The original documents are located in Box 46, folder “3/13/76 - North Carolina” of the Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Ron Nessen donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 46 of the Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library ,.;;- ~" .. ,,. ~~ . ~- 'l l ·, i .. .............. ... ..... ~. ' / ----./ ' ! .. ~- ' .. ·- ..... .. v !{'/ \ . .. r., ( I on~1, THI SECRETAKY ;·' news' reI e a s el J t ·/ ,\~ • < I \ .ll.p j'j: I .. \ · . · . · · , : , . · ·~> · • ·>. r : ~ \~·: , · EMBARGO: Not for· Release Until 12:01 A.M2 EST, March 13, 1976 · ' · · • . m.1r RIVER.··NORTH cAiwLINA, '1"0 RECEIVE w~ m, SCENIC DESICNATmH · .. F< . : Secretary of the Inte.rtor 'l'homaa S. Kleppe, today ferv~rded to the Counc.ll . : oo Envlronm~ntal Quality a final environmental :l.apact etatement oo the proposal · bJ the State of. Not"th Cat"olina to deslpate ·a 26.5 aile eepent of the Hew IU.ver in Not"th CaTolina ae a state-adminiatet"ed aal~ of the National Wild and Scenic IU.vera System. i I SecTetary Kleppe said be intenda to approve the North Carolioa proposal an4. will sign the official de-signation order following a. 30-day vaitina period I I euggeated by CEQ guidelines. I . - . I The Secretary' a propq!~~~!. ~~tlon ·could ln effect ban construc~1on of a 2-daa r ·~~~.~·,·'··,: ··~.~.•. bydroelectrt,e power proje~~,:"£t:ba.·Btue Ridge Project) by the Appalachian Power Co~ ·' . .. ~~ . : .. '!~1;:: .-...7-r::r:~'f;~~,. :' "- . The ,_!1n~tef State.~ Co';tr.t;• vf Appeals of ~n' Dlat-rict of Columbia has before it a 1. .. ....,. .. ~~· ·-· ~ . : !:- . plea by the State of· Nci-:cth Carolina to void a lleenae for the Blue Jtldge ,_.oject, previously issued Ito. t<b~\\ppalacbian Power Co,: by the Federal Power Coaaiaelon. ' . ~ Should the court de~ide in favor of the State of North Carolina, no dam could be . : ~ .·. built. Kleppe said he had been advised that if the court should uphold the FPC. ,.. and the power company.; tl1~ wild and seenic river designation. would not take . - .I precedenc~. i ' ' . Kleppe, in announcing these actions said 11 1 have carefully studied the • I positions of all parties, met_witb both sides and have followed to tbe letter '. procedures for such ml;ltters a• these. My announced intentions will clear the air on vhere the Dep~rtment: ~f the Interior stands. • A fact.sheet on the N~ River issue is attached. !\ X X i 'I ''' '· i' l.·. THE h"F.V RIVER IN NlR111 CAIOLINA ·~ J ' ! J ' ' •' i; ! • The New Jt.iver originates in North Carolina; it flows north' through V1rgia1a,!'i a~ into West Virginia where it merges witb tho Gauley and Konawha Rivera· at tbo terminus of the spectacular New River Corge. The 26.S·mile segment for ~icb North Codolina se·ekS protection includes 4.S milea of the main steaa aDd 22 milea ofborder. the South Fork; the area extenda southward from the Mortb Caroliaa/Viqlnia In February 1965 the Appalachian Power Company (AE:P) filed a license appli• · cation with FPC for a pumped storage hydroelectric project (Blue Ridge project). on the New Rive.r. l'wo dams would be built in Virginia. Water would be backed up along the River creating a reservoir that would exteDd into 5orth Ca~llaa and inundate the area for which the State now seeks Federal protectl~n. .. t ,1! In June 1966 the Interior Department intervened, requeatins modificati~n o~. l1; the project to provide for recreation development and public access, flow regu• lation for water quality control, flood control features, and fish and wildlife J~ resource 1 development. The project, as subsequently designed, satisfied most of l[ Intertor s requirements at that ttme. The proJect would generate 1.8 million , i. kilowatts of power. l' .... ,:;.·' The New River had not been included in an initial list of 650 rivers con­ '.-! sidered as potential wUd rivers during studies in the mid 1960':, leading to the development of wild ·~~ scenic rivers legislation. The first such recognition · of the North Carolina· P,ortion of the River came in 1974 when the Administratioa ..proposed to add new study rivers to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and include the entir~" New River, exclusive of rese,rvoirs and the potential Blu~ ·ltidge pro• ject·~.if lf.censed ·by the FPC. In House hearings on June 3, · 1974. however, tbe Department supported a study of the River segment, contending tb.ot tbl! Federal· Power Conmission's Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Blue Ridge project license did not adequately consider the free-flowing charac.ter of the river. On June 14, 1974. eleven days after the hearings, FPC issued ita license to the Appalachia~ Pbwer Company authorizing construction of the Blue Ridge. project, effective January 2, 1'975 if Congress failed io the meant~ to enact legislation protecting the River through the 'National Wild and Scenic Rivera System. A bill to study the River's eligibility for a~Ch deaicaa~ion passed the Senate but never re.ached a House vote. · ! ... ·. North Carolina has challenged the validity of the FPC license on.enviran­ mental grounds, and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has enjoined' constructf.oa of the Blue Ridge project pending its decision on the adequacy of the· FPC Eavtxon• mental Impact ~tatement. On October 23, 1975 the court heard North Carolina's plea to void the license. If the court upholds the State, no·dam can be built; if it·uphold• the FPC and the power company, the Wild and Scenic Rivera designation would'· not block a dam unless that decision was appealed to a higher court'' and · subsequently overturned. Meanwhile~ on December 12, 1974 Governor Holshouser applied to have a 4.5• mile segment of the New River deai.gnated a State-administered component of the National rivera aystea. On .June 11, 1975 that applicatioo was ameorled to add 22 additional·;j miles oo the South Fork ma~ing tb~ tota~ ~~.) mil,ea,, e~¥Jlb te '··' . ~----··· l ( . i . } .. r, !\ .. / f' ' ' me'~~1mum length requirements. Several technical questions were raised by Interiof regarding the State's application. These were satisfactorily answered an4 the application and draft !nviro:nmental Impact Statement we~e circulated on No,cmber 28, 1975 for a 90-day review which ended February 28, 1976 • . -~ • The ,Bureau of Outdoor Recreation subsequently prepared the final Enviroumental -t' Impact sti.tement taking into consideration the views of Federal and State aaenciea• · \ private organizations and individuals. The final EIS has been submitted to the · r~uncil on Environmental Quality for a 30-day review as required b7 law. The North Carolina General Assembly has met dhe requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by passing legislation designating the river segment aa a component of the State Natural and Scenic Rivera System. The Secretary of the Interior cannot formally take the implementing action on tho River until that 30-day review haa been completed, under CEQ guidelines, The issue is essentially that of electrical power versus the environment. River advocates, those opposing the power project, contend that the River merits Federal protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act because it ie perhaps the oldest waterway in geological terms in the United States; because of potentially valuable archaeological sites that would be inundated by a power project reservoir; because upwards of 3 ,OOQ farmers and other landowners in North Carolina and Virginia (1, 175: in North Carolina and 1,825 in V1rg':n1a) would be displaced by the reservoir (they would be financially compensated by the power compa~); because the power project would cause at least nominal air pollution; -'because va,luable free-flowing river recreation opportunities, including fisbil_a, canoeing, \and floating would :be '·~i§.sl,'!rved; and because 42,000 acre5 of land in North·Carolina (14,200 acres) ~~!{;V:t~~Hti~ (27,900 acres) would be flooded were the· power project to be built ac ~~iJ~-'t£~ly designed. Sixty• two percent (8,800 · act-es). of the land :in North Carolina is act\,lal or potential agricultural laod. Public sentiment, as expressed through responses to appeals by the press and · comments on the State application and EIS, has been heavy on ~th aidea with a ·majority favoring the State's application. 1 Interior's Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has found that the North Carolina segment meets the s_cenic river criteria of the Wild and Scenic Rivera Act. Power advocates, those favoring construction of the Blue Ridge project, cora• tend that the Nation's needs for -electrical power override environmental objec• tions. They point out· that the project would generate 1.8 million kilowatts of peaking power through a highly efficient system. The project would use more power than it vould generate, but the power it burns in refilling its reservoirs ~t ·night is essentially waste power of little dollar value, produced by genera- . tors which must run continuously. The peaking power produced by the hydro pro­ ject during the day, on the other hand, is highly ~portent and valuable energy, ·the lack of which could lead to brownouts and power disruptions.