Date:February, 3 1997 
 
STATUS REPORT FOR THE CROSS-CASCADE PIPELINE PROJECT 
 
REPORT #  6  
 
PROJECT OVERVIEW/CHANGES: 
 
The company has made no changes to date to their proposal submitted to the State of 
Washington and Bureau of Land Management(BLM). 
 
COST RECOVERY: 
 
BLM has completed discussions and submitted to Olympic Pipe Line Company(OPCO) 
for approval a cost recovery agreement which summarizes all the projected costs for the 
Federal agencies. 
 
AGREEMENTS: 
 
A revised final Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) has been signed off by the BLM and 
the Department of the Army(DOA) at Fort Lewis and submitted to the Bureau of 
Reclamation(BOR) and Army Corps of Engineers(COE) for approval.  Once the 
agreement is approved by BOR and COE, the draft will be submitted to Forest Service 
officials for final signing and distribution to the other cooperating agencies. 
 
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 
 
GIS Information - No changes from the last report to note. 
 
NEPA Documentation - No changes from the last report to note. 
 
T&E Consultation (Sec. 7) - No changes from the last report to note. 
 
Cultural Resource Consultation (Sec. 106) - A draft final report has been 
submitted(December 13, 1996) to the Forest Service by Dames and Moore(D&M) which 
addresses results of a cultural resources assessment for the proposed Cross Cascade Pipe 
Line Project. Copies of the report have been forward to Federal Agency Coordinators(FS, 
BLM, BOR and DOA) for review and comment by March 7, 1997 with a joint Federal 
response to D&M by the middle of March.  At the present time the review for state and 
private lands has not been determined with a meeting being planned with EFSEC to work 
out the coordination details. 
 
COMING EVENTS WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS (Meetings/Publications/Due Dates): 
 
Meetings: 
Stream crossing field review between OPCO, D&M biologists, Federal and State 
agencies representatives on the 1. review of sensitive crossings, 2. mitigation process, 3. 
impacts and mitigation in perspective, and  4. restoration planning and erosion/sediment 
control planning.    A tentative meeting has been set for March 5-6, 1997 for the Westside 
crossings and March 12-13, April 23-24, 1997 for Eastside crossings.  This meeting is 
tentative since no formal notification has been received from D&M on specifically what 
they want to achieve. Target group will be all Federal and State resource and regulatory 
agencies possibly affected by the proposed crossings. 
 
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.  Target group will be all interested Federal agencies. 
 
FS, BLM and Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council(EFSEC) briefing meeting with 
Jones and Stokes Assoc.(J&S) on general progress of the EIS process and problems being 
encountered by the consultant. COE will be participating in the future meetings to better 
deal with merging National Environmental Planning Act(NEPA) requirements for issuing 
COE permits for the project.  Date is set for 10:00 am on February 5, 1997 at the J&S 
office.  Target group will be FS, BLM, EFSEC, COE, and J&S staff. 
 
INTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS: 
 
A wetlands coordination meeting between OPCO, D&M(John Heal), Federal and State 
agencies representatives was held on November 15, 1996 in Moses Lake, Washington to 
discuss the following items: 1. review of sensitive areas, 2. mitigation process, 3. impacts 
and mitigation in perspective, 4. compensation ratios, compensatory mitigation planning, 
6. restoration planning and erosion/sediment control planning. The meeting was 
informative and no decisions were made as to the acceptability of the process or 
information gathered.  The group did acknowledge, as at the Seattle meeting in October, 
that a similar meeting for streams would be equally beneficial.  As of this report date, 
there has been no date scheduled for similar meetings for streams. 
 
A progress meeting was held with the EFSEC Project Manager, Federal Project Manager, 
COE Project Manager, and J&S staff on December 18, 1996, to discuss current aspects 
associated with the Project and how the joint Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) 
process was proceeding.  The meeting agenda dealt with the COE final draft Purpose and 
Need Statement, alternatives, wetlands, data/responses to J&S review of resource reports 
to be submitted by OPCO and approaches to working with D&M in developing risk 
scenarios for the No Action alternative in the EIS.  No decisions were made at the 
meeting. 
 
EXTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS: 
 
A general meeting was held with Katey Chaney and John Robinson of D&M, EFSEC 
Project Manager, Federal Project Manager, and J&S staff on December 18, 1996, to 
discuss draft proposed spill risk scenarios for the project and other proposed EIS 
alternatives.  The meeting agenda dealt with the COE concerns identified at an earlier 
meeting, lack of information for non-pipe alternatives and how extensive other scenarios 
needed to be developed for the EIS, and approaches to working with D&M in developing 
risk scenarios for the No Action alternative in the EIS.  No decisions were made at the 
meeting but another meeting was scheduled for January 7, 1997 to allow D&M time to 
take our comments and work on gathering additional data for consideration. 
 
A specific meeting was held with Katey Chaney and John Robinson of D&M, Jerry 
Lynch of OPCO, EFSEC Project Manager, Federal Project Manager, and J&S staff on 
January 7, 1996 to hear on the efforts of D&M on developing and gathering additional 
information for spill risk scenarios associated with non-pipe line alternative.  The meeting 
dealt with D&M concerns in gathering meaningful information related to barging, 
trucking and pipe lines, lack of information for river barging.  After discussions with J&S 
spill risk expert, the following general approaches were identified for developing spill 
risk scenarios which will display the overall risks associated with current and future 
modes of transportation:  A. Barging spill at a sensitive location along the upper reaches 
of the Columbia River(Contacts will be made with National Marine Fisheries Service and 
the Fish and Wildlife Service to explore worse-case scenario development), B. Trucking 
spills that address the urban and rural human and resource environment, and C. Barging 
spill at a sensitive location along the Washington State Coast which addresses the 
movement of product from the refineries to transfer points in Vancouver, WA(Contacts 
will be made with National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
explore worse-case scenario development).  No decisions were made at the meeting but 
the Federal Project Manager agreed to contact the agencies identified above to solicit 
their expertise and comments concerning the barge spill risk scenarios.  Information will 
be forward to D&M once received. 
 
A phone conversation was conducted with Mr. Bill Clark of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service in Seattle on January 10, 1997 for the purposes of gathering specific 
information for spill risk scenarios associated barging in the Columbia River.  His 
thoughts and comments are included with this report and forward to John Robinson of 
D&M on January 10, 1997. 
 
A phone conversation was conducted with Mr. Jeff Combs of the National Fish and 
Wildlife Service in Spokane on January 10, 1997 for the purposes of gathering specific 
information for spill risk scenarios associated barging in the Columbia River.  His 
response is expected near the end of January and will be forward to John Robinson of 
D&M when it is received. 
 
A Prehearing conference meeting of the EFSEC Council was held on January 29, 1997 
with most of the intervening parties either attending or listing via phone bridge.  
Discussions centered mainly around procedural matters related to 1. appearances, 2. 
adoption of agenda, 3. E-Mail addresses, 4. hearing guidelines, 5. issue identification, 6. 
discovery, 7. land use negotiations and 8. scheduling.  Meeting notes will be posted 
electronically on the EFSEC Web Site which can be access by: 
"http://www.energy.wsu.edu/org/efsec/usfs.shtm".  Status reports will also be posted on 
the web site for use by anyone who wants access to the information. 
 
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. 
 
*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:  
 
*The EIS schedule may change from whats currently identified by EFSEC. 
 
*Analyzing the "No Action" alternative in the EIS. 
 
*Roles of licensing agencies in the EIS approval process(BPA) 
 
*Connection with other actions to this proposal(ie. movement of product 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: 
 
*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.  BASED ON OUR NEED TO INTEGRATE THE 
NEPA PROCESSES FOR ISSUING  THE RIGHT-OF WAY AND COE PERMITS 
AND INSURE THAT THE EIS IS SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS AGENCY 
REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUING A DECISION, THE PURPOSE AND NEED 
STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO OPCO BY THE COE ON JANUARY 3, 1997, WILL 
BE INCORPORATED INTO THE EIS FOR THE PROJECT.  THIS STATEMENT 
ADDRESSES THE POINTS IDENTIFIED BY THE APPLICANT AND ALLOWS 
THE NEPA PROCESS TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF 
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIPE LINE.  
See attachments for a copy of the letter issued by the COE referencing the final Purpose 
and Need statement for their NEPA process. 
 
*Roles of licensing agencies in the EIS approval process(FERC) BASED ON THE 
LETTER RECEIVED BY THE FOREST SERVICE ON NOVEMBER 7, 1996 FROM 
THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION(FERC) CONCERNING 
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AGENCY TO CONTROL AND APPROVE 
ACTIVITIES ACROSS FERC LICENSED PROJECTS, "THE LICENSE HAS THE 
RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPERVISE AND CONTROL THE USES AND 
OCCUPANCIES FOR WHICH IT GRANTS PERMISSION".  This statement clearly 
shows that Grant County P.U.D. has the right and responsibility to approve any crossing 
proposed and that FERC acknowledges this point in the letter. 
 
ATTACHMENTS: 
 
COE letter addressing final Purpose and Need E-Mail message to D&M concerning 
comments from National Marine Fisheries Service specialist on worse-case scenario for a 
barging incident on the Columbia River.  Draft spill scenarios along the pipe line from 
D&M for use in the EFSEC hearing process and in the EIS. FERC letter to the Forest 
service on agency involvement in EIS process.