Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the first of February, it's scheduled to be approved, sent up to the <br />Department of xhe Interior, and then filed with the Council on Environ- <br />mental Quality one month later, the first of March. That's the March, <br />1977 date. This is the environmental report. <br /> <br />. <br />Next, I would like to go through the definite plan report. <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: Jake, before you do that, is that time-controlling? <br /> <br />MR. RINCKEL: . No, there's no time-controlling. <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: No. I mean, is it time-controlling? <br /> <br />MR. RINCKEL: This particular report is time-controlling. <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: I mean, this' de.termines when we can proceed with the <br />repayment contract. This is what our experience tells us happens when we <br />get to this stage. From this you'll notice that there's a two~month <br />review process between the field and our processing in Salt Lake City. <br />There's a two-month process in finalizing after we get to Wa~hington,. <br />and- comments back. That" s fpur months. The. urgency, I feel. strongly <br />does not allow for this type of handling. Our feeling is that it can be <br />shortened a great deal by having the reviewers assemble in one place and <br />at .one time to clear these documents. I would want to emphasize to all <br />of you that in order for us to succeed, we have to have a quality product. <br />In order for it to get to C.E.Q. and to stand the test of any future <br />legal challenge, it has to be done right. <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: . Dave, I would like to get an idea of how the review of .the <br />E.l.S. here compares with the other projects. The reason I ask that is <br />that recently the. Bureau has done a draft E.l.S. for the Narrows project. <br />As you know, the Narrows is one of. the largest reclamation projects in <br />the state. Certainly, it's got to be one of the most controversial. <br />There have been hundreds or perhaps even thousands of comments that the <br />Bureau has received on that. I might say that the size of that draft. <br />E.l.S. I would put into the six pound category as opposed to this E.I.S. <br />which I put into a three pound category. After the public hearing in. <br />Denver on the draft E.LS., the final E.LS. went to C.E.Q. in[less:than <br />two months... I really fail to see why here we are talking about eleven <br />months instead of one and a half, when this is basically a similar <br />project. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. , <br />MR. CRANDALL: The time up to ,'now has been taken in adjustments in the <br />plan, working out the mitigation features, and that sort of thing. So, <br />now we're really at the point where we can wrap this up, and shortening <br />the process time is the principal objective. I agree with you wholly. <br />that it can be done and must be done and will be done. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br />MR. SHERMAN: Could it be done within, say, four months from today? <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: If we consolidate these review times, we could take four <br />months off. That puts it back to December. I've conferred intensively <br />with my colleagues, on this subject since these schedules first developed. <br />We feel that with cooperation all up and down the line, we should be able <br /> <br />.-"i8- <br />