OCR Text |
Show TABLE 3.-Federal hydroelectric developments-under construction, authorized, and recommended or contemplated-Continued 1 Numbers correspond to numbers on figure 7. J BR-Bureau of Reclamation; CE-Corps of Engineers. * Initial capacity and generation at plants which include provisions for future capacity additions. * Represents the remaining capacity and incremental generation being provided at this plant. Initial unit is in operation as shown in table 1. 5 Authorized additions to present or initial capacity at projects existing or under construction. TABLE 4.-Tentative list of hydroelectric power possibilities other than at projects under construction, authorized, and recommended or contemplated 911610-51- -14 179 Ultimate Average Active No.1 Project and location River Agency * installed annual storage capacity generation capacity 1,000 kilo-Kilowatts watt hours Acre-feet Recommended or contemplated: 53 Niobrara Basin Project, Niobrara............... BR........ 47,000 206,000 .......... Nebraska. 55 Glendo, Wyoming............. North Platte............ BR........ 24,000 79,000 .......... 56 Grant, Colorado.............. North Fork South Platte.. BR........ 20,000 128,400 .......... 57 Singleton, Colorado................do................. BR........ 19, 000 134, 900 .......... 58 Shawnee, Colorado.................do................. BR........ 11,400 74,300 50,000 59 Insmont, Colorado.................do................. BR........ 14, 200 105,000 .......... 60 Crossons, Colorado.................do................. BR........ 26, 000 193,700 .......... 61 Resort Creek, Colorado.............do................ BR........ 52,000 246,100 .......... 62 Two Forks, Colorado.......... South Platte............ BR........ 116,000 206,700 400,000 63 Turks Head, Colorado..............do................ BR........ 7,200 45,600 .......... 64 Narrows, Colorado.................do................ BR........ 8, 000 24,000 .......... 65 Harlan County, Nebraska...... Republican............. CE........ 2, 500 12,000 .......... 66 Pomme de Terre, Missouri..... Pomme de Terre........ CE........ 7, 000 26, 000 122, 000 67 Stockton, Missouri............ Sac.................... CE........ 7, 000 32, 800 108, 000 68 Rich Fountain, Missouri....... Gasconade............. CE........ 40, 000 99, 000 220,000 69 Richland, Missouri.................do................ CE........ 30,000 51,000 475,000 Total......................................................... 431, 300 1, 664, 500 1, 375, 000 Ultimate Average Active Nos.1 Project and location River installed annual gen- storage capacity eration capacity ijOOO kilo-Kilowatts watt hours Acre-feet 70 Hardy, Montana......................... Missouri................. 44,600 222,000 58,500 71 Ulm, Montana...............................do.................. 48,900 244,000 1,290,000 72 Carter, Montana..............................do.................. 117, 400 583,000 127,000 73 Fort Benton, Montana.........................do.................. 48,600 242,000 11,000 74 Iliad, Montana................................do.................. 170, 000 848, 000 1, 830,000 75 Bearpaw, Montana............................do.................. 71, 000 352, 000 127, 000 76 Rocky Point, Montana.........................do.................. 97, 800 488,000 580,000 77 7 others, Montana......................... Tributaries above Three 177,800 824,000 1,924,300 Forks. 78 Yankee Jim, Montana..................... Yellowstone.............. 60,000 300,000 200,000 79 Lower Canyon, Montana.......................do.................. 120,000 540,000 1,300,000 80 Natural Bridge, Montana.................. Boulder................. 10,000 60,000 80,000 81 Beartooth Lake, Wyoming................. Beartooth Creek........... 12,000 65,000 .......... 1 Numbers correspond to numbers on figure 7. |