Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0013G2 <br /> <br />people of the area and the Nation. <br /> <br />Such an approach ignores <br /> <br />the clear mandate of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act which <br /> <br />directs that such designations are to complement, not supercede <br /> <br />or replace, the established national policy of dam and other <br /> <br />construction. <br /> <br />Such predetermination of the result is evidenced, <br /> <br />in part, by the following: <br /> <br />a) At the outset of the September 22, 1979, <br /> <br />public meeting above referred to, NPS officials announced <br /> <br />they welcomed the opportunity to discuss with the River <br /> <br />District Board the upstream development plans of that Board, <br /> <br />because they had been unable to ascertain all that was <br /> <br />needed to be known about such plans, and particularly, the. <br /> <br />Juniper-Cross Mountain Hydroelectric Project. As here <br /> <br />demonstrated this assertion of lack of knowledge or lack of <br /> <br />availability thereof was simply not true. <br /> <br />1) In response to inquiry from FPC (now FERC) <br /> <br />for a review of the River District's application <br /> <br />for preliminary permit for the Juniper-Cross <br /> <br />}10untain Project, the Secretary of .the Interior on <br /> <br />January 14, 1976, inter alia, said: <br /> <br />"Moreover the Yampa River, the las.t free-flowing <br />tributary to the Colorado River System, is also <br />proposed for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic <br />Rivers System. Construction of dams upstream <br />from the proposed area would grea.tly alter the <br />natuial features and processes which qualify the <br />Yampa for inclusion in the system. (Emphasis <br />supplied) . <br /> <br />-5- <br />