July 5, 1996 STATUS REPORT FOR THE CROSS-CASCADE PIPELINE PROJECT REPORT # 2 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. The Forest Service(FS) did received on June 25, 1996 a copy of a memorandumfrom Dames and Moore(D&M) to Olympic Pipe Line Company(OPCO) showing aproposedroute change along Tinkham Road on the North Bend Ranger District(NBRD). Afield review was conducted by NBRD staff on June 14, 1996 and the FS couldfindno immediate objections since the changes would result in less undisturbedhabitat being impacted by the project. The new changes and portions of theexisting route, however, are not without resource concerns given the highamount of erosion that has occured due to past flooding, wet habitats alongtheroad shoulders and mature timber immediately outside the road clearing. Oncethis change is proposed as an amendment to their Energy Facility SiteEvaluation Council(EFSEC) and BLM application, OPCO will then be responsiblefor providing needed information to the EIS. A copy of the memorandum andmapswill be included with this report. CHARTER: Final comments and changes have been made to the FS/BLM charter and submittedto the BLM Spokane District Manager on June 21, 1996 for signing. Copies willbe routed to Federal coordinators once both parties have signed the document. 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 becontacting the BLM to check on status of agreements and process. AGREEMENTS: 1. A draft Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) has been submitted to the FS, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation(BOR), Army Corp. of Engineers(COE) and Department of the Army(DOA) for their review and comment. As of 7/3, all agencies have responded and a final version is planned to be routed for signature by the end of July. 2. The FS and OPCO have completed an MOU which addresses the issue of releasing known sensitive wildlife, plant and cultural information on FS LANDS ONLY. This agreement addresses only the use of existing information and other agreements will be needed to cover new information acquired by OPCO on the project. ACCOMPLISHMENTS: GIS Information 1. The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie(MBS) and Wenatchee National Forests(WNF)have either completed or will nearly complete the exchange of resource information to D&M for use in developing OPCO's input to the EIS process.NEPA Documentation 1. OPCO has indicated that they intend to submit an amended "Purpose and Need Statement" to the FS by early July. Once received, thestatement will be shared with other federal agencies and comments will be requested on whether the submission is adequate for agency use in the EIS. 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 July. 3. The summary of Scoping comments were mailed to Federal and State agencies and some of you may have duplicates since other copies were mailed by EFSEC at a later date. Another general summary has been prepared and mailed to involved citizens which is not as detailed but gives an overall summation of the comments. 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 the following information so that a determination can be made of what steps need to be taken: A. List of personnel contracted by OPCO who conducted the site surveys and prepared appropriate sections of the application. B. List of agency staff contacted for this work. C. Federal Agency Site Identification Protocols used by OPCO consultants. D. Copies of actual field site survey records. COMING EVENTS WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS (Meetings/Publications/Due Dates): Meetings: Lead Agency coordination meeting with the permitting agencies on the Purpose and Need statement supplied by the company. Based on communications with the company they expect to submit a revised statement around July 1, 1996. A tentative date is set for August 1, 1996 at the North Bend District. Final arrangements will need to made with the target groups once the statement is submitted to the FS. Target group will be FS, BLM, COE, andEPA. * 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 July 31, 1996 at the J&S office. Target group will be FS, BLM, EFSEC, and J&S staff. * FS and BOR briefing meeting with the Canal Districts on general progress of the EIS process and problems being encountered bythe districts. Date is set for 1:00 pm on July 30, 1996 at the Ephrata BOR office. Target group will be FS and BOR staff. INTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS 1. A meeting was held on June 11, 1996 at the Skykomish Ranger District with the Susan Marvin(Wenatchee NF Archeologist), Jan Hollenbeck(Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF Archeologist) and Federal Project Manager to discuss current aspects associated with the Project, how the EFSEC/Federal EIS process interfaced with the Forest Cultural Resource Management strategy, scheduling and coordination responsibilities for cultural resources. The meeting agenda dealt with project overview and what was going to be happening within the next 90 days. Arrangements were made for a copy ofthe application addressing cultural resources be mailed to the archeologistsso that further review and understanding could be developed of the project. Questions raised dealt with 1. what the role of the Lead agency will befor coordination of cultural resource actions, 2. does this project fit the criteria for development of a programmatic agreement with all parties, 3. what protocols were used by OPCO in preparation of surveys/site classification and site significance determination. Discussions with the two concluded both Forest(s) would act as joint coordinators with other agency staffs when putting together a single recommendation on the project to the State but that it was OPCO's responsibilities to provide the coordination in meeting Federal and State agency requirements, documentation and protocols. Question #2 was expected to be no and that site surveys would be required of OPCO prior to any action taken in the trail corridor. Question #3 could not be answered by the group and a decision was made to request the company to provide information whichwould address this point. 2. A meeting was held with EFSEC Project Manager, Federal Project Manager, Federal Project Administrator(G.Spessard/BLM) and J&S personnel on June19, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated with the Project and how the joint EIS process was proceeding. The meeting agenda dealt with the applicants Purpose and Need, EIS status, Federal review process, BLM Plan of Development(POD) requirements, ROD process and public involvement. Decisions made: 1. The FS will notify parties when OPCO's revised P&N statement is available., 2. Federal agencies will need to beginidentifying those specialists which will review or assist the lead agency in coordinating consultation with SHPO and US Fish and Wildlife Service, 3. Amendments to the EFSEC application will need companion changes for theBLM POD. Updating of the POD will be the responsibilility of FS and BLM, 4.BLM staff from the Spokane District and the Federal Project Manager will be meeting July 31, 1996 to begin discussions on coordinating EIS process and ROD preparation since BLM will be the responsible agency for issuing the decision on the R/W application, 5. EFSEC and the FS will review theentire mailing list originally developed for public scoping and make additionsfor those groups that need to remain in the system. FS will contact BLM staff on those groups they consider important to be kept in the EIS process. EXTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS 1. A meeting was held with Dave Avery and Tim Cramer of Dames & Moore(D&M), Federal Project Manager and Mike Hall(Wildlife Biologist from the NBRD) on June 14, 1996, to discuss route options being considered off of Tinkham Rd. The meeting began in the field and all parties spent the day walking the propsed changes looking and discussing merits to the proposal. Observations made: 1. The changes appear to have a net result of less undisturbed habitat being impacted given that an old road prism will be utilized entering Tinkham Rd from the the John Wayne Pioneer Trail(JWPT) and back to the JWPT. 2. Even though the routes minimize resourceimpacts, both changes will cross slopes that are prone to washouts and could impact sensitive wetland sites. Based on this review and our discussions in the field, the proposal should be analyzed and surveyed for future consideration in the EIS. 2. A Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission public meeting was conducted on June 20, 1996 and one of its agenda items included the presentation of two projects proposed along JWPT. The primary reason for the presentations were to give the commission a chance to become familiar with the different proposals and ask questions. One key issue identifiedby the commission staff was the need to a develop corridor analysis plan so that the future utility capacity of the JWPT could be determined. At this time, it is expected that commission staff will be the lead for initiating the plan. Overall, only general information was shared without any specific discussion on the merits of the proposals. 3. A pre-hearing conference of the EFSEC council and those parties who have filed for intervention in the adjudicative process was conducted on June 24, 1996 and its agenda included the presentations by affected parties who either will be directly or indirectly impacted if the project. Theprimary reason for the presentations were to give the council their initial notification of those parties who have filed and to allow the applicantthe opportunity to publicly state if they had objections to any of the filing parties. Approximately 28 parties filed for intervention with the council of which 9 were non- governmental related. No action was taken by the council and all parties were asked respond to objections by July 22, 1996 with another pre-hearing conference scheduled for August 8,1996. 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. * Involvement of BLM in the overall EIS process given they are the responsible agency for the Record of Decision(ROD). * 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: * 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: * None at this time ATTACHMENTS: * DOA letter received by the FS dated June 27, 1996 * FS letter mailed to OPCO dated June 25, 1996 * D&M memo to OPCO dated June 25, 1996 * Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Report(June 20, 1996)