October 24, 1996  
 
STATUS REPORT FOR THE CROSS-CASCADE PIPELINE PROJECT  
 
REPORT #  5   
 
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).  
 
COST RECOVERY: 
 
BLM is currently working on a cost proposal to be submitted to Olympic PipeLine 
Company(OPCO) which details all the projected costs from the Federalagencies.  
 
AGREEMENTS:  
 
1. A revised final Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) has been signed off by the BLM 
and the agreement has been forward to the Department of the Army(DOA) at Fort Lewis 
for approval.  Once the agreement is approved by DOA and returned to the FS, other 
remaining agencies(Bureau of Reclamation(BOR) and Army Corps of Engineers(COE)) 
will then be sent the agreement for subsequent review and action.  
 
 2. Forest Service(FS) has issued an invitation to the following agencies based on their 
expertise in managing coastal waters or energy distribution: 1. National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration(NOAA), 2. National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) and 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC).  As of the date of this report, NOAA 
and FERC declined to participate as cooperating agency and NMFS has yet to respond to 
the invitation.  
 
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  
 
GIS Information No changes from the last report to note.  
 
NEPA Documentation A draft technical report has been submitted(September 24, 1996) 
to various federal and state agencies by Dames and Moore(D&M) which addresses 
specific wetlands impacted by the proposed Cross Cascade Pipeline Project. Copies of 
pertinent sections have been forward to agency coordinators for review and comment.  
 
T&E Consultation (Sec. 7) No changes from the last report to note.  
 
Cultural Resource Consultation (Sec. 106) No changes from the last report to note. 
 
COMING EVENTS WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS (Meetings/Publications/Due Dates):  
 
Meetings:  Wetlands coordination meeting between OPCO, D&M biologists, Federal and 
State agencies representatives on the 1. review of sensitive areas, 2. mitigation process, 3. 
impacts andmitigation in perspective, 4. compensation ratios, compensatory mitigation 
planning, 6. restoration planning and erosion/sediment control planning. A tentative 
meeting has been set for November 15, 1996 in the USFWS Moses Lake office.  Target 
group will be all Federal and State resource and regulatory agencies possibly affected by 
the proposed project.  
 
 * 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 Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council(EFSEC) briefing meeting with 
J&S on general progress of the EIS process and problems being encountered by the 
consultant. Corps of Engineers(COE) will be attending and an effort will be made to 
work with COE to look at options in resolving the wording to be included in the EIS 
P&N statement.  Date is set for 10:00 am on November 7, 1996 at the J&S office.  Target 
group will be FS, BLM, EFSEC, COE, and J&S staff.  
 
INTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS  
 
1.  A wetlands coordination meeting between OPCO, Dames and Moore(D&M) 
biologists, Federal and State agencies representatives was held on October 16, 1996 in the 
COE Seattle District Office to discuss the followingitems: 1. review of sensitive areas, 2. 
mitigation process, 3. impacts andd 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 that a 
similar meeting for streams would be equally beneficial.  An additional meeting as been 
schedule for the Eastern Washington area to present this similar process.  
 
2.  A progress meeting was held with the OPCO, D&M, EFSEC Project Manager, 
Federal Project Manager, and J&S staff on October 11, 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, alternatives, wetlands, 
data/responses to J&S review of resource reports to be submitted by OPCO and 
approaches to upcoming coordination and coordination of the EIS process.  No decisions 
were made at the meeting.  
 
EXTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS  
 
A Prehearing conference meeting of the EFSEC Council was held on October 17, 1996 
with most of the intervening parties either attending or listing via phone bridge.  
Discussions centered mainly around procedural matters related to 1. development of a 
issues list, 2. next actions, 3. serving notice, 4. sharing information.  Next meeting was 
identified some time in January of 1997 but no specific date, time or location were given. 
 
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: * 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:  
 
 * Issuing of the Record of Decision by one agency with multiple signors or issued by 
each jurisdictional agencies under each agency head. (BASED ON DISCUSSIONS 
WITH THE BLM AND STIPULATIONS OUTLINED IN THE MOA, BLM WILL 
ISSUE THE ROD FOR THE FEDERAL LANDS AFFECTED BUT WILL GET 
CONCURRENCE ON A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FROM THE 
JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES BEFORE ISSUING A DECISION.  FS WILL WORK 
WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES IN IDENTIFYING A SINGLE 
PREFERRED ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE IN THE FINAL EIS.  
CONCURRENCE NEED NOT BEA SIGNATURE ON THE ROD BUT CAN BE IN 
THE FORM OF A LETTER FROM THE LINE OFFICER TO THE BLM 
IDENTIFYING ITS POSITION, DECISION RATIONALE AND 
ACCEPTANCE/DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED ACTION)  
 
ATTACHMENTS: None