My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II Appendix K, Part 1
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II Appendix K, Part 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2013 3:47:00 PM
Creation date
2/27/2013 1:09:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
related to the Platte River Endangered Species Partnership (aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program or PRRIP)
State
NE
Basin
North Platte
Date
7/1/1998
Author
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Office of Hydropower Licensing
Title
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - Volume II, Appendix K, Part 1 - Kingsley Dam (FERC Project No. 1417) and North Platte/Keystone Dam (FERC Project No. 1835) Projects, Nebraska, FERC/FEIS-0063
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
551
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
N <br />00 <br />COMMENTS OF CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER AND <br />IRRIGATION DISTRICT <br />Projects, calling a halt only when the financial collapse of <br />at least one of the licensees would result. <br />CEN -9 a. The Public Interest Balance of Section <br />10(a) Dictates Rejecting Section 10 H ) <br />Recommendations which DisyroDortionately <br />Burden the Districts <br />FERC Staff is not required to <br />participate in a "get everything possible from Central and <br />NPPD° approach to resolving the basin's environmental <br />concerns; in fact, under section 10(a) of the FPA, it cannot <br />do so. While section 10(j) of the FPA mandates some <br />deference to resource agencies' recommendations, it does not <br />require FERC to implement those found inconsistent with the <br />remainder of the FPA.50' FERC Staff has already exerted <br />this authority in declining to adopt DOI's recommendations <br />to the extent they compromise financial viability and so <br />jeopardize the benefits of a multiple use facility.sl' <br />Economic ruin should not be the only criterion for <br />.rejecting section 10(j) recommendations as inconsistent with <br />the FPA; both section 4(e)'s requirement for "equal <br />L01 16 U.S.C. 5 803(j); 18 C.F.R. 4.34(e). One court has <br />clearly confirmed that "rtihe ECPA amendments do not give <br />environmental factors preemptive force. . . . While the <br />Commission must address each recommendation, the discretion <br />ultimately vests in the Commission as how to incorporate <br />each recommendation. If we read the statute any other way, <br />the Commission would be held hostage to every agency <br />recommendation. " United crates Degt of Interior v <br />FERC, 952 F.2d 538, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (quoting National <br />Wildlife Fed'n v FERC, 912 F.2d 1471, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1990) <br />(emphasis added). <br />1' ;>M RDEIS at 5 -40, 5 -46. <br />- 26 - <br />RESPONSES TO CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER AND <br />IRRIGATION DISTRICT <br />CEN -9 Central's explanation of the Commission's responsibilities under the <br />Federal Power Act is noted. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.