Message-ID: <14286880.1075860883478.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:07:40 -0700 (PDT) From: john.shafer@enron.com To: eric.gadd@enron.com Subject: Preliminary Environmental Timeline for Sun Devil Project Cc: kevin.hyatt@enron.com, larry.campbell@enron.com, doug.cebryk@enron.com, robert.kilmer@enron.com, gina.taylor@enron.com, louis.soldano@enron.com, joe.hartsoe@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bcc: kevin.hyatt@enron.com, larry.campbell@enron.com, doug.cebryk@enron.com, robert.kilmer@enron.com, gina.taylor@enron.com, louis.soldano@enron.com, joe.hartsoe@enron.com X-From: Shafer, John X-To: Gadd, Eric X-cc: Hyatt, Kevin , Campbell, Larry , Cebryk, Doug , Kilmer III, Robert , Taylor, Gina , Soldano, Louis , Hartsoe, Joe , 'jschmidt@ENSR.com' X-bcc: X-Folder: \Kevin_Hyatt_Mar2002\Hyatt, Kevin\Projects\Sun Devil X-Origin: Hyatt-K X-FileName: khyatt (Non-Privileged).pst Eric, As we discussed, with ENSR's assistance I have developed a projected timeli= ne for developing the FERC required F-1 Exhibit (12 part Resource Reports t= o satisfy the NEPA requirement) in sufficient detail to meet the FERC filin= g requirements and expedite the processing of the environmental portion of = the application. The aggressive timeline assumes that the expedited FERC "= Collaborative Approach" will be implemented throughout the processing of th= e application. Even with the "Collaborative Approach" and all of the upfro= nt work done with the environmental community to streamline the processing,= the schedule is very, very optimistic and assumes that all conflicting iss= ues will be resolved quickly and the processing continue. =20 I have requested that Jon Schmidt (ENSR) begin working on a detailed cost e= stimate, by quarters in two phases. The first part of the estimate would b= e to project the environmental cost, by quarters of preparing the 12 Resour= ce Reports (including the necessary field work) that would get Sun Devil to= an FERC filing in the first quarter of 2002 that would not be rejected. T= he second component of the cost estimate would be to complete the field wor= k and permitting phases during the processing of the application. This inc= ludes participating in FERC scoping meetings and agency meetings as require= d. This would include assisting the third party environmental contractor i= n working on the EIS to expedite the writing as needed. It would also incl= ude mitigation packages to satisfy agency requirements. The third and fina= l component would be to budget for a Third Party Environmental Contractor t= o write the EIS document during the time that the field work is being devel= oped and to process the same with the FERC Staff. Once we get the "White P= aper" Fatal Flaw analysis that ENSR is preparing for this project we will h= ave enough information along with the budget to get us to the FERC filing t= o make some quantifiable decisions on moving forward when comparing those t= o the commercial advantages that you are developing. If you have any questions, please give me a call. John Shafer