DOCSLIB.ORG

Calendar No. 104

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Calendar No. 104 Calendar No. 104 111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 111–45 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010 JULY 9, 2009.—Ordered to be printed Mr. DORGAN, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1436] The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1436) mak- ing appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 0000) making appropriations for energy and water develop- ment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an amendment, and an amendment to the title, and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2010 Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $34,271,000,000 Amount of 2009 appropriations ............................... 92,533,165,000 Amount of 2010 budget estimate ............................ 34,914,709,000 Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 2009 appropriations .......................................... ¥58,262,165,000 2010 budget estimate ........................................ ¥643,709,000 50–870 PDF CONTENTS Page Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Estimates and Recommendations ..................................................... 4 Title I: Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers—Civil: General Investigations ....................................................................... 16 Construction, General ........................................................................ 32 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries ........................... 50 Operation and Maintenance, General .............................................. 52 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................................... 73 Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 74 General Expenses ............................................................................... 74 General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil .............................. 76 Title II: Department of the Interior: Central Utah Project Completion Account .............................................. 78 Bureau of Reclamation: Water and Related Resources ........................................................... 78 Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ......................................... 86 California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 86 Policy and Administration ................................................................. 86 General Provisions—Department of the Interior .................................... 87 Title III: Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................... 89 Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ..................................... 96 Nuclear Energy .................................................................................. 97 Fossil Energy Research and Development ....................................... 100 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ........................................ 102 Strategic Petroleum Reserve ............................................................. 102 Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve .............................................. 102 Energy Information Administration ................................................. 103 Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................... 103 Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .. 104 Science ........................................................................................................ 104 High Energy Physics .......................................................................... 105 Nuclear Physics .................................................................................. 105 Biological and Environmental Research .......................................... 105 Basic Energy Sciences ....................................................................... 105 Nuclear Waste Disposal ............................................................................ 108 Departmental Administration .................................................................. 109 Office of Inspector General ....................................................................... 109 Atomic Energy Defense Activities: National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons Activities ...................................................................... 110 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................. 115 Naval Reactors ............................................................................ 117 Office of the Administrator ........................................................ 118 Environmental and Other Defense Activities: Defense Environmental Cleanup ...................................................... 118 Other Defense Activities .................................................................... 121 Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ...................................................... 121 Power Marketing Administrations: Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Adminis- tration ....................................................................................... 122 (2) 3 Page Title III—Continued Department of Energy—Continued Environmental and Other Defense Activities—Continued Power Marketing Administrations—Continued Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Adminis- tration ....................................................................................... 122 Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ..................................... 122 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses .. 123 General Provisions—Department of Energy ........................................... 154 Title IV: Independent Agencies: Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 155 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................................. 155 Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... 156 Denali Commission ................................................................................... 156 Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................. 156 Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 157 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board .................................................. 157 Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector General ................. 157 General Provision—Independent Agencies ............................................. 158 Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 159 Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate ................................................................................................................... 160 Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate ................................................................................................................... 160 Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate ................................................................................................................... 161 Budgetary Impact Statement ................................................................................. 166 Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items ...................................... 166 Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 230 PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for the fiscal year 2010 beginning October 1, 2009, and ending September 30, 2010, for energy and water development, and for other related pur- poses. It supplies funds for water resources development programs and related activities of the Department of the Army, Civil Func- tions—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the Department of Energy’s energy research activities, including environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration in title III; and for related independent agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The fiscal year 2010 budget estimates for the bill total $34,914,709,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The rec- ommendation of the Committee totals $34,271,000,000. This is $643,709,000 below the budget estimates and $58,262,165,000 below the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held three sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2010 appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hydropower Resource Assessment at Non-Powered Usace Sites
    HYDROPOWER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AT NON-POWERED USACE SITES Prepared by the Hydropower Analysis Center for USACE Headquarters July 2013 Final Report Hydropower Resource Assessment at Non-Powered USACE Sites EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the largest owner-operator of hydropower plants in the United States, with 75 plants and an installed capability of 21,000 megawatts (MW), or about 24% of the total hydroelectric capacity. This report describes a national hydropower resource assessment study that assessed the potential and economic feasibility of adding hydroelectric power to these non- powered USACE projects over a 50-year period of analysis. Site Selection In selecting non-powered USACE projects with hydropower potential, the study employed a 2012 report by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) that identified the hydropower potential of 54,000 non- powered dams in the United States. Among these dams, 419 were USACE non-powered dams. This number was reduced to 223 sites using the following screening, as shown on the table below. • Generate 1 MW or more of potential hydropower. • No current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license. • No obvious hindrances in developing hydropower. Distribution of USACE Sites with Potential Hydropower Capability FERC Preliminary or No FERC Permits Total Projects Pending Preliminary Permit Division Identified Total Percentage Total Percent Number of Total Number of Total Great Lakes & Ohio River (LRD) 71 40 56% 31 44% Mississippi Valley (MVD) 50 28 56% 22 44% Southwestern (SWD) 39 7 18% 32 82% North Atlantic (NAD) 21 2 10% 19 90% South Atlantic (SAD) 19 8 42% 11 58% Northwestern (NWD) 12 5 42% 7 58% South Pacific (SPD) 11 2 18% 9 82% USACE Total 223 92 41% 131 59% Data Collection To improve the study data, the daily hydraulic head and flow values for all 223 sites were obtained.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shopper 05-02-18
    56 FREE Years We’ve Acquired the Message Treat your ECRWSS PRSRT STD US Postage Mom for PAID Permit #2 North Haverhill, NH See Page 3B POSTAL CUSTOMER Our Contact Information is on Page 6A Independently Owned & Locally Operated MAY 02, 2018 | WWW.VERMONTJOURNAL.COM VOLUME 56, ISSUE 49 Apple Blossom Cotillion See Pages 8A - 10A KMA Publications Inc. Construction on Woolson acquires The Message of the Block building expected to Week start in the fall REGION – Robert Miller of 1970s. “I feel like The Message BY PATRICK ADRIAN include the Springfield Housing Au- “This is a complicated project,” KMA Publications Inc., owner and is home again, back to where it The Shopper thority, Springfield Regional Devel- Morelock told the Select Board. publisher of The Vermont Journal VermontTHE started,” he said. Miller recalled opment Corporation, Springfield on “We’ve been lucky to get partners and The Shopper, announced Fri- feeling the same way when he SPRINGFIELD, Vt. – The Wool- the Move, and several social services in this particular project. If it wasn’t day, April 27, 2018 that he has pur- purchased The Shopper back in son Block building renovation organizations. for [them] we wouldn’t be doing this chased The Message of the Week. 2009, acquiring another paper has come with hurdles, including The amendment, which the Se- project. Nobody would be doing this The sale will merge the newspa- Journal his parents had started years al- revenue shortfalls and added con- lect Board unanimously approved, project.” pers but continue to be published most 57 years ago. “I grew up in struction costs, but despite chal- changes the original loan terms from Needed architectural revisions only under The Vermont Journal & the newspaper business work- lenges developers say they expect repayment over 20 years with a one have resulted in $200,000 additional and The Shopper banners.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Deal Versus Yankee Independence: the Failure of Comprehensive Development on the Connecticut River, and Its Long-Term Consequences
    The New Deal versus Yankee independence: The failure of comprehensive development on the Connecticut River, and its long-term consequences Eve Vogel1 Department of Geosciences, UMass Amherst With assistance from Alexandra Lacy 2011 alumna (BS, Environmental Sciences), UMass Amherst Adapted from: Vogel, Eve and Alexandra Lacy. Forthcoming. The New Deal versus Yankee independence: The failure of comprehensive development on the Connecticut River, and its long-term consequences. The Northeastern Geographer 4 (2) Introduction For a person familiar with federal dams on major rivers in the American West or South, a visit to an Army Corps of Engineers dam in New England’s largest river basin, the Connecticut, can be a startling experience. Instead of an extended reservoir, one looks down from the empty heights and on both sides sees only a small river far below. Nor is there the fanfare – the visitors center, the historical information, the celebratory propaganda. Simply finding one of the Connecticut River’s federal dams can take some effort. None are on the mainstem. One must drive through the bucolic New England byways and forested hills to find a dam on a tributary (See Figure 1). For New Englanders, the near-invisibility of federal dams may not seem surprising. New England’s history and identity, including the Connecticut Valley’s, seem to rest with the small- to medium-scale development of rivers with mill dams during the 17th thru 19th centuries (e.g. Delaney 1983; Steinberg 1991). It might be more startling for many to learn that during the mid- twentieth century, the federal government did build a series of very large dams in the Connecticut Basin, which have had profound effect on the river.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study Report
    Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study STUDY REPORT A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation Katie Kennedy, The Nature Conservancy Kim Lutz, The Nature Conservancy Christopher Hatfield, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Leanna Martin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Townsend Barker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Richard Palmer, University of Massachusetts Amherst Luke Detwiler, University of Massachusetts Amherst Jocelyn Anleitner, University of Massachusetts Amherst John Hickey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kennedy, K., K. Lutz, C. Hatfield, L. Martin, T. Barker, R. Palmer, L. Detwiler, J. Anleitner, J. Hickey. 2018. The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study: A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation. The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and University of Massachusetts Amherst. Northampton, MA. Available: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed For a quick, easy-to-read overview of the Connecticut River Watershed Study, see our companion “Study Overview” document, available at: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed June 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices for the West, Williams and Saxtons Rivers and Adjacent Connecticut River Tributaries
    Appendices for the West, Williams and Saxtons Rivers and adjacent Connecticut River Tributaries Contents Appendices for the West, Williams and Saxtons Rivers and adjacent Connecticut River Tributaries ....................................... 1 Appendix A – Existing Uses ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Appendix B. 1 – Dams in the Basin ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Appendix B. 2 – Coordination Plan ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Appendix B – 3. How a Dam Affects a River ............................................................................................................................................................ 19 Appendix B – 4. Whitewater Paddling Releases on the West River ........................................................................................................................ 20 Appendix B – 5. VDFW Whitewater Release Memo ................................................................................................................................................ 22 Appendix C – Fisheries Assessment Summary ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Tradeoffs Between Flood Control and Ecological Flow Benefits in the Connecticut River Basin Jocelyn Anleitner
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Environmental & Water Resources Engineering Civil and Environmental Engineering Masters Projects 5-2014 Investigating Tradeoffs Between Flood Control And Ecological Flow Benefits in the Connecticut River Basin Jocelyn Anleitner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cee_ewre Part of the Environmental Engineering Commons Anleitner, Jocelyn, "Investigating Tradeoffs Between Flood Control And Ecological Flow Benefits in the onneC cticut River Basin" (2014). Environmental & Water Resources Engineering Masters Projects. 64. https://doi.org/10.7275/8vfa-s912 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Environmental & Water Resources Engineering Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INVESTIGATING TRADEOFFS BETWEEN FLOOD CONTROL AND ECOLOGICAL FLOW BENEFITS IN THE CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN A Master’s Project Presented By: Jocelyn Anleitner Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Engineering April 2014 INVESTIGATING TRADEOFFS BETWEEN FLOOD CONTROL AND ECOLOGICAL FLOW BENEFITS IN THE CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN A Master's Project Presented by JOCELYN ANLEITNER Approved as to style and content by: ~~tor Civil and Environmental Engineering Department ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank The Nature Conservancy (TNC) for funding this work through the Connecticut River Project. This work would not have been possible without, not only their funding, but the support and expertise they have provided.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL REPORT 7 Hazen Drive, PO Box 483 Concord, NH 03302-0483 14
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Gov. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-NH-RD-14282F Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Estimation of Flood Discharges at Selected Recurrence Intervals for Streams in New 2008 Hampshire 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Scott A. Olson 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) U. S. Geological Survey New Hampshire-Vermont Water Science Center 361 Commerce Way Pembroke, NH 03275 11. Contract or Grant No. 14282F, X-A000 (601) 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered New Hampshire Department of Transportation FINAL REPORT 7 Hazen Drive, PO Box 483 Concord, NH 03302-0483 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes In cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract This report provides estimates of flood discharges at selected recurrence intervals for streamgages in and adjacent to New Hampshire and equations for estimating flood discharges at recurrence intervals of 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-years for ungaged, unregulated, rural streams in New Hampshire. The equations were developed using generalized least-squares regression. Flood-frequency and drainage-basin characteristics from 117 streamgages were used in developing the equations. The drainage-basin characteristics used as explanatory variables in the regression equations include drainage area, mean April precipitation, percentage of wetland area, and main channel slope. The average standard error of prediction for estimating the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year recurrence interval flood discharges with these equations are 30.0, 30.8, 32.0, 34.2, 36.0, 38.1, and 43.4 percent, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Update Report for Vermont
    Update Report for Vermont Current as of 696 Virginia Road, Concord, Massachusetts 01742-2751 August 31, 2020 Public Affairs Office, 978-318-8264 Home Page: www.nae.usace.army.mil Mission Index Both the New England and New York districts of the U.S. Army Corps of • Defense Environmental Engineers (Corps) provide service to the residents of the Green Mountain state. Restoration Program New England District (District) is responsible for all civil works activities within the (DERP) Connecticut River Basin, while New York District handles activities in the Lake • Environmental Restoration Champlain drainage area (https://www.nan.usace.army.mil/). The District is responsible for the entire state for the Regulatory and Defense Environmental • Flood Damage Reduction Restoration Programs, all Emergency Operations and is the Corps’ lead for the Planning Assistance to States Program. This division of responsibility between • Flood Plain Management the New York and New England districts is seamless to our stakeholders because the Corps strives to provide access to all our capabilities through a "One-Door- • Flood Risk Management to-the-Corps" policy. Unless specifically noted, all activities included in this report are managed by the New England District. • Interagency and International Support The missions of the District include flood risk management, emergency • Mission preparedness and response to natural disasters and national emergencies, environmental remediation and restoration, natural resource management, • Natural Resources streambank and shoreline protection, navigation maintenance and improvement, Management support to military facilities and installations, and engineering and construction support to other government agencies. The six New England states cover 66,000 • Navigation square miles and have 6,100 miles of coastline, 170 federal navigation projects (13 deep draft commercial waterways), 13 major river basins, and thousands of • Planning Assistance miles of navigable rivers and streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation in Operational Objectives and Associated Biophysical Effects, with Focus on Northern New England
    Variation in Operational Objectives and Associated Biophysical Effects, with Focus on Northern New England Mike Burke, Nick Nelson, and Kristen Coveleski Motivations • Explore dam operations and associated biophysical effects • Explore regional trends in dam operational objectives and characteristics • Review selected screening-level tools for assessing potential for impacts. Outline • Concepts of Operational Effects • Regional Trends • Case Study Operational Effects Adapted from Burke et al. 2009 Operational Effects Source: Grant et al. 2003 Source: Poff et al. 1997 Regional Trends • Active Dams • Maine: 616 • New Hampshire: 2615 • Vermont: 650 Data from most recent online dam safety data GIS coverages for each state. Regional Trends • Active Dams • Maine: 616 • New Hampshire: 2615 • Vermont: 650 ME NH VT Hydropower 82 119 85 Water Supply 64 66 41 Flood Control664615 Recreation 229 1215 277 Other 175 1169 232 Detention 251 Conservation/Ag 635 Fire Protection 200 Regional Trends • Active Dams • Maine: 616 • New Hampshire: 2615 • Vermont: 650 ME NH VT Hydropower 82 119 85 Water Supply 64 66 41 Flood Control664615 Recreation 229 1215 277 Other 175 1169 232 Detention 251 Conservation/Ag 635 Fire Protection 200 Regional Trends Height ME NH VT 0‐25 161 146 70 26‐50 39 55 43 50‐100 10 25 14 101‐150 2 5 5 151‐260 1 2 5 Case Study • West River, Vermont • 423 mi2 tributary to the Connecticut • Flood Control Act 1961 • Ball Mountain Dam • 93,000 Ac Ft Storage • 260 ft height • 172 mi2 • Townshend Dam • 56,000 Ac Ft Storage • 133 ft height • 278
    [Show full text]
  • John H. Mcgrane, P.E. John Mcgrane Is a Professional Engineer With
    John H. McGrane, P.E. Senior Professional John McGrane is a Professional Engineer with technical and management experience in infrastructure operations and related capital projects. Having served in engineering and construction administration EDUCATION M.S., Management, Rensselaer positions with both private and public sector entities, Mr. McGrane has Polytechnic Institute a unique perspective on implementation of infrastructure projects. Mr. B.S., Civil Engineering, University of McGrane also has an extensive background in street and utility Connecticut engineering; urban and suburban land development; and electric power plant construction. EXPERIENCE IN THE INDUSTRY 36 years Prior to joining GEI in April, 2011, Mr. McGrane held positions with the City of Hartford, CT Department of Public Works, most recently EXPERIENCE WITH GEI as its Assistant Director/City Engineer, and Director of the Greater 3 year(s) Hartford Flood Commission. As City Engineer, Mr. McGrane REGISTRATIONS AND LICENSES managed DPW’s Capital Improvement Program, which had a budget Professional Engineer, CT No. 13678 of up to $40 Million annually. This included authority for infrastructure design and construction, contract administration, and long-range capital planning for streets, drainage, bridges, and flood control projects. As lead technical professional in Connecticut’s capital city, Mr. McGrane had a visible presence in the general public, and achieved a sound reputation for integrity, accurate project representation, and effective public communications. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Levee Civil Work Repair Project, Town of East Hartford, East Hartford, CT. Mr. McGrane served as GEI’s project manager for three separate construction administration contracts for Rehabilitation of Flood Control Pump Stations, Connecticut River Sheet Pile Bulkhead and Tie-back Installation, and General Levee Civil Works Repairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Steampunk Odyssey Blends Absinthe, Art, and the Charm of Vermont
    contest winner WE WILL BE CLOSED LABOR DAY! facebook contest ECRWSS August 23 - 29 PRSRT STD Early US Postage FREE Coupon to 56 Main Deadline Fill in the Blank to our PAID Street Restaruant goes to Post. You could win a Permit #90 Aug. 31 FREE Coupon to White River Jct., VT Mona Frye! The Fullerton Inn! POSTAL CUSTOMER FREE AUGUST 23, 2017 | WWW.VERMONTJOURNAL.COM VOLUME 17, ISSUE 34 Steampunk odyssey blends The annual Reinbow Riding absinthe, art, and the charm Center Summer Palooza of Vermont embarks for a great cause BY KIRBY DONOHUE BY KAREN ENGDAHL him with the Steam- The Vermont Journal The Vermont Journal punk movement. Absinthe, the se- BELMONT, Vt. - On Saturday, CHESTER, Vt. - When New ductive green po- Aug. 19, the cardboard regatta York City-based designer, guitar tion distilled from kicked off the Summer Palooza. maker, and absinthe expert Scott wormwood and other The family fun unfolded on Star MacDonald arrived in Springfield herbs, has long been Lake. Children sailed the creative for the first Steampunk Festival associated with the boats they crafted from cardboard in 2015, he had no plans to up- Belle Epoque era in and duct tap. root his family and his business to France - a time period Connor and Caleb Reynolds move to an isolated Vermont farm. roughly correlating to won 1st place, for their boat Now, with the third annual Steam- the Gilded Age in the named the Shark. Tug-of-war ral- punk Festival on the horizon, he U.S. (1870s-1914, the lied after the regatta.
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Areas of Vermont Streams Technical Guide Referenc E Engineering # 8
    Drainage Areas of Vermont Streams Technical Guide Reference Engineering # 8 D R A I N A G E A R E A S O F V E R M O N T S T R E A M S ( Note: Drainage areas or lengths of streams followed by an asterisk (* ) denotes only the amount of either which lies within the boundaries of Vermont.) Under remarks column, the name of the agency responsible for the computation is given. The following abbreviations are used. U.S.G.S, for United States Geological Survey. DWR for Vermont Department of Water Resources, or It’s Predecessor, the Vermont Water Conservation Board. By: Donald W. Webster Water Resource Engineer Prepared 1962, Retyped November 2004 1 Drainage Areas of Vermont Streams Major Stream Name Page Deerfield River 3 Falls River 3 West River 4 Saxton River 5 Williams River 6 Black River (Springfield) 6 Ottaquechee River 8 White River 9 Ompampanoosac 13 Waits River 13 Wells River 14 Passumpsic River 15 Nulhegan River 18 Clyde River 19 Barton River 20 Black River (Newport) 21 Missisquoi River 21 Lamoille River 24 Winooski River 27 Otter Creek 31 Poultney River 33 Batten Kill 34 2 Drainage Areas of Vermont Streams Miles Drainage Length of Above Area Stream Stream Name Location Mouth (Sq. Mi.) (Miles) Remarks Deerfield River Whitingham State Line 223.5* 30* DWR Harriman Deerfield River Whitingham Reservior 184 DWR West Branch Deerfield River Readsboro @ Mouth 33 11 DWR-DWW North Branch Deerfield River Wilmington @ Mouth 42 13 DWR-DWW Binney Brook Wilmington @ Mouth 4.5 3.5 DWR-DWW Beaver Brook Wilmington @ Mouth 8.3 5 DWR-DWW Cold Brook Wilmington @ Mouth 10 4.5 DWR-DWW Bill Brook Wilmington @ Mouth 8 2 DWR-DWW Bill Brook Wilmington 0.9 DWR-DWW Lake Rapon Ellis Brook Dover @ Mouth 9 4 DWR-DWW Blue Brook Dover @ Mouth 4 4 DWR-DWW East Branch Deerfield River Searsburg @ Mouth 40 15 DWR Rake Branch Searsburg @ Mouth 16.5 4 DWR-DWW Redfield Brook Woodford @ Mouth 7 3.5 DWR-DWW Castle Brook Somerset @ Mouth 4.5 3.5 DWR-DWW Note: Additional streams which drain into the Deerfield River, but enter into that Stream in Mass.
    [Show full text]