Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. CRANDALL: Well, among the problems is accommodating in the draft a <br />number of comments received. There were hundreds of them. Our people <br />are meeting with the Bureau of Land Management, who had made many, many <br />comments, this coming week in an effort to resolve and understand those <br />comments and develop a response. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The other more significant factor is that after the April hearing, the <br />public expression focused attention on the Dallas Creek and Log Hill <br />Mesa increments of the project. After the deliberation it was felt that <br />those increments should be left out. That meant that the environmental <br />statement had to be changed to reflect this and the definite plan report <br />modified. The inputs on the fish and wildlife and mitigation factors <br />had to be worked out. The state has done this, and has reported them to <br />us recently, and they're in the process of converting those to the costs <br />and other factors that have to go into these documents. We, like you, <br />are not satisfied with that time interval. I think when we get these <br />items of work done on them, that together we can find ways to compress <br />that time. <br /> <br />MR. RINCKEL: <br />able to see, <br />want to take <br /> <br />I'm afraid that the dates we print on here you may not be <br />so I'll go through them slowly. I'll repeat them, if you <br />them down. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: I think what we want is the actions that are required from <br />this point on. That's the completion of the draft in the field, the <br />view of the region, Washington, the filing times, and the specific actions <br />that are required. <br /> <br />MR. RINCKEL: I'll cover the environmental statement first. Now, if <br />you'll notice, we've already completed the draft. It's filed. We've <br />had a public hearing. We are now working on the final. We anticipate <br />completing the draft of the final E.I.S. in Grand Junction the first of <br />September of this year. <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: Why don't you note these times down. <br /> <br />MR. RINCKEL: The next important step is to review the work in Salt Lake <br />City. This review is lengthy;. the processing is quite a lengthy process, <br />too, because Salt Lake City has a number of reports, Fruitland Mesa, <br />Savery, and others in there, offered at the same time, so processing is <br />an important function. After the completion of the review, the processing <br />in the regional office in Salt Lake City is the first of November. The <br />report will then be sent to the Denver office and Washington for review. <br />This review is scheduled for completion the first of December. <br /> <br />MR. BROWNELL: Of what year? <br /> <br />MR. RINCKEL: 1976. After their review, it will be returned to the Grand <br />Junction and the regional office for finalization. That finalization, <br />with any review comments that need to be completed or changed in the <br />report, this finalized statement will then be sent to washington the first <br />of February, 1977. That's a two-month period for finalization and review <br />in both the Grand Junction and Salt Lake City offices. At that time, <br /> <br />-17- <br />