DOCSLIB.ORG

S. Rept. 105-44

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Calendar No. 107 105TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session SENATE 105±44 "! ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1998 JULY 10, 1997.ÐOrdered to be printed Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1004] The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1004) mak- ing appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, reports fa- vorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 1998 Budget estimates considered by Senate ................. $23,047,903,000 Amount of bill as reported to the Senate ............... 21,209,623,000 The bill as reported to the SenateÐ Below the budget estimate, 1998 ..................... 1,838,280,000 Over enacted bill, 1997 ..................................... 219,596,000 41±960 cc CONTENTS TITLE I Department of DefenseÐCivil: Department of the Army: Corps of EngineersÐCivil: Page General investigations .............................................................................. 9 Construction, general ................................................................................ 28 Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries ..................................... 46 Operation and maintenance, general ....................................................... 51 Regulatory program .................................................................................. 71 Flood control and coastal emergencies .................................................... 71 General expenses ....................................................................................... 72 TITLE II Department of the Interior: Central Utah project completion account ....................................................... 73 Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources ................................... 73 TITLE III Department of Energy: Energy Research Programs ............................................................................. 89 Solar and renewable energy ..................................................................... 89 Nuclear energy programs ......................................................................... 92 Environment, safety, and health .............................................................. 92 Magnetic fusion ......................................................................................... 93 Energy support .......................................................................................... 94 Environmental management (nondefense) ..................................................... 94 Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund ............. 95 Nuclear waste fund .......................................................................................... 95 Science ............................................................................................................... 95 High energy physics .................................................................................. 96 Nuclear physics ......................................................................................... 96 Biological and environmental research ................................................... 96 Basic energy sciences ................................................................................ 97 Other energy research programs ............................................................. 97 Departmental administration .......................................................................... 98 Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................ 98 Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 98 Atomic energy defense activities ..................................................................... 99 Power marketing administrations: Operations and maintenance, Alaska Power Administration ................ 115 Bonneville Power Administration fund ................................................... 116 Operations and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ..... 118 Operations and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration .... 118 Construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance, Western Area Power Administration .................................................................. 119 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................................ 120 TITLE IV Independent Agencies: Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................. 138 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................................ 138 Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..................................................................... 138 (2) 3 Page Independent AgenciesÐContinued Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 139 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ......................................................... 139 Tennessee Valley Authority ............................................................................. 139 TITLE V General provisions ................................................................................................... 141 Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate ................................................................................................................... 141 Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate ................................................................................................................... 142 Budgetary impact statement .................................................................................. 144 4 PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for the fiscal year 1998 beginning October 1, 1997, and ending September 30, 1998, 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- tionsÐU.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 (except for fossil fuel programs and certain conservation and regu- latory functions), including environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic energy defense activities in title III; and for related independent agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission and Appalachian regional devel- opment programs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority in title IV. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The fiscal year 1998 budget estimates for the bill total $23,047,903,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The rec- ommendation of the Committee totals $21,209,623,000. This is $1,838,280,000 below the budget estimates and $219,596,000 over the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. SUBCOMMITTEE BUDGET ALLOCATION The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee allocation under section 602(b)(1) of the Budget Act totals $20,842,000,000 in budget authority and $20,883,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998. The bill as recommended by the Committee is within the sub- committee allocation for fiscal year 1998 in budget authority and outlays. The Committee allocation for nondefense discretionary funding for fiscal year 1998 continues the downward trend experience for the past several years. For fiscal year 1998, the allocation has been reduced about $310,000,000 below the President's budget request for 1998, excluding the late budget amendment which reduced the Corps of Engineers funding by $330,000,000. With the severely lim- ited resources and the heightened expectation created by a new Water Resources Development Act and the expanded wastewater and ground water reuse authorization which passed late last year, the Committee has been faced with an overwhelming number of re- quests for funding to initiate work on new projects and studies for the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. To complicate matters further, severely constrained budget tar- gets within the executive branch have forced both the Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation to significantly lengthen project comple- tion schedules envisioned last year. The effect of this action, while reducing the funding needs for fiscal year 1998, has created a situ- ation in which sizable additional funding is needed on many ongo- ing projects to keep up with previous construction schedules. To cite one example, the Los Angeles Harbor project in California was included in the budget at $16,100,000, but the Corps has informed the Committee that $60,000,0000 is needed to continue the project 5 at an optimum rate. This $44,000,000 difference is caused by the lack of budgetary resources for the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. There are several critical lock and dam replacement projects on the Nation's inland waterway system which the Com- mittee has not been able to recommend for construction because their large estimated project cost makes it extremely difficult to ac- commodate the annual funding requirements in future years. These are just two examples of many items which contribute significantly to the national economy, that the Committee has not been able to fully support in the
Recommended publications
  • KR/KL Burbot Conservation Strategy

    KR/KL Burbot Conservation Strategy

    January 2005 Citation: KVRI Burbot Committee. 2005. Kootenai River/Kootenay Lake Conservation Strategy. Prepared by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho with assistance from S. P. Cramer and Associates. 77 pp. plus appendices. Conservation strategies delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and maintain species and populations that have been recognized as imperiled, but not federally listed as threatened or endangered under the US Endangered Species Act. This Strategy resulted from cooperative efforts of U.S. and Canadian Federal, Provincial, and State agencies, Native American Tribes, First Nations, local Elected Officials, Congressional and Governor’s staff, and other important resource stakeholders, including members of the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative. This Conservation Strategy does not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of all individuals or agencies involved with its formulation. This Conservation Strategy is subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of conservation tasks. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho would like to thank the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) and the KVRI Burbot Committee for their contributions to this Burbot Conservation Strategy. The Tribe also thanks the Boundary County Historical Society and the residents of Boundary County for providing local historical information provided in Appendix 2. The Tribe also thanks Ray Beamesderfer and Paul Anders of S.P. Cramer and Associates for their assistance in preparing this document. Funding was provided by the Bonneville Power Administration through the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, and by the Idaho Congressional Delegation through a congressional appropriation administered to the Kootenai Tribe by the Department of Interior.
  • Hydropower Resource Assessment at Non-Powered Usace Sites

    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.
  • The Shopper 05-02-18

    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.
  • Lake Koocanusa, High Level Assessment of a Proposed

    Lake Koocanusa, High Level Assessment of a Proposed

    BGC ENGINEERING INC. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES LAKE KOOCANUSA HIGH LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF A PROPOSED DAM FINAL DRAFT PROJECT NO.: 0466001 DATE: November 19, 2020 BGC ENGINEERING INC. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY Suite 500 - 980 Howe Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6Z 0C8 Telephone (604) 684-5900 Fax (604) 684-5909 November 19, 2020 Project No.: 0466001 Kathy Eichenberger, Executive Director Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources PO Box 9314, Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9N1 Dear Kathy, Re: Lake Koocanusa, High Level Assessment of a Proposed Dam – FINAL DRAFT BGC is pleased to provide the Ministry of Mines, Energy and Petroleum Resources with the following FINAL DRAFT report. The report details an assessment of a proposed dam on Lake Koocanusa, in southeastern British Columbia. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned at 604-629-3850. Yours sincerely, BGC ENGINEERING INC. per: Hamish Weatherly, M.Sc., P.Geo. Principal Hydrologist Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Lake Koocanusa November 19, 2020 High Level Assessment of a Proposed Dam – FINAL DRAFT Project No.: 0466001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Libby Dam is a 129 m high concrete gravity dam located on the Kootenay River near Libby, Montana. The dam was completed in 1973 and was first filled in 1974, inundating the Kootenay River valley to form the 145 km long Koocanusa Reservoir (Lake Koocanusa). Canadian residents and water users are affected by changes in the Libby Dam operations that affect reservoir water levels, as nearly half (70 km) of the reservoir extends into southeastern British Columbia.
  • Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of Burbot Stocks in the Kootenai River Basin of British Columbia, Montana, and Idaho

    Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of Burbot Stocks in the Kootenai River Basin of British Columbia, Montana, and Idaho

    Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:868-874, 1999 © Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 1999 Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of Burbot Stocks in the Kootenai River Basin of British Columbia, Montana, and Idaho VAUGHN L. PARAGAMIAN Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 2750 Kathleen Avenue, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815, USA MADISON S. POWELL* AND JOYCE C. FALER Aquaculture Research Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-2260, USA Abstract.-Differences in mitochondrial haplotype frequency were examined among burbot Lota lota collected from four areas within the Kootenai River Basin of British Columbia, Montana and Idaho. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to amplify three gene regions of the mi- tochondria) genome: NADH dehydrogenase subunit 1 (ND1), NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 (ND2), and NADH dehydrogenase subunits 5 and 6 combined (ND5,6). Amplified DNA was screened for restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs). Simple haplotypes resulting from RFLPs in a single gene region were combined into composite haplotypes. The distribution of composite haplotypes and their frequencies correspond to areas of the Kootenay River basin above and below a presumptive geographic barrier, Kootenai Falls, Montana, and suggest spatially seg- regated populations. A test of geographic heterogeneity among haplotype frequency distributions was highly significant (P < 0.001) when a Monte Carlo simulation was used to approximate a X2 test. Two populations, one above and one below Kootenai Falls emerged when a neighbor-joining method was used to infer a phylogenetic tree based on estimates of nucleotide divergence between all pairs of sample locations. These analyses indicate that burbot below Kootenai Falls form a separate genetic group from burbot above the falls and further suggests that Libby Dam, which created Lake Koocanusa, is not an effective barrier segregating burbot above Kootenai Falls.
  • Lake Koocanusa Official Community Plan Bylaw No

    Lake Koocanusa Official Community Plan Bylaw No

    LAKE KOOCANUSA OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW NO. 2432, 2013 CONSOLIDATION This is a consolidation of the Lake Koocanusa Official Community Plan and adopted bylaw amendments. The amendments have been combined with the original Bylaw for convenience only. This consolidation is not a legal document. October 30, 2020 Lake Koocanusa Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2432, 2013 This is a consolidation of the Official Community Plan. This consolidated version is for convenience only and has no legal sanction. April 5, 2013 Lake Koocanusa Official Community Plan Endorsement Regional District of East Kootenay “Rob Gay” April 5, 2013 Rob Gay, Board Chair Date “Heath Slee” April 5, 2013 Heath Slee, Electoral Area B Director Date Ktunaxa Nation Council “Ray Warden” March 28, 2013 Ray Warden, Director of Ktunaxa Lands and Resources Agency Date Forest, Lands and Natural Resources Operations “Tony Wideski” March 15, 2013 Tony Wideski, Regional Executive Director – Kootenay Date BYLAW AMENDMENTS Bylaw Amend / Adopted Short Citing Legal / Zone Yr 2539 01/2014 Oct. 3/14 Medical Marihuana Text Amendment /RDEK 2771 02/2017 Aug. 4/17 Koocanusa West / Designation of Part of Wentzell Lot 1, DL 11493, Plan 16032 RR to CR 2921 03/2019 Jun. 7/19 Sweetwater / KV Part of Lot 2, DL Properties Inc. 10348, KD, Plan EPP14443 C to R-SF 2973 04/2019 Jul. 3/20 Sweetwater / KV Part of Lot 2, DL Properties Inc. 10348, KD, Plan EPP14443 C to R-SF REGIONAL DISTRICT OF EAST KOOTENAY BYLAW NO. 2432 A bylaw to adopt an Official Community Plan for the Lake Koocanusa area. WHEREAS the Board of the Regional District of East Kootenay deems it necessary to adopt an official community plan in order to ensure orderly development of the Lake Koocanusa area; NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Regional District of East Kootenay, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: Title 1.
  • Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review

    Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review 1 he Columbia River Treaty History of the Treaty T between the United States and The Columbia River, the fourth largest river on the continent as measured by average annual fl ow, Canada has served as a model of generates more power than any other river in North America. While its headwaters originate in British international cooperation since 1964, Columbia, only about 15 percent of the 259,500 square miles of the Columbia River Basin is actually bringing signifi cant fl ood control and located in Canada. Yet the Canadian waters account for about 38 percent of the average annual volume, power generation benefi ts to both and up to 50 percent of the peak fl ood waters, that fl ow by The Dalles Dam on the Columbia River countries. Either Canada or the United between Oregon and Washington. In the 1940s, offi cials from the United States and States can terminate most of the Canada began a long process to seek a joint solution to the fl ooding caused by the unregulated Columbia provisions of the Treaty any time on or River and to the postwar demand for greater energy resources. That effort culminated in the Columbia River after Sept.16, 2024, with a minimum Treaty, an international agreement between Canada and the United States for the cooperative development 10 years’ written advance notice. The of water resources regulation in the upper Columbia River U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Basin.
  • 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

    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.
  • Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study Report

    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
  • Nngmeional Ruord

    Nngmeional Ruord

    Vol. 129 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1983 @nngmeionalRuo rd United States of America .__ -- .. ,- PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 9@ CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION United States Government Printing Office SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS Washmgton, D C 20402 Postage and Fees Pad OFFICIAL BUSINESS U S Government Prlnhng 0ffv.X Penalty Ior pwate use. $xX 375 Congresstonal Record SECOND CLASS NEWSPAPER (USPS 087-390) H.4578 ’ C.QNGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 28, 1983 H.J. Res. 273: Mr. BOUND. Mr. W~.XMAN. gress which states the following .after the the Congress BPPrOres the regulation which Mr. OBERSTAR,Mr. BEDELL. Mr. BONER of resolving clause: “That the Congress ap- was promulgated by the-consumer Product Tennessee, Mr. OWENS. Mr. DAUB, Mr. Proves the consumer product safety rule Safety Commission under section of CONTE. Mr. RAHALL; Mr. GRAY, Mr. VANDER which was promulgated by the Consumer the Federal Hazardous Substances Act with JACT. Mr. TRAKLER,and Mr. Vxrrro. Product Safety Commission with respect to respect to and which was transmitted H. Con. Res. 107: Mr. KASICH. Mr. and which was transmitted to the Con- to the Congress on “. with the blank AUCOIN. Mr. CARPER,and Mr. SIZHFIJER. gress on “, with the blank spaces spaces being filled in appropriately: and . H. Con. Res. 118: Mr. FISH. Mr. LANTOS. being filled in appropriately: (3) in the case of a regulation promulgat. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. BRITT. Mr. (2) in the case of a regulation promulgat- ed under section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics BEDELL. Mr. RANGLZ, Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. ed under section 2(q)(l) or 3te) of the Feder- Act, means a joint resolution of the Con- STUDDS.
  • 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

    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 ........................................................................................................................................................
  • Investigating Tradeoffs Between Flood Control and Ecological Flow Benefits in the Connecticut River Basin Jocelyn Anleitner

    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.