One of the biggest challenges in the 63-mile natural gas pipeline project is that installation was routed through many streams and wetlands.

And it's in those areas the project has encountered problems.

Between Sept. 19 and Nov. 14, 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency responsible for issuing permits for projects that may affect waters of the United States, sent out three notices of noncompliance and one cease-and-desist order to Coos County; identical cease-and-desist orders to MasTec, Pipeline Solutions Inc. and Industrial Gas Services on Sept. 19; two more cease-and-desist orders to MasTec on Oct. 10 and Oct. 31; and one notice of noncompliance to MasTec on Nov. 14.

At one time, construction went on despite no permit being issued to the county. The permits had been applied for, but not received when lateral line work at Blair Creek, Lost Creek, Glen Aiken Creek and Johnson Mill Pond in Coquille was under way.

According to a notice of noncompliance from the Corps of Engineers on Nov. 6, "The County previously submitted an application for Department of the Army permit for discharges of fill material into waters of the U.S. associated with the construction of the lateral lines described above. That application is currently being processed in Portland District's Eugene field office. However, ... the Corps cannot accept an application for after-the-fact authorization where the district engineer has determined that legal action is appropriate, until such legal action is completed. ... I have directed that the processing of the County's application be held in abeyance pending my determination regarding the appropriateness of legal action in this matter."

"Right now we are investigating the (pipeline) project to determine how many violations there are," corps spokesman Luke Elliott said Wednesday. "We're working with the county to reach some resolution that would result in either repair to the damages done or fines and mitigation work."

Coos County Commissioner Nikki Whitty affirmed the county is working with the Corps of Engineers but said only, "I don't know," about the status of the negotiations, since the county is still involved in talks with the corps and contractors.

And since some of the corps' investigations are cited in pending lawsuits, neither Elliott nor Whitty could comment on that aspect of the findings until those suits are settled, they said.

But despite those lawsuits, the county was obligated to respond in a timely manner to the notices. The Portland law firm of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt responded on behalf of Coos County.

In each of seven separate responses, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt provided detailed, often lengthy, information about the construction processes. In some, attorneys Jay T. Waldron or Timothy M. Sullivan itemized work left to be done, included cross-sectional drawings and specifications, and requested extensions of time frames in permits or modifications that would allow work to continue with minimal environmental impact. In at least nine instances, culvert replacements were put off for a year.

And, the attorneys often challenged the Corps of Engineers on its assumptions, as they did in a Dec. 16 response, prior to a Dec. 17 meeting: "For example, at the November 25 meeting, counsel for the County asked the Corps for the criteria that it used in determining the minimum practicable construction footprint for installation of a 12-inch pipeline across and the dimensions of a construction footprint meeting these criteria. The Corps has not provided this information."

Other agencies

As part of the corps' permitting process, other federal agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service often are contacted for information about potential impacts on endangered species. For the pipeline project, both agencies were consulted.

Fish and Wildlife found construction may affect but not adversely affect spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat if seasonal restrictions were followed. It also found pipeline installation would have no affect on bald eagle habitats. After a little more than three weeks of consideration, the service approved the project in February 2002.

On the other hand, NMFS was consulted three times: Once for the main pipe installation, once for lateral work and again for main pipeline work modifications.

The fisheries service completed the informal consultations at first, but the modified plans merited a closer, formal look at potential effects on endangered salmon.

NMFS began its work but "the county went ahead and completed the project before the formal consultation was completed," Ken Phippen, acting branch chief for NMFS's Southwest Oregon branch, said. "We're still assessing the long-term impacts."

Much of what NMFS is concerned about - and which the corps itemizes in various notices of noncompliance and cease-and-desist orders - is work done out of the in-water work window and erosion control measures.

Construction work done outside the in-water work window, a coordinated period of time in which work would likely have a minimal effect on the water habitat (in this case, before Sept. 19, 2003), requires a formal consultation because the first assessment was for work done during the dry season, "before the adults (coho) started spawning and laying eggs," Phippen said. "Once the rains start, it's a whole new ballgame."

Phippen said erosion controls and culvert replacements during winter also could have a significant impact on returning salmon by changing the turbidity or sedimentation. Phippen said the agency is seeking answers to questions such as, are the erosion control measures effective? How close are they to spawning beds?

"This is one of the few (instances) I've seen that has continued work despite the orders to cease. ... and take on the liability of not having formal consultation completed," Phippen said.

What's next?

The Corps of Engineers and the county will continue negotiations until a resolution is found. Any mitigation costs to repair damages will be assessed and it will likely be up to the county and the contractor to decide who will pay for them and if there are enough funds left in the pipeline budget to cover them.

As Whitty pointed out, MasTec and several of the subcontractors do work all over the country and because of the many miles of steep terrain and the amount of rainfall, "they've never had a project this tough," she said.

Indeed, this may be an isolated case where several factors happened to come together at once.

Regarding MasTec, NW Natural and Coos County, "we've never had any significant issues (with them) in the last five years," Elliott said from the corps' Portland office. "They appear to do the right thing from all the other agencies."