Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002917 <br /> <br />Chapter 2 <br />River Conditions and Associated State <br />Protection Efforts <br /> <br />Table 2.1: Water Project Developments Since Federal Study <br /> <br />River <br /> <br />Buffalo <br />(Tenn) <br /> <br />Gasconade <br />(Mo,) <br /> <br />Housatonic <br />(Conn,) <br /> <br />Illinois <br />(Okla.) <br /> <br />John Day <br />(Oreg.) <br /> <br />Ketlle <br />(Minn.) <br /> <br />Penobscot <br />(Maine) <br /> <br />Pine Creek <br />(Penn.) <br /> <br />Shepaug <br />(Conn.) <br /> <br />Suwannee <br />(Fla. and Ga.) <br />Upper Iowa <br />(Iowa) <br />Wisconsin <br />(Wis) <br /> <br />Youghiogheny <br />(Md. and Pa.) <br /> <br />Type of new water projects <br />None <br /> <br />Affect flow <br />conditions? <br /> <br />Considered <br />threat to <br />river's <br />qualities? <br />No <br /> <br />Status <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />Modernize and expand eXisting hydropower <br />dams at Falls Village and Bulls Bridge <br /> <br />Modify existIng Lake Frances Dam for <br />hydropower <br /> <br />Two water supply Impoundments proposed <br />al Eldon and Tahlequah <br /> <br />Small streambank stabllizations <br /> <br />Planned-FERC permit applied for In 1985 <br /> <br />No' <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />Unknown <br /> <br />Unknownb <br /> <br />Planned-FERC issued preliminary study <br />permits in 1985 <br /> <br />Legislature approved, but construction <br />unlikely <br /> <br />Constructed under state regulations <br /> <br />Yes <br /> <br />Yese <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />Reactivate hydropower on existing state- <br />owned Sandstone Dam <br />None <br /> <br />Planned-FERC issued permit in 1982. Dam No <br />needs repair-state may demolish. <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />Hydropower reactivated on existing Bantam <br />Dam after modernization <br />Water supply diversion being studied <br />None <br /> <br />NOd <br /> <br />Constructed and operating since 1981 No <br /> <br />Under study by regional and sfare agencies Yes <br /> <br />Possiblye <br />No <br /> <br />None, but state plans to remove partially <br />demolished dam <br /> <br />None, but state wants to modify upstream <br />dam operations to Improve condllions on <br />scenic corridor <br /> <br />Borough to modify existing Corps of <br />Engmeers flood control dam in Pa. to <br />produce hydropower <br /> <br />Planned <br /> <br />Yes (improve) <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />Addressed in state's draft mgt. plan <br /> <br />Yes (improve) <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />Planned-FERC issued license in 1985. <br />Project design not finalized. <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />aAllhough the utllity company plans to utilize the same flow conditions to operate Ihe modernized and <br />expanded Falls Village and Bulls Bridge dams, a conservation group official said thatlhe Bulls Bridge <br />Dam would reduce downstream flow to below.mlnimum levels reqUired to sustain fisheries Utility com- <br />pany and local oHicials staled the projects will not alter existing flow conditions or river values. <br />bBecause the permillee has not yet presenled the projecrs design proposal to the Ok.lahoma Water <br />Resources Board. no Information IS available on how the hydropower modification Will allect down- <br />stream scenIc. river values. <br /> <br />CThe slate legislature in 1980 approved two major water supply impoundments on the illinoIs as part ot a <br />comprehensive water supply plan However, a state official told us that many other alternatives were <br />identified on other rivers, and it IS unlikely the state would dam the Illinois, a popular. state-designated <br />scenic river. <br /> <br />Page 24 <br /> <br />GAOjRCED-87-39 Wild and Scenic Rivers <br />