September 13, 1996  
 
STATUS REPORT FOR THE CROSS-CASCADE PIPELINE PROJECT  
 
REPORT #  4   
 
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 and Columbia River as tocompatibility with current 
and future use of these sites and suitability oftheriver site for boring.  
 
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.  Since 
estimates were not received from the Corp. of Engineers(COE)and Dept. of the 
Army(DOA), the BLM coordinator(Mr. Jerry Spessard) was goingto contact these two 
agencies to see if the agency wanted to participate intheBLM cost recovery agreement.  
Once OPCO has agreed with the costs, BLM wouldthen contact the other Federal 
agencies concerning billing and paymenttransferprocedures.  Agencies currently using 
reimburseable management codes forfiscalyear 1996 need to contact Mr. Spessard(509-
536-1223) on how to deal withyear-end closing of these accounts.  
 
AGREEMENTS:  
 
1. A revised final Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) has been submitted tothe BLM on 
9/5/96 for their review and action. As of 9/13, BLM has not acted on the agreement.  
Once agreement is received from the BLM, other agencies will then receive the 
agreement for subsequent review and action.  
 
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) No changes from the last report to note.  
 
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(b)-1 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 a time 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 
October , 1996 at the J&S office.  Target group will be FS, BLM, EFSEC, and J&S staff.  
 
INTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS  
 
1.  A meeting was held with the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council(EFSEC) Project 
Manager, Federal Project Manager, Project Administrator, and J&S staff on September 
11, 1996, to discuss current aspects associated withthe 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 submitted by OPCO and 
approaches to upcoming coordination meeting with OPCO, EFSEC, COE and EPA.  No 
decisions were made at the meeting.  
 
2.  A meeting was held with BLM Project Administrator, Spokane District NEPA 
Coordinator and District Manager and Federal Project Manager on August 16, 1996, to 
discuss BLM and USFS coordination and responsibilities for theEIS and Record of 
Decision(ROD), communications and appeal support effortsonce the ROD is issued.  The 
following items and subsequents actions were identified: 1. BLM is the Responsible 
Agency under the Mineral Leasing Act(MLA) and will issue the Record of Decision for 
the EIS ROD and R/W Grant application.  The USFS is the Responsible Agency for the 
EIS and will work with all jurisdictional agencies to reachjoint agreement on a preferred 
alternative. 2. BLM will probably issued a joint decision document for the R/W Grant 
and EIS ROD.  
 
3. BLM will research and reply back to the USFS and DistrictManager on the authorities 
granted to the BLM under MLA which addresses decisional responsiblities and 
obligations when dealing with other jurisdictional agencies.(ie. consultation 
vs.concurrence)  
 
 4. USFS will explore the use of J&S Associates to assist the BLM if the ROD is 
appealed(separate services contract might be needed) 5. USFS will modify the MOA to 
address specific support needed by BLM during the appeal process and the transition of 
lead roles between the BLM and USFS once the EIS is published. 6. USFS will transmit 
at the earliest date a tentative EIS schedule once OPCO submits the additional 
information requested duringthe application review done in April of 1996.  
 
EXTERNAL CONTACTS/MEETINGS  
 
 Nothing to report at this time.  
 
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:  
 
 * No change from the last report.  
 
ATTACHMENTS: None