|
<br />Lfj
<br />a:
<br />l'"
<br />-
<br />
<br />Noy.H.twej f- {Jo-
<br />-:t'.j Ij PrfSJ
<br />po..~ ON..
<br />
<br />2;'" The Daily Pill.. - Monday, AprIl 27, 1981
<br />.FERC schedule allows
<br />_ _ _ _, __. ~ ,1.... I
<br />18 months. for hearing
<br />. .
<br />
<br />(
<br />
<br />~:.
<br />
<br />Continued frOm Page 1. a.ay.hOm. corniltjy oehOduled
<br />Diltrict Ii eontemDI tile FEae projectlud cenceatrate OD tbe
<br />timetable. "Cro.1 Mountain area. But the
<br />:.._._' ~ ~e. River Dittriet BU'-wantl to work within the
<br />reprMDtative from Moffat FERe timetable ud .om. BLM
<br />County, said Frida, the FERe oHielala are uncertain of the
<br />Ithedal. ..ha. alloted 18 month. FERC's echedule for isluing the
<br />from. AUlDst 1982 to February' JuDiper.cresl"MoUDyiD license
<br />~1984 for I hearing before an ad- and thUI unsute of how to
<br />. miDiltraUve la. judge. "'We budpt their workers Ume.
<br />doo't thipk that i. lOiDg to be "If we .re-trying to cooperate
<br />\- -Dec:.oSlary,"Pughuaid.. . . _withtbemIFERCI,tbenwebave
<br />! An administrative law judge' jot ,to meith those IChedulell,"
<br />comel in to tbe lieeDIe; appUca. ..id CanoU ,Levitt. - lID area
<br />- tion after the EDvirottmenLallm- mUll.ger in the Craig DilItrict.
<br />pact Btat-emnt h... . been The River District has pro-
<br />prepared'- "$vidence _for and u&p4 designating Crosa Moun-
<br />againat . proposed project i8c tain as a Wilderness Area .and
<br />prese~ to the judge, wbo then John Bugas, prnident of
<br />'makes .a finding nd tends a Colorado-Ute says "in my frank
<br />reeomendation on w the FERC opinion Cross Mountain is not a
<br />,~ ~ho u"en make.. final deciJion Wilderness Area."
<br />011 the lieeDse. He said Cross Mountain does
<br />The Juniper-Cross Mountain .ot ha.ve any wilderness
<br />project iI .. propond two dam ~haracteriatics."There are -im-
<br />and reservoir site about 3D miles printa of man an - over tbe
<br />._~ "88_t'o{ -Craig GO the Yampa place,"hesaid,ootingtbemsny
<br />River_It will produce ~ million trails, ,roads and mine- entrances
<br />i~~ kilowaU hours~ of electricity in- in tbe area.
<br />..- lWally.ndstorel.2~mion.cre. Also, the River District
<br />feet'Df .ater. Rivef District of. claims that years before Cross
<br />. ficiali say the water projecl. also "Mountain was designated a
<br />'. wiH_'l"Ovide 'Western Colorado Wilderaess Study Area, it was
<br />. wkh-"-II Dutte of recreation at a jle~ aside by the, feder.1 govern-
<br />-liiienen tae popul.~n of the ment 'fbr 'fatun power develop-
<br />.rea is inernsing rapidlJ. ment. .
<br />'~ Colorado.Ute :Electric Currently, the FERC is
<br />Atlotiation is a _partner in the .orking on the River District's
<br />prpjet;r_.nd J1~er a contractual _ license_ application. And the
<br />agreement with the ~~iveT ,relimi~ary draIt of an En-
<br />District -will fund license ap- vironm.nta~ I~act Statement
<br />plicatiOn preparation, ~oUt.ruc- Ibould be ready sometime in
<br />Uctn"operat.ion and maintenance August or ~eptem~-"
<br />in return for, use of power from
<br />. tJre dams: No federal or atate
<br />funds at, ,,-volved in the 'pro-
<br />jet~. . .
<br />.The' FERC scbedule ...t.ates_.
<br />tbat .ibe .dministrative law
<br />judge bearing woutd be cctm.
<br />;' pleted In .F~~8ry 1984, ab in.
<br />itial recommendation by the
<br />juage iSlllled in July 198f and the
<br />final draft of the recommenda-
<br />tion prepareq- by January 1985.
<br />Tbe Ucelise "9uid then go to the
<br />FERG fou final decision in late
<br />: Januarr'~985. '- _" .
<br />, . . _Tbe_8ate j)f tl1e heense .p-
<br />prov.~ 1S p'~rtir:.llarly. important
<br />to the Bureau of Land Manage-
<br />ment because that federal agen-
<br />cy bu designated Cross Moun-
<br />tain ~6 a WildefIJe.s Study Ana
<br />_ an area under st1!dy fOf poni-
<br />ble desi~atiQD 8.s,a Wilderness
<br />Area. A -W~ldeflleSl Area, i. land
<br />tbat 'Ca~Ot' ~ 'commercially
<br />develoPed,_ ..,bu~' must be 1Dai(li,~.
<br />tained:in-iU natural.tate.' , .
<br />. Tbe ..River m.trict js
<br />pusbing "bl.rd- 'for 'the -BLM t:o
<br />.quicldy complete.tbe study .nd
<br />find CrofS Mountain unaccep-
<br />table ,for :Wilderness -Ar,!'
<br />.designation. - -'
<br />" ,1'0 com'Plete'their study q1iick~
<br />ly--e.petJaUy'to contp]y .wi\~
<br />\ projections of a 1982 license i~-
<br />i '.uance-the bLM Craig Distr~
<br />i ..ill h"vf"-t>o-_d~:v~~ man lfowe.r
<br />0--';-"
<br />
<br />4(rla;
<br />
<br />-.~--~
<br />
<br />Juniper-Cross
<br />~ licensing set
<br />~ for 198$
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />q\..1
<br />p'\
<br />
<br />best.dapted to" comprebensive
<br />plan'of developement:" :
<br />. ADd FERC Project Manager
<br />Charlie Lord uid Friday in
<br />Washington, "With the- gatber.
<br />i,ng ltPposition there m.)' haYe to
<br />be i hearing (before' an ad.
<br />m.infstrltiy~ law judgel to,deter.
<br />mme the benefits of the project
<br />and theenvCronmental costs."
<br />Tbe River Di,trict filed c.1vil
<br />suit-against tbe U.S. Interior
<br />Department in October ~ 1978
<br />tLaiming that tbe department',
<br />designation 'Of -_the Colorado
<br />Squaw-fisb and the Humpback
<br />Chub ah "enda~l8red" species
<br />was f illegat. The District also
<br />said: that construction and
<br />oper.tion of the Juniper.Cross
<br />Mountain project w:ould Dot con.
<br />tribute to a population decline or
<br />extinction of the fishes.
<br />Further, the -River District in'
<br />its suit charged that the _Interior
<br />Pep~rtment's stocking of non-
<br />endemic fisbes in 'Colorado
<br />rivers and' their tributaries is
<br />causing a decline in the, popula-
<br />tion. of the Squawfish .and
<br />Humpback ,Chub and asks .the
<br />, e:ourts to stop su_ch stockings.
<br />Slying the FERC 1985
<br />estimate for final license ap-
<br />proval is. ~sti;milltic, the"Ri\.er
<br />Continued on Page 2
<br />
<br />By STEVE McMILLAN
<br />_ Althougb tbe _Colorado River
<br />Water Conservation District is
<br />..pro-je:eting a 1982 approval of its
<br />- .Juniper-CrOll -Mounta,n
<br />- hydroelectric plant by the
<br />Federal Energy Regulatory
<br />Commission in Washington,' the
<br />FERC has issued a tentative
<br />ichedule 'saying - license ap-
<br />provalwill not be until 1985.
<br />In a document filed Februaty
<br />23, 1981, in the civil suit brought
<br />. against the U.S. Interior Depart.
<br />ment by tbe River District, Ken.
<br />!leth F. Plumb, FERC secretary,
<br />ltates tbat the FERC', tentative
<br />acbedule "reflects the Commis-
<br />.ion staff's current ano' best
<br />estimate of 'wben tbe Commis-
<br />- -lion .iIl be able to issue .- final
<br />-order on tbe application for
<br />license.
<br />"The scbedule may. of conne,
<br />deviate substantially from these
<br />projections because of tbe uncer.
<br />tain time required for .the ad-
<br />miuistrativtllaw judge hearing,"
<br />Plumb continues.
<br />Plumb wrote, "Hydroeleetric-
<br />projects of this magnitude in.
<br />vari,ably present significant en.
<br />vironmental. eccmomic. and geo-
<br />technical issues tbat must be
<br />resolved before the Commission
<br />can determine that the project is
<br />
<br />And 'recently' th~ National
<br />Wildlife Federation' and tbe
<br />Western River Guides were
<br />granted intervenors ,tatus and
<br />allowed to submit information to
<br />tbe '(ERC pertain_ing to the
<br />Rivei" District's Ucense applica-
<br />tion.
<br />In its petition to the FERC
<br />for intervention;.the NWF listed
<br />its major concerns with the Yam-
<br />ps River damming. It said the
<br />damming of tbe river could;
<br />_ seriously impact the habitat
<br />of the already-endangered Col..
<br />orado squawfisb and humpback
<br />chub.
<br />-adversely impact the signifi-
<br />unt kayaking and rafting
<br />values on the Yampa River.
<br />-adversel)' affect the
<br />Dinosaur National Monument.
<br />-result ill uet energy loss
<br />rather than gain because of tbe
<br />projected evaporative loss of
<br />63,OOO_acre.feet of water aDnual-
<br />Iy.
<br />Also the NWF petition ques-
<br />-tioued the River District's en-
<br />titlement.to 'water rights when
<br />viewed in light of water rights
<br />for Diliosaur and expressed con-
<br />cern tbat the hydroelectric pro-
<br />ject might not be ~'in the public
<br />interest" because tbe Yampa.,
<br />resoDrCeS migbt best be utilizec
<br />if it were left undeveloped.
<br />
<br />,.
<br />
|