Laserfiche WebLink
<br />..-4 <br />o <br />00 <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />2-WRW washn x x x NOv. 17 <br />For one thing, ~Certy said, the project is subject to two environ- <br />mental impact statements (EIS), one by FERC for the project itself and <br />(BLM) <br />One by the Bureau of Land Management/on a wilderness study area at the <br />west end of the project. The draft ~ERC EIS won't be completed until <br />the middle of next month, according to the present schedule, and the <br />drafl BLM BIS won't be completed until next spring, MCCarty told WRW. <br />This means the final EIS's analyzing the project and possible alterna- <br />tives will not be completed until mid-l982 for the FERC study and to- <br />ward the end of next year for the ELM study, he indicated. The two <br />agencies could not agree on doing one EIS.McCarty said, primarily "be- <br />cause FERC didn't want to become the lead agency on a wilderness study." <br />So each agency ende~p doing its own thing relative to the project. <br />That's illustra~ive of the inter-agency problems thaE~roject has <br />had before FERC, according to McCarty. "For example, both the Depart- <br />ments of Interior and Agriculture have claimed that FERC may not license <br />any project above or below a designated segment of a wild and scenic <br />river, even if the designation is only for study purposes, until the <br />respective Secretary has made a determination as to whether there woald <br />be aay effect. The most recent example of this claim is in a proposed <br />rulemaking by the Forest Service which appeared in the ~ederal Register <br />of Sept. 2, 1981. <br /> <br />"Under this proposal, as ,.,e understand it, no license or permit <br />could be issued without the consent of the secretary of ~griculture, <br />with such consent to be given only upon a Secretarial determination <br />that the designated wild and scenic river or study river would not be <br />directly and adversely affected by a water resources project proposal," <br />Fisc.harYs Oct. 19 testimony stated. ~^Thile the ~^Tild and Scenic Rivers <br />Act bars FERC from licensing a project "on or directly affecting" a de- <br />signated wild or Scenic River, Fischer said the legislative history in- <br />dicates Congress intended that ~ERC should make the final decision on <br />licensing, and that no veto power was given to Interior or Agriculture. <br />He cited as another example of competing jurisdictions FERC'S re- <br />Cent granting of a license permitting the city of Delta, Colo., to stuay <br />a project on the a~nnison ~iver, but Interior advised against it ~ <br />