August 13, 1996  
 
STATUS REPORT FOR THE CROSS-CASCADE PIPELINE PROJECT  
 
REPORT #  3   
 
PROJECT OVERVIEW/CHANGES: 
 
The company has made no changes to date to their proposal submitted to theState of 
Washington and Bureau of Land Management(BLM).  Questions remain onthose portions 
crossing the Yakima Training Center(YTC-see enclosed letterfromthe Army on their 
concerns for the current route) and Columbia River as tocompatibility with current and 
future use of these sites and suitability oftheriver site for boring.  
 
CHARTER: 
 
Document has been signed by both agencies and copies will be routed to 
Federalcoordinators within the next two weeks.  
 
COST RECOVERY: 
 
As of the date of this report, no arrangements have been made with the Federalagencies 
on reimbursement of costs associated with the project.  FS will bemeeting with BLM 
August 16, 1996 to check on status of agreements and process.  
 
AGREEMENTS:  
 
1. A final Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) has been submitted to the BLMfor their 
review and action. As of 8/13, BLM has not acted on the agreement and the FS will be 
meeting with the BLM on August 16, 1996 to discuss and clarify responsiblities with the 
Authorized Officer. Once agreement is received from the BLM, other agencies will then 
receive the agreement for subsequent review and action.  
 
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  
 
GIS Information Nothing to report at this time.  
 
NEPA Documentation 1. OPCO submitted on July 12, 1996 an amended "Purpose and 
Need Statement" to the FS.  A copy of the the statement will be included with this status 
report for Federal agency review and comment. 2. OPCO has not responded as of the 
above date to the Application Review prepared by Jone and Stokes Associates(J&S) on 
April 8, 1996. Submissions are expected to be made by OPCO in either mid to late 
August.  However, OPCO has indicated that draft reports are being prepared for 
submission to the Forest Service which summarizes survey efforts by the company 
concerning cultural resources, sensitiveplants and wetlands.  Federal agencies will be 
notified when the reportsare received so that reviews can be coordinated among the 
affected agencies.  
 
T&E Consultation (Sec. 7) No changes from the last report to note.  
 
Cultural Resource Consultation (Sec. 106)  1.  The Forest Service has notified OPCO of 
the need to begin the coordination process and has requested information so that a 
determination can be made of what steps need to be taken.  As of the above date, nothing 
formal has been submitted but discussions have been initiated with the Wenatchee NF 
Archeologist by OPCO's agent working on this aspect of the project.  
 
COMING EVENTS WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS (Meetings/Publications/Due Dates):  
 
Meetings:  COE coordination meeting with OPCO and its agents on the amended Purpose 
and Need statement supplied by the company. Based on communications with the COE, 
they state that  1. the "purpose statement for the project is, for the purposes of the Corps' 
Section 404 review, unduly restrictive" and would restrict the proposal to one alternative 
- a pipeline.  A tentative meeting has been set for September 20, 1996 in the COE Seattle 
Office. Target group will be COE, EPA, FS, EFSEC and OPCO.  Final arrangements will 
need to made with the target groups once atime has been set.  
 
 * Federal agency briefing meeting on scoping summary/Purpose and Need review and 
alternative development. Date is contingent on OPCO's response to J&S application 
review and the above coordination meeting with COE and EPA.  Target group will be all 
interested Federal agencies.  
 
 * FS, BLM and EFSEC briefing meeting with J&S on general progress of the EIS 
process and problems being encountered by the consultant. Date is set for 10:00 am on 
September 11, 1996 atthe J&S office.  Target group will be FS, BLM, EFSEC, and J&S 
staff.  
 
 * FS and BLM coordination meeting with the Spokane DistrictManager on general 
progress of the EIS process and problems being encountered by the Project Manager and 
Administrator. Date isset for 9:00 am on August 16, 1996 at the Spokane BLM office. 
Target group will be FS , District Manager and Project Administrator.  
 
INTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS  
 
1.  A meeting was held with the EFSEC Project Manager, Federal ProjectManager, 
Project Administrator, and J&S staff on July 31, 1996, to discuss current aspects 
associated with the Project and how the joint EIS process was proceeding.  The meeting 
agenda dealt with the applicants amended Purpose and Need, EIS status, Federal review 
of resource reports to be submittedby  OPCO and approaches to upcoming coordination 
meeting with the COE and EPA. No decisions were made at the meeting.  
 
2.  A meeting was held with EFSEC Project Manager, Federal Project Manager,EPA and 
COE on August 1, 1996, to discuss COE and EPA findings for the submitted Purpose and 
Need Statement by OPCO.  The meeting agenda dealt with OPCO's amended Purpose 
and Need statement and how it addresses theCOE requirements under Section 404b(1) 
and EPA needs for Section 401 certification.  After some discussion it was decided that a 
meeting was needed between OPCO and their consultants, COE, EPA, FS and EFSEC to 
specificaly address COE/EPA concerns so that a final statement can agreed to.  
 
EXTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS  
 
1.  A meeting was held with the Columbia Basin Project Irrigation District Managers on 
August 1, 1996, to discuss the overall project elements.  The meeting was held at the 
Ephrata BOR Office and was attended by representatives of the three Districts and BOR 
staff who would have some involvement with assisting the Districts in dealing with the 
project.  
 
Topics shared: 1. Project Overview, 2.  EFSEC process and how they fit in to the 
certification, 3.  Federal R/W Grant and canal Districtauthorities, 4.  EIS schedule, 5.  
How the Canal Districts can give input to the design of the pipeline, 6.  Coordination with 
OPCO and 7.  Coordination of Grant Stipulations.  No decisions were made at this 
meeting and the attendees intended to become more involved with the BOR in dealing 
with project.  
 
EMERGING ISSUES (Notice something is happening--Long Term)  
 
General: * Keeping the Federal and State processes on parallel schedules * Meeting COE 
public notification, documentation and NEPA requirements. * Not getting Federal 
agreements finished up before DEIS phase begins. * Changes in the proposal or route not 
currently known or identified. * Roles of licensing agencies in the EIS approval 
process(ie. BPA and FERC) * Role of Federal Lead Agency in coordination of Cultural 
Resource approval for all Federal, State and private lands in the project. * What 
constitutes an inter-state pipeline and which Federal agencies have regulatory 
responsibility over their operation.  
 
EIS Scope and Development: * Issuing of the Record of Decision by one agency with 
multiple signees or issued by each jurisdictional agencies under each agency head. * 
Federal approval of a Purpose and Need statement is critical before the scope of 
alternatives can be developed and evaluated for further in the EIS.  EFSEC requirements 
are not as great and Federal requirements could cause additional work and delay in the 
process should more detail be needed. * The EIS schedule may change from whats 
currently identified by EFSEC. * Analyzing the "No Action" alternative in the EIS. 
 * Connection with other actions to this proposal(ie. movement ofproduct outside the 
State, tank farm development in Western portion of the State and increase movement of 
crude oil in Puget Sound) * Spill risks, monitoring and what are the consequences. * 
What requirements or obligations are associated with Sole-Source Aquifers and proposed 
Federal actions? * How to handle mitigation in the Federal process. * Need for specific 
resource information which is critical in alternative analysis and selection of a preferred 
environmental alternative.  COE will be critical in its review and decision on the least 
environmental impacting alternative for approval of its Sec. 404, 401 permits. * 
Construction window may be extremely narrow when considering stream flow protection 
for anadromous and inland fisheries, T&E species and winter trail use restrictions.  
 
RESOLVED ISSUES:  
 
 * Involvement of BLM in the overall EIS process given they are the responsible agency 
for the Record of Decision(ROD).(BLM IS THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FOR 
ISSUING A DECISION ON THE R/W GRANT BUT ALL AGENCIES OF 
JURISDICTION WILL HAVE TO FORMALLY SIGN A JOINT ROD WITH THE 
FOREST SERVICE OR ISSUE A SEPERATE AGENCY ROD FOR THE EIS).  
 
ATTACHMENTS: * OPCO amended Purpose and Need Statement as of July 12, 1996. * 
COE letter to OPCO on amended Purpose and Need Statement.