Date:June 10, 1996 STATUS REPORT FOR THE CROSS-CASCADE PIPELINE PROJECT REPORT # 1 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. Questions remain on those portions crossing the Yakima Training Center (YTC) and Columbia River as to compatibility with current and future use of these sites and suitability of the river site for boring. CHARTER: Draft copies of a proposed charter between the Forest Service(FS) and Bureau of Land Management(BLM) have been exchanged and final comments from the BLM should be incorporated once those comments are received. The charter establishes the working framework between the agencies since they have split the responsibilities established under the Minerals Leasing Act. Under agency agreement, the BLM will be responsible for all Federal Cost Recovery and issuing the right of way grant/decision for all Federal lands involved in the project. The Forest Service will be the "Lead Agency" for the EIS and post grant monitoring. COST RECOVERY: As of the date of this report, no arrangements have been made with the Federal agencies on reimbursement of costs associated with the project. 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 6/10, responses are still pending from the DOA and COE. 2. The State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council(EFSEC) and the FS have entered into an Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) for the joint preparation of a NEPA/SEPA sufficient EIS for the project. Under our agreement, EFSEC will be the Lead Agency for the preparation of the EIS document and the FS will work closely to cover Federal participation needs. a. EFSEC is the State's permitting agency for sitting energy facilities. b. EFSEC through agreement of the FS has contracted with Jones and Stokes Associates(J&S) of Bellevue to review the application and prepare the joint EIS. c. EFSEC authority covers only state and private land and has no proprietary responsibility over lands involved in the project. 3. The FS and Olympic Pipeline Company(OPCO) are currently working on an MOU which addresses the issue of releasing known sensitive wildlife, plant and cultural information on FS lands only. This agreement will address only the use of existing information and other agreements will be needed to cover new information acquired by OPCO on the project. A final draft is being circulated for approval. ACCOMPLISHMENTS: NEPA Documentation: 1.The Notice of Intent of the Cross-Cascade Pipeline Project was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 1996. 2. Jurisdictional or permitting agencies for the project include: Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), FS, BLM, BOR, COE and The Department of the Army(DOA). Involved agencies for the review of the project and EIS include: Bonneville Power Administration(BPA), US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFW), and The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC). 3. Scoping letters and notification were mailed to over 6,000 individuals, State and Federal agencies. Some Federal agencies have requested more additional time to respond and that request has been honored. As of May 1, 1996, the following agencies have submitted scoping comments: a. FS, COE, EPA, and USFWS b. DOA and BOR did not submit written comments on the project. 4. Six public scoping meetings were held in Snohomish, King, Kittitas, Grant, Adams and Franklin counties during the month of March. 5. J&S will be preparing a detailed Federal/State/Public scoping summary by May 16, 1996 for the FS and EFSEC. Copies of the final summary will be distributed when the document is received by the FS. 6. J&S has completed a review of the application information provided by the company for sufficiency to proceed in the preparation of a Draft EIS. Copies were mailed to the Federal agencies on May 1, 1996 for their review and distribution to appropriate staff specialists. As of June 10, 1996, EFSEC has received no response from OPCO on the items requested in the review. T&E Consultation (Sec. 7) 1. OPCO has agreed with the Federal Lead Agency to be responsible for all coordination, information gathering and preparation associated with the Biological Assessment to be prepared for the project. They will be contacting each land agency to begin work on the surveys needed for consultation. Field surveys will probably begin the spring of 1996 and may cross over into 1997 depending on final route determination. Each Federal agency will cooperate as needed with the FS being the overall lead in final preparation of a joint document. The BA will serve four functions: a. Address project impacts to non-sensitive species for inclusion in the EIS analysis. b. Address T&E Species impacts for inclusion in the consultation process. c. Address state protected species for inclusion in the EIS analysis and permitting process. d. Address wetland and stream dependent species for COE permitting process. At the present time, there has been no decision on who will go to the Fish and Wildlife Service for the consultation process. 2. The FS has issued a Temporary Use Permit to the company for the gathering of information related to the project. Approval is only for FS lands and OPCO knows that it must get agency approval before entering other Federal lands. Cultural Resource Consultation (Sec. 106) 1. There have been no direct discussions with OPCO on how to approach the coordination, development and approvals associated with meeting cultural resources and Advisory Council needs. 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 July 8, 1996 at the North Bend District. Final arrangements will need to made with the target groups before final notification is made. Target group will be FS, COE, and EPA. * 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 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 June 19, 1996 at the J&S office. Target group will be FS, EFSEC, and J&S staff. * FS working meeting with the Wenatchee and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests Archaeologists on strategy for the cultural resources approval process for the entire project and problems being encountered by the agency with the company's involvement. Date is set for 9:30 am on June 11, 1996 at the Skykomish District Office. Target group will be FS only with future agency involvement after agreements are reached on overall process coordination and other group involvement. INTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS(April-May) (February-March) A meeting was held with the Cle Elum Ranger District Coordinator and Federal Project Manager on February 16, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated with the Project, how the EFSEC/Federal EIS process is progressing and share a copy of the EFSEC Application for use by the District in commenting on the project. The meeting agenda dealt with project overview and what was going to be happening within the next 45 days. Arrangement was made for a scoping session to be conducted on March 13, 1996. No actions were recommended other than the scoping session. A meeting was held at the Cle Elum Ranger District on April 13, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated with the Project and how District coordination will involved. The meeting agenda dealt with project overview, state and Federal relationships, EIS schedule, agency view on scoping comments, alternatives and opposition overview. Districtrequested to have periodic coordination meetings to allow folks a chance to shareand discuss project aspects. A meeting was held with Jim Benson and Lee Burnett of the DOA, Federal Project Manager and Greg Poremba of J&S on March 15, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated with the Project, how the EFSEC/Federal EIS process is progressing and share a copy of the EFSEC Application for useby the Army in commenting on the project. The meeting agenda dealt with project overview and what was going to be happening within the next 45 days. Jim brought to our attention that the resource staff at the YTCwould be the primary reviewers of the application and that I should make contact with Steve Kruger at YTC to arrange for a similar briefing. Also, the possible conflict with future Army operations on the YTC were surfaced and discussed in limited detail. No actions were recommended other than the need for contact with the YTC staff directly. A meeting was held with John Tiedeman and the staff of the BOR, Federal Project Manager and Greg Poremba of J&S on March 25, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated with the Project, how the EFSEC/Federal EIS process is progressing and share a updated copy of the pipeline alignment for use by the BOR in commenting on the project. The meeting agenda dealt with project overview and what was going to be happening within the next45 days. John brought to our attention that the resource staff at the Yakima office of the BOR would be the primary reviewers of the application and EIS. Also, discussions were conducted concerning the MOA submitted to BOR for the project in some detail. A meeting was held with Steve Kruger, Center Commander of the YTC, the resource staff of YTC, Federal Project Manager and Greg Poremba of J&S on March 26, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated with the Project,how the EFSEC/Federal EIS process is progressing and share a updated copy of the pipeline alignment for use by the YTC in commenting on the project. The meeting agenda dealt with project overview and what was going to be happening within the next 45 days. The commander brought to our attention that the proposed alignment presents possible conflicts with future Army tank operations on the YTC and that re-alignment along the I-90 Freeway would be preferred over the existing proposal. (April-May) A meeting was held with the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Supervisor and Forest personnel on April 1, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated with the Project and how the EFSEC/Federal EIS process is progressing. The meeting agenda dealt with project overview, state and Federal relationships, EIS schedule, Biological Assessment Strategy, personal view of scoping comments, alternatives and opposition overview. No actionswere recommended but views were exchanged between Forest Supervisor and staff. A meeting was held with the State and Federal agency coordinators and J&S personnel on April 3, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated with the Project and how the agency permit coordination will develop. The meeting agenda dealt with project overview, state and Federal relationships, EIS schedule, agency view on scoping comments, alternatives and opposition overview. Federal agencies asked to have periodic coordination meetingsto allow folks a chance to share and discuss project aspects. The COE requested that the scoping period for the agency be extended to May 1,1996 which was granted for all Federal agencies. A meeting was held with EFSEC Project Manager, Federal Project Manager and J&S personnel on April 24, 1996, to discuss current aspects associatedwith the Project and how the joint EIS process was proceeding. The meeting agenda dealt with the lack of all Federal scoping comments, State comments to be submitted, preparation of the scoping document, follow-up meetings with the company and J&S personnel, mailing list revisions, EIS scope and budget implications, issues and alternatives and lead agency scoping meeting in mid May. Decisions made: 1. The EFSEC/Forest Service need to establish the scope of the EIS fairly soon and emphasis needs to made to address key permitting agency comments(COE and EPA), 2. Mailing list will need to be edited to reflect those who responded to the scoping process, 3. EFSEC will contact the company to discuss what their next actions might be with respect to meeting with J&S personnel. A meeting was held with the Wenatchee Forest Supervisor and Forest personnel on April 25, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated withthe Project and how the EFSEC/Federal EIS process is progressing. The meeting agenda dealt with project overview, state and Federal relationships, EIS schedule, Biological Assessment Strategy, personal view of scoping comments, alternatives and opposition overview. No actions were recommended but views were exchanged between Forest Supervisor and staff. A meeting was held with the entire EFSEC Council, Federal Project Manager and Grant Bailey of J&S on May 8, 1996, to discuss and share with the council how each will work towards issuing a joint EIS and making separate project decisions. The meeting agenda dealt with basic process for the council and specific guides on how the state decision process works. A meeting was held with the Cle Elum District Ranger and Districtpersonnel on May 9, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated with the Project and how the EFSEC/Federal EIS process is progressing. The meeting agendadealt with project overview, state and Federal relationships, EIS schedule, Biological Assessment Strategy, personal view of scoping comments, alternatives and opposition overview. No actions were recommended but views were exchanged between Forest Supervisor and staff. A meeting was held with EFSEC Project Manager, Federal Project Manager and J&S personnel on May 22, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated with the Project and how the joint EIS process was proceeding. The meeting agenda dealt with the lack of all Federal scoping comments, State comments to be submitted, preparation of the scoping document, follow-up meetings with the company and J&S personnel, mailing list revisions, EIS scope and budget implications, issues and alternatives and lead agency scoping meeting in mid May. Decisions made: 1. The EFSEC/Forest Service need to establish the scope of the EIS fairly soon and emphasis needs to made to address key permitting agency comments(COE and EPA), 2. Mailing list will need to be edited to reflect those who responded to the scoping process, 3. EFSEC will contact the company to discuss what their next actions might be with respect to meeting with J&S personnel. EXTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS(April-May) A meeting was held with OPCO/Dames & Moore(D&M), Federal Project Manager,Botanists from the Wenatchee and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF on April 4, 1996, todiscuss current specific requirements for botanical surveys on National ForestLands only. The meeting agenda dealt with the Forest forms and standards tobeuse on the project, species of concern, protocols and timing of surveys. Sincethis coordination dealt with Forest concerns, the company is aware that theymust contact other agencies to obtain similar information and requirements forthe project. Decisions made: 1. All the vascular plants on the list providedwill be searched for using the same method as used for our TE&S plants, 2.Areasurveys will have complete species lists, 3. Surveys will use Forest PlantAssociation guidelines, 4. Dames and Moore will notify both botanists as soonas they know when they will be in the field. A phone conversation on May 15, 1996 with D&M resulted in a request made oftheForests to identify their respective GIS contacts to assist in the transfer ofresource information. Contacts were given for the MBS and for the Cle ElumRanger District. The conversation dealt with basic process to request andtransfer information without impacting to many folk. D&M is aware that theywill have to contact the other agencies to acquire any additional Non-ForestService information. A meeting was held with the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Supervisor, Forestpersonnel, Tim Zenk of The Rocky Company and Jim Rybock of EnvironmentalConnections on May 8, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated with theProject and how the EFSEC/Federal process will be conducted. The meetingagenda dealt with who is the Columbia-Cascade Alliance(CCA), project overviewfrom the CCA viewpoint, State and Federal decision relationships, EIS scheduleand CCA concerns over the project and its impacts, scoping comments,alternatives and opposition support. No actions were discussed andviews/documentation were presented to the Forest Supervisor and staff by Mr.Zenk and Mr. Rybock. Copies are available on request. A meeting was held with WorldCom Network Services, David Evans and Assoc.Consultants, Forest Service Project Managers, and State Parks on April 2,1996,to discuss current specific requirements for the fiber Optic cable project onNational Forest Lands only. The meeting agenda dealt with the Forestrequirements to be applied on the project, NEPA concerns, AMA concerns andpossible conflicts with other uses such as the proposed pipeline. Since thiscoordination dealt with Forest concerns, WorldCom is aware of the pipelineproject and based on our discussions, construction and coexistence of bothusesis attainable. The approach to construction is to identify and removeexistingcables with other bypass cables in place should the integrity of the cables becompromised and communications needed to be rerouted over the temporary cablesystems. 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 resouce information which is critical inalternative analysis and selection of a preferred environmental alternative. COE will be critical in its review and decision on the leastenvironmental 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: * None