined on a weighted average basis and resulted i 6 25 mi 11s per kilowatt hour. This rate was escalated after the first year on the same basis as the costs'. System energy losses were subtracted from gross generation in computing.the total annual.benefit, or revenue. The range of the benefit/ cost ratios and internal rates of ,return is shown in Table .S-4., . TABLE S-3 -. SUMMARY .OF PROJECT COSTS AND ENERGY RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT Item Total Capital Investment ($) Average Annual Energy (kwh) Installed Capacity (kW) Cost Per Installed kW ($) Total CapC tal Investment ($) Average Annual Energy (kwh) Installed Capacity (kW) ' Cost 'er Installed kW ($) Total Capital 1nvestmen.t ($) 8,760,800 9,079,700 6,936,000 Average Annual Energy ('kwh) 26,740,000 23,275,000 20,225,000 Installed Capacity (kW) 6,200 6,900 4,600 Cost Per Installed kW (8) 1,413 1,316 1,508 TABLE S-4 RANGE OF BENEFITICOST RAT,IOS AND INTERNAL RATES OF RETURN SELE,CTION OF RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT 3% Escalation B/C Ratio Center Rutland Be1 dens Huntington Falls :.--- .:."..- .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018
    The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018 Prepared by: Rich Kirn, Fisheries Program Manager Reviewed by: Brian Chipman, Will Eldridge, Jud Kratzer, Bret Ladago, Chet MacKenzie, Adam Miller, Pete McHugh, Lee Simard, Monty Walker, Lael Will ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This project was made possible by fishing license sales and matching Dingell- Johnson/Wallop-Breaux funds available through the Federal Sportfish Restoration Act. Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 II. Life History and Ecology ................................................................... 2 III. Management History ......................................................................... 7 IV. Status of Existing Fisheries ............................................................. 13 V. Management of Trout Habitat .......................................................... 17 VI. Management of Wild Trout............................................................. 34 VII. Management of Cultured Trout ..................................................... 37 VIII. Management of Angler Harvest ................................................... 66 IX. Trout Management Plan Goals, Objectives and Strategies .............. 82 X. Summary of Laws and Regulations .................................................. 87 XI. Literature Cited ............................................................................... 92 I. Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Flood Resilience
    DRAFT Flood Resilience INTRODUCTION vulnerability, and is informed by future Tropical Storm Irene projections. The devastation caused by flooding The focus of this chapter is how flood during Tropical Storm Irene in 2011 was a resilience, mitigation, and adaptation are massive disaster for the Rutland Region linked to land use, transportation, and many other areas of Vermont. It also education, economic development, as well was a turning point. Out of the recovery as many other aspects of regional and rebuilding efforts from Irene came a planning. This chapter is designed to be a new goal for the state: flood resilience. tool for town officials, non-profits, As the Vermont Climate Assessment puts developers, and individuals to help make all communities flood resilient and to it, the state has “begun to pursue public Courtesy: CBS6 Albany policy that builds resilience within all 256 guide coordination of these actions towns” (VCA, 2014). Examples of the new throughout the Region. priorities include Act 16, the flood resiliency planning statute (24 VSA §4302), as well as new rules for qualifying CURRENT CONDITIONS for state matches for Emergency Relief and Types of Flooding Assistance Fund. Flooding events are Vermont’s most The challenge for Vermont communities frequent and costly type of natural disaster. is “turning vulnerability to resiliency by There are two types of flooding that impact taking action through adaptation and communities in Vermont: inundation and mitigation,” says the Assessment. flash flooding. Inundation is when water Resilience being the ability of the Region to rises onto low lying land. Flash flooding is US Rt.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Waters of Vermont
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 424 SURFACE WATERS OF VERMONT BY C. H. PIERCE Prepared in cooperation with the STATE OF VERMONT WASHINGTON GOVEENMENT PBINTING OFFICE 1917 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BK PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 25 CENTS PER COPY CONTENTS. Introduction.............................................................. 5 Cooperation................................................................ 8 Division of work.......................................................... 8 Definition of terms......................................................... 9 Explanation of data........................................................ 9 Accuracy of field data and computed results................................ 11 Gaging stations maintained in Vermont..................................... 12 St. Lawrence River basin................................................. 13 Lake Champlain drainage basin......................................... 13 General features................................................... 13 Gaging-station records.............................................. 14 Lake Champlain at Burlington, Vt.............................. 14 Lake Champlain outlet (Richelieu River) at Chambly, Province of Quebec.1................................................. 20 Poultney Eiver near Fair Haven, Vt............................ 25 Otter Creek at Middlebury,
    [Show full text]
  • WATERS THAT DRAIN VERMONT the Connecticut River Drains South
    WATERS THAT DRAIN VERMONT The Connecticut River drains south. Flowing into it are: Deerfield River, Greenfield, Massachusetts o Green River, Greenfield, Massachusetts o Glastenbury River, Somerset Fall River, Greenfield, Massachusetts Whetstone Brook, Brattleboro, Vermont West River, Brattleboro o Rock River, Newfane o Wardsboro Brook, Jamaica o Winhall River, Londonderry o Utley Brook, Londonderry Saxtons River, Westminster Williams River, Rockingham o Middle Branch Williams River, Chester Black River, Springfield Mill Brook, Windsor Ottauquechee River, Hartland o Barnard Brook, Woodstock o Broad Brook, Bridgewater o North Branch Ottauquechee River, Bridgewater White River, White River Junction o First Branch White River, South Royalton o Second Branch White River, North Royalton o Third Branch White River, Bethel o Tweed River, Stockbridge o West Branch White River, Rochester Ompompanoosuc River, Norwich o West Branch Ompompanoosuc River, Thetford Waits River, Bradford o South Branch Waits River, Bradford Wells River, Wells River Stevens River, Barnet Passumpsic River, Barnet o Joes Brook, Barnet o Sleepers River, St. Johnsbury o Moose River, St. Johnsbury o Miller Run, Lyndonville o Sutton River, West Burke Paul Stream, Brunswick Nulhegan River, Bloomfield Leach Creek, Canaan Halls Stream, Beecher Falls 1 Lake Champlain Lake Champlain drains into the Richelieu River in Québec, thence into the Saint Lawrence River, and into the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. Pike River, Venise-en-Quebec, Québec Rock River, Highgate Missisquoi
    [Show full text]
  • Franklin County NRCD Natural Resources Assessment
    Franklin County NRCD Natural Resources Assessment Written by Jeannie Bartlett, District Manager Submitted March 15, 2017 Summary Every year each District in Vermont submits a Natural Resources Assessment to the Natural Resources Conservation Council. This report describes the natural features and resources of the District, how they have changed over time, and their current status. This year the District Manager has significantly updated and expanded the Franklin District’s Natural Resources Assessment. This Assessment includes information from the Tactical Basin Plans for the three major watersheds in Franklin County. Further research and interpersonal knowledge of the District will lead to updates and improvements in the coming years. This Assessment begins by laying out the legal and organizational definitions and context for the Franklin County NRCD. We then give the basic geospatial definition of the District, and a basic outline of the watersheds included. A couple of maps help illustrate the watersheds in the District. The next section tells the early history of the landbase, from the most recent glaciation up to European arrival. Future Assessments may add content covering European settlement and industrialization up through the present, as the history of land use provides important context for our use of it today. Next we give an assessment of the District’s natural resources in a few categories: soil, water, air, animals, wetlands, and hydrology. The next major section summarizes priority actions to improve the state of our natural resources identified through the 2015 Local Working Group and the District’s relevant Tactical Basin Plans. Finally, we give a brief overview of the District’s current projects and programs Mission The mission of the Franklin County NRCD is to assist farmers, landowners, and the community of Franklin County, VT with resource conservation projects and public education.
    [Show full text]
  • Londonderry History
    PROFILE OF LONDONDERRY Prehistoric Londonderry, 12,000 BC To 1700 A.D. As the climate warmed about 13,000 years ago, the last ice age ended and the topography of Vermont was formed. Great lakes and seas were developed to the west and east of the flattened mountains we now call the Piedmont Area of Vermont. With great water masses on each side of the mountains, sediments led to fertile valleys in the lowlands and rocky terrain in the highlands. About 12,000 years ago, as the tundra–like conditions became rich farmlands and virgin timberlands, Eastern Abenaki Indians (Paleo-Indian), akin to Algonquins and Mohicans, migrated westward from Maine. Villages were ultimately established in these valleys as the tribes became the Western Abenakis. The waterways of the Connecticut River valley to the east, and the Champlain valley to the west provided easy water transportation as well as fertile lowlands to grow maize and other crops. The tributaries, such as the West, Black and White Rivers, afforded access to the Piedmont for the hunting of abundant deer, moose, otter, beaver and bear, as well as fish in the rivers. Large birch was abundant in the forests, as well as oak, maple and evergreens from which the Indians built their boats and dugout canoes, and made household vessels and utensils. Clay of the mountain valley was also abundant for making pottery. Archeological sites are common in the western and eastern valleys but have not been found in the Piedmont perhaps because the climate was too inhospitable to grow crops. The mountain valley of Londonderry served as fertile hunting grounds for Abenaki braves.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Champlain Lake Sturgeon Recovery Plan
    Acknowledgements This project was paid for in part by fishing license sales and matching Dingell-Johnson/Wallop Breaux funds available through the Federal Sportfish Restoration Act. Additional funding was provided through the State Wildlife Grant Program. I’d like to thank the many people that made this plan possible. Special thanks to Angelo Incerpi, retired fisheries director for the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, who gave me an opportunity to work with this unique fish and Dave Ravelin, a private landowner along the Winooski River, who allowed us to use his property as a staging area, saving hundreds of hours of travel time to and from sampling sites. Thanks to Michel LaHaye, who travelled from Quebec to Vermont to share his knowledge on sturgeon spawning habitat and the techniques used to collect lake sturgeon eggs and Micah Kiefer from the Conte Anadromous Research Lab (USGS) for demonstrating the surgical techniques used to implant tags in sturgeon. Many people within the department, both permanent and temporary employees, should be acknowledged for their help on the project, including but not limited to John Claussen, Rich Kirn, Eric Palmer, Shawn Good, Dave Gibson, Joel Flewelling, Jill Oudman, Steve Doyle, Joe Burt, Andy Edmunds, Ryan Smith, Jon Piper, Jason Kain, Andy Edmunds, Jay Seals, and Stephanie Pierce. Special thanks to Madeleine Lyttle and Nick Staats of the USFWS for helping with the surveys in the Lamoille and Winooski rivers and in particular the sampling for adults and eggs in the Missisquoi River. Without the help of all the people listed above the project would not have been successful.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Hydrologic Resilience: an Environmental Policy Framework Evaluating Existing Dams in Vermont
    Planning for Hydrologic Resilience: An environmental policy framework evaluating existing dams in Vermont Erik Brooks, Phebe Meyers, Amy Prescott, Ali Thompson & Amanda Warren Middlebury College Environmental Studies Senior Seminar December 2011 Executive Summary Many Vermonters advocate for in-state hydropower development because they believe that it is a renewable and sustainable source of electricity and that it can help reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. There are 1,200 dams in Vermont, and approximately 1,100 of these do not have hydropower generating capacity. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources estimates that development could produce a potential capacity of 25 MW of electricity through retrofitting some of these existing dams. While it should be a priority for the state to reduce its impact on climate change, we cannot disregard the detrimental ecological effects of dams. Dams fundamentally alter the structure and function of river ecosystems by modifying the chemical and temperature profile of rivers, blocking the movement of aquatic organisms, and disrupting nutrient transfer. This report seeks to investigate whether the environmental benefits of avoided greenhouse gas emissions are worth the detrimental ecological effects of dams in Vermont. In both the public and policy spheres, a perception exists that there is a dichotomy between planning for climate change mitigation and riverine ecosystem integrity. Many people believe that we cannot simultaneously plan for climate change mitigation and prioritize the health of Vermont’s rivers. Much of the disconnect between these two planning processes stems from the weaknesses of the current regulatory framework for evaluating the ecological effects of dams. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) implement the current regulatory framework to ensure that dams do not violate the Clean Water Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Pulp Mill Bridge Haer Vt-31
    PULP MILL BRIDGE HAER VT-31 (Paper Mill Bridge) VT-31 Seymour Street, Middlebury/Pulp Mill Bridge Road, Weybridge, spanning Otter Creek Middlebury Addison County Vermont WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240-0001 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD PULP MILL BRIDGE (Paper Mill Bridge) HAERNo.VT-31 LOCATION: Seymour Street, Middlebury/Pulp Mill Bridge Road, Weybridge, spanning Otter Creek, between Middlebury and Weybridge, Addison County, Vermont UTM: 18.646026.4876231, Middlebury, Vermont Quad. STRUCTURAL TYPE: Burr through truss covered bridge DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1854 DESIGNER/ BUILDER: Unknown PRESENT OWNER: Towns of Middlebury and Weybridge, Vermont PREVIOUS/ PRESENT USE: Vehicular bridge SIGNIFICANCE: The Pulp Mill Bridge is one of six surviving double-barrel wood covered bridges in the country. It is an integral part of the local roadway network in west-central Vermont and continues to carry heavy vehicular traffic. HISTORIAN: Researched and written by Lola Bennett, August 2003 PROJECT INFORMATION: The National Covered Bridges Recording Project is part of the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), a long-range program to document historically significant engineering and industrial works in the United States. HAER is administered by the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record, a division of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. The Federal Highway
    [Show full text]
  • St. Lawrence – Champlain Valley Ecoregion Biodiversity Conservation Plan
    St. Lawrence – Champlain Valley Ecoregion Biodiversity Conservation Plan FIRST ITERATION JULY 2002 FINAL DRAFT July 18, 2002 (minor revisions – 11/08/02) (minor edits – 5/20/03) The Nature Conservancy Authors: Elizabeth Thompson, Katherine Moss, David Hunt, Paul Novak, Eric Sorenson, Ana Ruesink, Mark Anderson, Arlene Olivero, Charles Ferree, and Shyama Khanna The Nature Conservancy gratefully acknowledges all Heritage Programs, their cooperating institutions, and other cooperators for the time and energy that has gone into collecting and maintaining the data contained in this report. This information was assembled for use by The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Heritage Network in conservation planning for the St. Lawrence – Champlain Valley Ecoregion. TABLE OF CONTENTS PARTICIPANTS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS.................................................................................. 1 A CONSERVATION VISION FOR THE ST. LAWRENCE – CHAMPLAIN VALLEY ECOREGION ............................................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 4 ECOREGIONAL PLANNING........................................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO THE ST. LAWRENCE – CHAMPLAIN VALLEY ECOREGION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Master Angler Program Annual Report
    Vermont Master Angler Program 2010 Annual Report 103 South Main St., 10 South Waterbury, VT 05671-0501 1-802-241-3700 www.vtfishandwildlife.com The Vermont Master Angler Program Vermont’s wealth of waters and abundant fish populations provide great opportunities to experience outstanding fishing. The new Vermont Master Angler Program recognizes the achievements of anglers who catch trophy-sized fish from Vermont waters and celebrates the fish’s accomplishment in surviving and growing to such an exceptional size. The Master Angler program is a length-based program that sets “trophy sized” benchmarks for 33 eligible fish species. While these trophy sized fish are a challenge to catch, they are attainable for anglers that develop the necessary knowledge and skills. The Master Angler program encourages anglers to target species that haven’t traditionally been considered sport fish. To do so, they need to grow as anglers and improve their knowledge of fish habitat, behavior, and feeding preferences and develop new skills required to target and catch these species. THE VERMONT MASTER ANGLER PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS THE DIVERSITY OF FISH SPECIES IN VERMONT WATERS THAT OFFER UNIQUE AND CHALLENGING ANGLING OPPORTUNITIES. Award Categories The program offers two award categories for adults and youths: Trophy Angler: Anglers catching a fish exceeding the minimum qualifying length in any of the 33 species categories will receive a certificate commemorating the catch. Their names and catches will also be included in the Vermont Master Angler Annual Report, posted annually on the Vermont Fish & Wildlife website. Master Angler: Anglers demonstrating the skill necessary to catch multiple species that all exceed the minimum qualifying lengths, in the same calendar year, will be recognized as “Vermont Master Anglers” and will receive a lapel pin at the end of the year.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Impervious Surfaces in the Lake Champlain Basin
    TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 76 Mapping Impervious Surfaces in the Lake Champlain Basin October 2013 Final Report Prepared by: Jarlath O’Neil-Dunne, University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Laboratory For: The Lake Champlain Basin Program and New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission This report was funded and prepared under the authority of the Lake Champlain Special Designati on Act of 1990, P.L. 101-596 and subsequent reauthorizati on in 2002 as the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Lake Champlain Basin Program Act, H. R. 1070, through the U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA grant # LC-96133701-0). Publicati on of this report does not signify that the contents necessarily refl ect the views of the states of New York and Vermont, the Lake Champ- lain Basin Program, or the U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency. The Lake Champlain Basin Program has funded more than 60 technical reports and research studies since 1991. For complete list of LCBP Reports please visit: htt p://www.lcbp.org/media-center/publicati ons-library/publicati on-database/ NEIWPCC Job Code: 0983-003-013 Project Code: L-2012-035 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM FINAL REPORT OCTOBER 22, 2013 Organization Name: University of Vermont Project Name: Mapping Impervious Surfaces in the Lake Champlain Basin NEIWPCC Job Code: 0983‐003‐013 Project Code: L‐2012‐035 Contact Information: Jarlath O'Neil‐Dunne University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Laboratory 81 Carrigan Drive, Aiken Room 205 Burlington, VT 05405 [email protected] Phone: 802‐656‐3324, Fax: 802‐656‐8683 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impervious surfaces are important anthropogenic landscape factors affecting stormwater runoff volume and water quality.
    [Show full text]