6. PROCEDURES FOR FIELD MONITORING

[Field Monitoring Manual for Environmental Monitors]

6.1 Description of the Pacific Pipeline Project and Master References

6.1.1 Description of the Pacific Pipeline Project

The Pacific Pipeline will carry up to 130,000 barrels per day (BPD) of crude oil from Emidio (in southern Kern County) to refineries in the Los Angeles area. In addition to construction of about 132 miles of 20-inch insulated pipeline, PPSI will construct a new pump station at Emidio (adjacent to an existing Texaco pump station), a pump station at Grapevine, a pressure relief station at the Templin Highway (Whitaker Station), and several scraper traps (e.g., at the Lynwood Junction). Construction is expected to begin in January of 1997, and take about 10 months to complete.

Approximately 33% of the crude oil shipped in the pipeline will be produced offshore Santa Barbara County in Federal waters (called OCS, or Outer Continental Shelf crude), and about 67% of the crude will be produced in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). The OCS crude will be shipped to Emidio through the All American Pipeline (AAPL) from Santa Barbara County to AAPL's Pentland Station, where it will be shipped through Texaco pipelines to Texaco's Emidio Station. SJV crude will be shipped to the Emidio Station through a variety of gathering lines existing in the valley.

The Pacific Pipeline is a complex and controversial project. The environmental review of the different phases of this project began in 1991, and the two major environmental documents prepared by the Lead Agencies exceed 3,000 pages. The project has evoked intense public and agency involvement. More than 2,700 public comments were received on different phases of the project and more than 50 articles on the project have been published in major southern California newspapers.

The pipeline traverses two counties, 15 municipalities (including many communities within the City of Los Angeles, and a number of unincorporated communities), and can be divided into three distinct segments for the purpose of describing construction environments.

The first 33 miles of the pipeline are in the rural areas of southern Kern County and northern Los Angeles counties. In this segment, the pipeline originates in the relatively flat area of southern Kern County and enters the I-5 corridor at Grapevine Canyon. It then traverses the Castac Valley, reaches its highest point at Tejon Pass and crosses the Peace Valley and the San Andreas Fault zone before it enters the Angeles National Forest (ANF). In this segment the pipeline is primarily within existing roads or pipeline Rights-of-Way (ROW). Potential impacts and associated mitigation measures are in the issue areas of biology (potential endangered/threatened species), air quality (heaters at Emidio Station), geology (landslide areas and fault crossings in I-5 corridor).

The second segment of the pipeline extends through about 20 miles of very rugged terrain in the Angeles National Forest (Saugus Ranger District), mostly within an existing pipeline ROW. It is within this segment of the pipeline route that it crosses a number of streams that are tributaries to the Castaic Lake and Pyramid Lake State Water Project reservoirs, two important water resources for hundreds of thousands of people in the Los Angeles Basin area. Potential impacts include effects on hydrologic resources, and effects on cultural and paleontological resources.

The third segment of the pipeline emerges out of the ANF and after passing Violin Canyon, enters the urban portion of the greater Los Angeles area. This stretch of the pipeline (all the way to Wilmington and El Segundo), which at 70 miles in length is the longest of the three segments, would be mostly within existing railroad ROWs, and thus, mostly traverses industrial zones of several cities within two major transportation corridors, the San Fernando Road Corridor, and the Alameda Corridor. However, thousands of people reside within 1,000 feet of the centerline of the project. The pipeline would be bored under all major street crossings and would be laid in some of the existing streets in central Los Angeles and in the south Alameda Corridor. Within this segment of the pipeline there are many communities with high percentages of minorities and low-income populations. The pipeline in this segment would also cross some of the major railroad maintenance yards, some of them containing hazardous wastes (for example, the Taylor Yard which has been designated as a State Superfund cleanup site). The issue areas of importance include system safety, traffic, noise, land use, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and environmental contamination.

PPSI proposes to construct the pipeline in five "pipeline spreads" which will be working on different segments of the pipeline, usually concurrently. They intend to use two types of pipelaying spreads, referred to as "urban spreads" and "rural spreads". The "urban spreads" are more constricted than the "rural spreads" on which construction would move more quickly and usually traverse wider ROWs. In addition to the pipeline itself, construction will include two pump stations, one pressure reduction station, and numerous block and check valves to be installed along the pipeline route. Each boring or directional drilling site will require a work area of approximately 100 x 200 feet that will also be disturbed. The spreads proposed to be used by PPSI are defined in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3 Pipeline Construction Segments (per PPSI, 4/8/97)

It should be noted that construction segments 1, 2, and 4 will each have two separate construction spreads within them, so it is likely that there will be occasions when as many as 7 or 8 separate spreads are operating along the ROW.

Exhibit 4 lists the numbers of mitigation measures proposed in the EIS/SEIR and EIR, and the approximate number of measures proposed by PPSI to reduce impact (these "Applicant Proposed Measures" are incorporated as part of PPSI's project description, and their implementation must also be ensured by this program). Appendix A includes the full text of each measure or proposal, including performance criteria and timing.

Exhibit 4 Mitigation Measures and Applicant-Proposed Measures Per Environmental Issue Area¹

¹ Includes all mitigation measures from EIS/SEIR and relevant mitigation measures from 1993 EIR.

6.1.2 Master References

All field monitors are expected to be thoroughly familiar with the project history and with the environmental documents that have been prepared. The documents that guide the field monitoring efforts, and which will serve as essential references, include the following:

Pacific Pipeline Project Final Environmental Impact Report, September 1993

Pacific Pipeline Project Final Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, January 1996

Final/approved construction plans (detailed photo alignment sheets including notations of sensitive resources)

Appendices to this Manual, including:

Appendix A Mitigation measures, applicant-proposed measures and project parameters; definition of impacts, performance and effectiveness criteria

Appendix B Responsible and Cooperating Agencies

Appendix C Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards

Appendix D Computer System Manual (attached for EMs only)

6.2 Roles, Responsibilities, and Authority of Field Monitors

Third Party Monitoring

The Aspen Monitoring Team consists of third party monitors who are conducting the MMCRP on behalf of the CPUC and ANF and are accountable to them. As third party monitors, they are responsible for ensuring that all measures are implemented successfully by PPSI. PPSI is responsible for constructing and operating the project in a cost-effective manner while complying with the mitigation measures, applicant-proposed measures and project parameters, and permit conditions. It should be noted that only PPSI can commit project resources and direct construction contractors. The joint goal of the third party monitors and PPSI is to ensure successful completion of the project while minimizing environmental impacts and citizen complaints.

Monitoring Philosophy

The goal in implementing the MMCRP is to ensure complete compliance with mitigation measures, applicant-proposed measures, approved plans, and permit conditions and requirements in a non-threatening manner using open and honest communication. It should always be remembered that the project was approved by the Lead Agencies assuming the achievement of the impact reductions defined in the environmental documents through implementation of these measures. The methods and procedures presented in this document are intended to assure the completion of an effective monitoring program, consistent with the requirements of the CPUC and CEQA, and in compliance with National Forest System, ANF, and NEPA requirements.

Aspen's team is committed to the conscientious monitoring of the mitigation measures and associated conditions under which PPSI will operate. In accordance with this philosophy, Aspen is also committed to avoiding or minimizing any impacts that could result from our monitoring activities themselves. In all instances where feasible, based on the monitoring requirements of each activity and location, Aspen will comply with the same types of restrictions placed on PPSI to reduce the potential impacts that could result from this construction project.

Environmental Monitors

Qualifications. The LEM will have earned a minimum of a Bachelor's degree in one of the environmental sciences, engineering, or related field and have at least 5 years of monitoring experience. In addition, the LEM will have field experience managing field crews; knowledge of pipeline construction techniques; the ability to read and understand construction specifications, drawings, plans, and designs; strong interpersonal abilities; be computer literate; and possess excellent communication skills.

The EMs will have earned a minimum of a Bachelor's degree in one of the environmental sciences, engineering, or related field. The EMs will have experience in field monitoring for construction and restoration procedures or permit compliance; the ability to read and understand construction specifications, drawings, plans, and designs; be computer literate; and possess excellent communication skills.

Role. The role of the LEM is to provide training, field coordination, scheduling, and management of the EMs at each construction spread; coordinate with Aspen's Program Management Team regarding the need for Technical Experts in the field; be an on-site resource for EMs and project personnel; and to be a liaison between field personnel and the Program Manager. The LEM will provide specific briefings for agency personnel regarding the status of the project, if it is required. The LEM can be contacted by cellular phone, PPSI radio, or pager. The LEM reports directly to the Program Manager.

The role of an EM is to watch, check, and keep track of the field and construction activities and progress of the construction crews and document/report to help ensure that the required mitigation measures and other conditions/requirements are met. The EMs will assist and report to the LEM.

See Section 6.11 for the role of the LEM and EMs in responding to variance requests.

Monitoring Responsibility. Environmental monitors (LEM and EMs) are responsible for documenting that the required mitigation measures, applicant-proposed measures, approved plans, and permit conditions and requirements are implemented according to the performance criteria and that mitigated environmental impacts meet the standards set by these criteria in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (see Appendix A). The monitor will use the computer tracking system to assure that all measures to be implemented in any particular location is checked and categorized as either accepted or not in compliance.

Each workday morning, before going into the field, the EM will meet with the PPSI Spread Superintendent (or his designee) for his/her assigned construction spread to discuss the planned construction activities for the day. When in the field, the first priority of the EM is to inspect active construction sites. The time spent monitoring an activity will depend upon a combination of the activity occurring (e.g., clearing and grading may require more inspection than welding) and the location of the activity (e.g., stream crossings versus roadways). The EM will utilize a laptop computer and the computer tracking system to record his/her monitoring and compliance activities for each site. Before leaving the site, the EM will notify the appropriate PPSI inspector if there is a problem or if a non-compliance event has occurred. If a non-compliance is recorded, the EM will follow the steps outlined in Section 6.9.3 of this document.

Reporting Responsibility. Environmental monitors (LEM and EMs) are responsible for documenting the implementation of mitigation measures, applicant-proposed measures, approved plans, and permit conditions and requirements using Aspen's computerized reporting system. Follow-up reports on any non-compliance will be prepared until the situation is remedied (see Section 6.8 for more details).

Enforcement Responsibility. Environmental monitors (LEM and EMs) have overall authority to enforce permit compliance on behalf of, and in full consultation with the Lead Agencies). Implementation problems or non-compliances related to mitigation measures, applicant-proposed measures, approved plans, and permit conditions and requirements will be recorded and reported to the LEM, who will notify the Program Manager. Such events will also be reported in the daily report modemed to Aspen's central computer server, and will be included in the daily fax report to Lead Agencies. The Program Manager, or his designee, will contact the CPUC and/or ANF, as well as appropriate agencies or individuals, as necessary, and will discuss the suggested enforcement actions associated with each non-compliance.

Authority. Environmental monitors (LEM and EMs) have the authority (after proper consultation with the Program Manager and, through him, with the Lead Agencies) to require PPSI to halt any construction, operation, or maintenance activity associated with the Pacific Pipeline Project if the monitor determines that the activity is a deviation from the approved project description or adopted mitigation measures, applicant-proposed measures, approved plans, or permit conditions and requirements. The decision on cessation of construction activity will depend on the level of the violation and the PPSI response to warnings, if these warnings were issued. (Please see the discussions of dispute resolution and variance processes later in this section).

Mitigation Compliance Responsibility

PPSI is responsible for successfully implementing all the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance and Reporting Plan (MMCRP), including mitigation requirements established by cooperating and responsible agencies through the permit process and in specific plans. PPSI is also responsible for implementing applicant-proposed measures/project parameters, approved plans, and all aspects of the Project Description as described in the EIS/SEIR and the EIR. Successful implementation of the mitigation measures is dependent on performance criteria outlined in Appendix A. Successful implementation of each measure in actual achievement of reduction intended should be measured by the detailed "Effectiveness Criteria" of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan defined in Appendix A.

PPSI shall inform the CPUC and ANF in writing of any aspect of a mitigation measure or project parameter that are not or cannot be successfully implemented. The CPUC and ANF or its designee will assess whether alternative mitigation is appropriate and specify to PPSI the subsequent actions required. Any waiver of a mitigation measure, condition, or requirement will be documented as a "Variance" (see Section 6.11).

6.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Technical Experts in the Field

Qualifications. Technical Experts will have a minimum of a Bachelor's degree in a relevant discipline and 10 years of experience. The Technical Experts will have professional certificates (where applicable), specific expertise in the project subject, and experience in pipeline construction and restoration procedures or permit compliance.

Role. The role of the Technical Expert in the field is to provide, at the request of Aspen's Program Management Team, expert analysis or quick and innovative approaches for specialized field problems or situations, often with very little notice. Technical Expert might be required to actually monitor, in the field, aspects of the mitigation measures that require specific experience.

Responsibility. Technical Experts are responsible for responding promptly to inquiries from Aspen. They will be available to report to a field site of being notified that their services are needed. They will be available to participate in the MMT program and will periodically review the monitoring activities for thoroughness and technical accuracy, as required. When in the field, the Technical Experts shall contact the LEM on a daily basis to report their activities, findings, and recommendations, in order that the LEM can include those reports in her daily report. The Technical Experts shall also submit a brief summary of each day's field activities to the Aspen office (via fax) to document their time spent and tasks performed.

Exhibit 5 lists the technical experts on the Aspen team.

Exhibit 5 Technical Experts

6.4 Agency Jurisdictions

Following, in Exhibit 6, is a list that includes all Federal, State, and local agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The list includes a contact name and phone number for each agency with jurisdiction over the project. The list also indicates which construction spread or spreads are within the jurisdiction of that agency.

Exhibit 6 Agency Jurisdiction List

6.5 Interaction with PPSI and Construction Contractor Personnel

The goals of all interactions between EMs and PPSI or Contractor personnel are:

To obtain full cooperation in assuring that all required mitigation measures and proposed project parameters are successfully implemented

To avoid even the appearance of impropriety

To be professional at all times

To establish and maintain vital levels of communication and coordination

To distribute information among all parties in a timely manner.

Each active construction spread shall have at least one EM assigned to it each workday. The LEM shall visit field sites at the site. The EM will communicate and coordinate with the PPSI Spread Superintendent and/or his designee. When there is a problem or non-compliance, the EM shall notify the appropriate PPSI Inspector directly in order to hasten corrective actions. The LEM shall also be notified promptly. If a PPSI Inspector or the PPSI Spread Superintendent cannot be located or contacted, the EM shall notify the contractor foreman. The EM shall not direct the work of the Inspector, the contractor, or subcontractor. The EM shall document all observations and communications in his/her Daily Inspection Record.

6.5.1 Communication Channels

The LEM will meet with the individual EMs during the work week to distribute paperwork, coordinate activities, and discuss concerns, problems, resolutions, and laudatory activities. The LEM and EMs will meet at least every two weeks to share and up-date information. To ensure that PPSI and contractor concerns are addressed promptly and efficiently, the LEM will meet with Spread Superintendents as needed. Meetings between the PPSI Environmental Coordinator and the LEM will occur on a daily basis so PPSI's environmental staff and Aspen's field staff will have an open exchange of information and a professional working relationship.

Each EM will meet with PPSI Spread Superintendent (or his designee) for his/her assigned construction spread every morning to be briefed on the activities of the day and to discuss the potential problems for particular locations or activities. The LEM and EMs will coordinate with PPSI to identify sensitive areas before construction reaches those locations.

Every night the LEM will contact each EM to discuss the plans and assignments for the next workday.

6.6 Coordination and Field Assignments

In consultation with Program Manager and the other Deputy Program Manager, the LEM will coordinate the field assignments of the EMs based upon construction activities and schedules that are provided by PPSI at morning meetings and in weekly up-dates. Environmental monitoring priorities and the use of Technical Experts will be based upon planned activities and scientific expertise appropriate to specific sensitive areas or construction activity (for example, stream or fault crossings, sensitive habitats, traffic issues) and coordinated with Aspen's Program Management Team. Field assignments may also be influenced by specific requests made by PPSI. The Program Manager and LEM shall be notified of any changes in construction activities or schedules at least 24 hours before the change is to occur so as to have time to arrange field assignments, as needed.

Field assignments for Technical Experts will be on an 'as-needed' basis and coordinated by Aspen's Program Management Team.

6.7 Communication Protocols (Agencies, Monitors, PPSI, Others)

The following communication protocol has been developed to facilitate efficient communication between environmental monitors and agencies, PPSI, the contractor, and subcontractors:

The LEM and EMs will not directly contact the contractors or subcontractors. Contact will be made through PPSI, unless there is an emergency situation.

Environmental monitors will not directly contact PPSI management or agencies without prior instructions from the LEM or Aspen's Program Management Team.

The LEM will not directly contact PPSI management or agencies without consulting Aspen's Program Management Team.

Aspen's Program Management Team will be the primary contact for PPSI management and agency inquiries.

Correspondence for the LEM and EMs will be sent to the Aspen main office.

Environmental monitors will submit written memoranda through the LEM.

Exhibit 1 (repeated on the following page from Section 3) shows communication pathways between Aspen personnel, the Lead Agencies, and PPSI.

6.7.1 Media Contact

This section will ensure that all parties are aware of who should and should not talk to the media, and that the CPUC or ANF representatives are authorized to talk to the media. Any media inquiries presented to Environmental Monitors or Technical Experts should be reported immediately to the Lead Environmental Monitor. The LEM shall refer all media requests to Aspen Program Management Team: Dr. Hamid Rastegar, and the Lead Agencies' focal point of contact.

When approached by a member of the media, the EM should:

Identify him/herself

Be calm and truthful

Tell them that, by the virtue of Aspen's contract, it is required that all inquiries be referred to the appropriate Lead Agency representatives.

6.7.2 Public Contact

When approached by a member of the public, the LEM or EM should remain polite at all times, but should not offer solutions or make promises. Depending on the problem or question, the public should be referred to either the PPSI Inspector on-site or to Aspen's Program Manager. At all times, whether on-site or off-site, Aspen's environmental monitors shall remember that they represent the Lead Agencies and shall consider project-related information confidential until instructed otherwise by Aspen's Program Management Team.

6.8 Documentation and Reporting

Documentation and Reporting Requirements. The documentation and reporting requirements are intended to (1) chronicle PPSI's compliance with the MMCRP, including evaluation of environmental impacts and the effectiveness of mitigation efforts, and (2) report on construction progress and compliance both internally to Aspen's Program Management Team and field personnel, and externally to Lead Agencies, PPSI, other agencies, and the public.

Documentation Procedures. Every work day, each EM will maintain a Daily Inspection Record (in the Data Management System, Aspen's computer tracking system) to track all procedures required for each mitigation measure and ensure that the timing specified for the procedures is adhered to for their assigned construction spreads.

At the end of every work day, Technical Experts will submit an activity record by fax to the Aspen office. They shall also call the LEM and briefly report on their activities. The written report shall include a description of the work done and any problems that occurred. Both the LEM and the Aspen office (DPM for Expert Reviewers) must be aware of the progress and activities will record and track the activities of the Technical Experts on a daily basis.

Field personnel (LEM, EMs, and Technical Experts) are expected to document construction activities with photographs and, in some cases, video photography. Color, print, 35 mm photographs will be taken to help document a reported non-compliance. If appropriate, photos should also be taken to document the steps taken to remedy the non-compliance. Aspen monitors are encouraged to take photographs to record construction activities and progress. Photographs will be logged on a photograph record sheet. Each photograph shall be properly labeled (photographer, photo identification number, date of photo, time photo taken, construction spread, estimated milepost, description of activity) and then submitted with negatives to the Aspen corporate office. Aspen's Program Management Team may provide a video camera and request that specific construction activities be recorded. If this occurs, specific instructions will be provided by Aspen's Management Team.

Reporting Requirements. Daily Inspection Records will be sent (via modem) to the Central Computer Server at Aspen's corporate office at the end of each work day. The CPUC and ANF will receive daily reports generated by the Data Management System from Aspen's Program Management Team. The reports will indicate activities at each construction spread, variances that were requested and/or approved, and non-compliances that were reported and their status.

Aspen's Program Management Team will provide the CPUC and ANF with Weekly Summary Reports and Monthly Compliance Reports based on the Daily Inspection Records and project correspondence.

PPSI will provide the CPUC and ANF with written quarterly reports of the project that shall include progress of construction, resulting impacts, mitigation implemented, and all other noteworthy elements of the project.

6.8.1 Recordkeeping Requirements

All records generated by Aspen personnel will be kept at Aspen's corporate office. The field office will have copies of the Daily Inspection Records, the Weekly Summary Reports, and the Monthly Compliance Reports. The field office will also have copies of all master references.

6.8.2 Data Reporting/Computer Tracking System Input

The EMs will have portable computers available to them upon which to enter their Daily Inspection Records on a daily basis. The information will be sent via modem to the central server in the Aspen corporate office at the close of each work day (see Appendix D, Computer System Manual). The information included in the Daily Inspection Records will include, at a minimum:

Date

Monitor Name

Construction Spread

Hours of Construction

Type of Site

Landowner Name

Activity Occurring

Hours of Construction

Violations Documented; Level of Violation

Compliance status for each applicable mitigation measure and requirement

Deadline for Correction of Non-Compliance

Weekly Summary Reports shall be prepared by Aspen's Program Management Team. The Weekly Summary Reports will provide not only information about the activities of the week (including construction progress and status of non-compliances that have occurred) but also planned construction activities for the coming week.

The Monthly Compliance Reports shall be prepared by Aspen's Program Management Team and will provide detailed information on the mitigation measures that have been completed, types of non-compliances that have occurred, remedial actions that have been proposed, the progress of construction, or other pertinent information.

6.8.3 Expense and Time Reporting

Expense and time reporting by LEM and EMs will be done on a weekly basis. Time Sheets and Expense Reports (Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8) shall be submitted to the Aspen Corporate office every Monday before 10:00 a.m. If expense reports are sent by facsimile, legible copies of all receipts shall be included. Original receipts shall be submitted within 5 days. Time sheets and expense reports will be available at both Aspen's corporate and field offices. Guidelines for expense reports will be provided; these guidelines are based on California State allowable limits due to Aspen's contract with the CPUC. Additional guidance and sample forms will be provided during the MMT.

Aspen's corporate office will provide supplies. The purchase of materials not available from the Aspen corporate office must be approved by the Aspen Program Management Team prior to purchase in order to be considered for reimbursement.

6.9 Compliance Evaluation

The purpose and goal of compliance evaluation is to ensure that the specific performance criteria for each mitigation measure, applicant-proposed measure, permit requirement or condition, approved plan, or other project stipulation are met in order to minimize or eliminate potential significant impacts and to protect environmental resources.

6.9.1 Process for Determining Compliance Status

Each active construction spread will have at least one EM assigned to it each workday who will make field observations. The EM will check to see if the observed activity meets the relevant "Performance Criteria" (see Appendices) for (1) mitigation measures, (2) applicant-proposed measures and project parameters, (3) permit conditions and requirements, (4) approved plans, or (5) other project stipulations. If the activity meets the performance criteria, the activity will be recorded as "Acceptable." If the activity does not meet the performance criteria, the activity will be recorded as "Non-compliance," and the level of non-compliance will be determined.

Exhibit 7 (Timesheet)

Exhibit 8 (Expense Report)

6.9.2 Description of Compliance Levels

Acceptable:

Activities comply with performance criteria set for all applicable mitigation measures, applicant proposed measures, permit requirements or conditions, approved plans, or other project stipulations.

Non-Compliance:

Any deviation from applicable mitigation measures, applicant proposed measures and project parameters, permit conditions or requirements, and approved plans.

Violation levels are defined as follows:

Level 1 One of the performance criteria has not been complied with resulting in only partial implementation of a Mitigation Measure but no significant impact.

A written warning shall be submitted to PPSI and corrective action shall be required within a stated maximum period (24 hrs to 3 days, to be determined by CPUC/ANF designee).

If corrective action is not taken within the stated period, a second written notice will inform PPSI that unless the situation is rectified, a cessation of all construction activities will be required within 24 hours. Construction activities may be shut down until PPSI satisfies the CPUC/ANF designees (Program Manager and the LEM) that the situation has been remedied.

Level 2 One or more of the performance criteria have not been complied with, making the mitigation ineffective and resulting in minor impacts. If allowed to continue, this non-compliance could result in significant impact over-time.

An oral warning followed by a written notice shall be submitted to PPSI. Corrective action shall begin by the next construction day.

If corrective action is not begun by the next construction day, a cessation of all construction activities may be required. Construction activities may be shut down until PPSI satisfies the CPUC/ANF designees (Program Manager and the LEM) that the situation has been remedied.

Level 3 One or more of the performance criteria are not complied with and the implementation of a mitigation measure is deficient or non-existent, resulting in significant impact(s), or there is immediate threat of major, irreversible environmental damage or property loss.

An oral warning followed by written notice shall be submitted to PPSI. Correction action shall begin immediately.

Construction activities for the entire construction spread may be shut down until PPSI satisfies the CPUC/ANF, the CPUC/ANF designee (Program Manager), and other involved agencies/parties that the situation has been remedied.

A pattern of repeated Level 1 or Level 2 non-compliances may also be reason to shut down construction activities until PPSI satisfies the CPUC/ANF and the CPUC/ANF designee (Program Manager), that the situation has been remedied.

6.9.3 Procedures for Addressing Non-Compliance Events

Level 1 Non-Compliance Procedures. The EM will promptly notify the LEM and will give the PPSI Spread Superintendent, or his designee, a copy of the non-compliance report the day the non-compliance is observed. If the EM is unable to give the written report to the PPSI Spread Superintendent, or his designee, the non-compliance will be reported to the PPSI Spread Superintendent or his designee by telephone and the report will be left in the PPSI Spread Superintendent's office. In order to hasten corrective actions, the EM may notify the appropriate PPSI Inspector directly. The PPSI Spread Superintendent is responsible for ensuring that remedial action is taken. The EM shall document all observations and communications and conduct follow-up observations within 3 days. The LEM will notify Aspen's Program Management Team.

Level 2 Non-Compliance Procedures. The EM will promptly notify the LEM and the PPSI Spread Superintendent, or his designee, of the non-compliance. In order to hasten corrective actions, the EM may notify the appropriate PPSI Inspector directly. The EM will provide a copy of the non-compliance report to the PPSI Spread Superintendent, or his designee, the day the noncompliance is observed. The PPSI Spread Superintendent is responsible for ensuring that remedial action is taken. The EM will conduct follow-up observations within 24 hours. The LEM will notify Aspen's Program Management Team, who will make the necessary agency notifications.

Level 3 Non-Compliance Procedures. The EM will immediately notify the LEM and the PPSI Spread Superintendent, or his designee, of the non-compliance. In order to hasten corrective actions, the EM will notify the appropriate PPSI Inspector directly. If a PPSI Inspector or the PPSI Spread Superintendent cannot be located or contacted, the EM will notify the contractor foreman. The EM shall not direct the work of the Inspector, the contractor, or subcontractor. The EM shall document all observations and communications in his/her Daily Inspection Record. The LEM will notify Aspen's Program Management Team, who will make the necessary agency notifications.

6.10 Dispute Resolution

PPSI will review the performance criteria set by this document and before construction initiation and should inform CPUC/ANF if they have any questions or disagreements with performance criteria and violation levels stated in Appendices. Upon agreement with the criteria, there should be few occasions that PPSI and the monitors have a dispute. However, disputes may arise and a process for their resolution is required.

Separate dispute resolution procedures shall be followed for locations outside Angeles National Forest and locations inside Angeles National Forest. These procedures shall be used by Aspen team members, PPSI and its contractors and/or subcontractors, other agencies, or the public regarding mitigation compliance requirements.

6.10.1 Dispute Resolution Outside of the Angeles National Forest

Should a dispute arise on interpretation of the criteria, the following steps will be used for properties outside of the Angeles National Forest:

Step 1 Disputes and complaints (including those of the public) should be directed first to CPUC's designated MMCRP Program Manager, Dr. Hamid Rastegar. Dr. Rastegar, in consultation with CPUC/ANF will attempt to resolve the dispute.

Step 2 Should this informal process fail, the CPUC Project Manager, Martha Sullivan, may initiate enforcement or compliance action to address deviations from the Proposed Project or adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.

Step 3 If a dispute or complaint regarding the implementation or evaluation of the Program or the mitigation measures cannot be resolved informally or though enforcement or compliance action by the CPUC, any affected participant in the dispute or complaint may file a written "Notice of Dispute" with the CPUC's Executive Director. This notice should be filed in order to resolve the dispute in a timely manner, with copies concurrently served on other affected participants. Within 10 days of receipt, the Executive Director or designee(s) shall meet or confer with the filer and other affected participants for purposes of resolving the dispute. The Executive Director shall issue an Executive Resolution describing his/her decision, and serve it on the filer and other affected participants.

Step 4 If one or more of the affected parties is not satisfied with the decision as described in the Resolution, such party(ies) may appeal it to the Commission via a procedure to be specified by the Commission at the time that a Final Mitigation Monitoring Program is adopted.

Parties may also seek review by the Commission through existing procedures specified in the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, although a good faith effort should first be made to use the foregoing procedure.

6.10.2 Dispute Resolution Within the Angeles National Forest

Should a dispute arise on interpretation of the criteria, the following steps will be used for properties inside of the Angeles National Forest:

Step 1 Disputes and complaints (including those of the public) should be directed first to ANF's designated MMCRP Program Manager, Dr. Hamid Rastegar. Dr. Rastegar, in consultation with CPUC/ANF will attempt to resolve the dispute.

Step 2 Should this informal process fail, the ANF District Ranger may initiate enforcement or compliance action to address deviations from the Proposed Project or adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program through enforcement of the Special Use Permit.

Step 3 Written decisions of the District Ranger related to the administration of the Special Use Permit may be appealed (36CFR251 Subpart C) by PPSI.

6.11 Variance Procedures

Definition: A variance is (1) any deviation from the description of the project as proposed in the EIR or EIS/SEIR, or (2) a construction activity or practice that is not carried out in accordance with approved construction plans, mitigation measures, or other conditions of approval. Two types of variances are addressed herein:

(1) Route and construction changes or non-compliance with all specific mitigation measure requirements proposed by PPSI prior to the start of construction, and

(2) Changes proposed by PPSI after construction has started.

The CPUC and/or ANF or a designee (Aspen team in consultation with Agencies, under authority of the MMCRP and on behalf of the Agencies) has the authority to halt any construction activity associated with the Pacific Pipeline Project if the activity is determined to be a deviation from the approved project or adopted mitigation measures and permit conditions. Any deviation from the procedures identified in the MMCRP must be approved in advance by CPUC and/or ANF or a designee.

Environmental Monitors shall immediately report any unapproved variances to the Lead Environmental Monitor (LEM). The LEM will notify Aspen's Program Management Team, who will contact the CPUC and/or ANF or a designee. Variances cannot be approved by the LEM or Environmental Monitors (EM).

Procedure to Request Variance

Pre-Construction Variances. When PPSI identifies a project change [including: route change; change in description of the project (such as location of valves); change in methods of compliance with mitigation measures and other requirements (such as use of 500-year flood for hydrologic mitigation measures studies); or proposed change in construction methods (such as boring or directional drilling instead of trenching at stream crossing)] a written request shall be prepared and submitted to CPUC/ANF according to the procedure defined in Exhibit 9 below, and as further described in Exhibit 10 on the following page.

Exhibit 9 MMCRP Procedures for Addressing Project or Mitigation Measure Changes

** Potentially applicable to all issues: CPUC Dispute Resolution process (see F.3.3 of EIS/SEIR)

The proposed change, its location and/or nature, shall be completely described. This explanation shall refer to where the item to be changed was previously documented (such as the page number of PEA, FEIS/SEIR, the milepost on the original maps, and on latest submitted construction alignment sheets, etc.). The original maps used as a basis for identification of impacts in the 1993 FEIR and the 1996 FEIS/SEIR are:

- 1993 FEIR. Drawings PPAR-1 to 68 and PPAR-ES1 to ES5, checked by RG and Dated 5-20-92.

- 1996 FEIS/SEIR. Drawings 117M-001 to 052, Job No. 93117, Revision A, Dated 5-25-94.

The reason and necessity for this proposed deviation/change shall be fully described. An analysis shall be presented to evaluate whether the proposed change would result in:

- Any new significant impact

- An incremental increase in an identified impact

- A reduction in efficiency, nature, or geographical location of a mitigation measure

This written request will be reviewed by the Agency(ies) and a written determination on approval or rejection of the proposed variance will be made.

Exhibit 10 FLOW CHART FOR PROJECT DESCR CHANGES

Note that this flow chart needs some edits - get them from Susan before sending out!

Variances Requested During Construction. PPSI will review the Final Implementation Plan approved by CPUC/ANF and will be aware of all performance criteria outlined in this Plan. Any disagreement with these requirements shall be discussed with CPUC/ANF at least 30 days before the start of the construction. However, on rare occasions and due to the site-specific conditions that could not be anticipated in pre-construction phase, variances might be required during the construction phase. In non-emergency cases, at least 14 days prior to the specific construction activity or implementation of mitigation measure for which a variance is required, PPSI will submit to the CPUC and/or ANF (with a copy to Aspen's Program Management Team) a written request for a variance. The request will contain the following information:

Date of request

Location the variance will affect (spread, estimated milepost, and general description)

Which mitigation measure, applicant proposed measure, permit condition or requirement, approved plan, or other project stipulation the variance is being requested for, and a reference to the approved documents

An explanation of the necessity for the variance and the reason it was not anticipated in pre-construction phase or in project description

Discussion of any previous variances of a similar nature

An analysis that evaluates the occurrence of:

- New significant impact(s)

- Incremental increase in an identified impact

- Reduction in efficiency, nature, or geographical location of a mitigation measure

Date of expected construction at the variance site.

In emergency cases the above information shall be communicated as soon as possible to the LEM. The LEM and the Aspen team will review these changes as soon as possible and inform PPSI of their determination. Each short-notice variance must be presented by PPSI in the manner described above; each request will be considered on a case-by-case basis and responded to as promptly as possible by Aspen, with recommendations made to the Lead Agencies, as appropriate. If the variance is associated with an immediate safety threat to human life or sensitive resources (i.e., an imminent and immediate hazard ) and EM/LEM/Program Manager cannot be contacted immediately, PPSI shall take the appropriate action to preserve life, protect the resource, and remove immediate hazard with minimum impacts on other significant environmental resources. A full report on such action shall be filed with the LEM within 72 hours.

6.12 Monitoring Criteria

Appendix A includes the full text of mitigation measures and applicant-proposed measures, as well as the specific criteria for monitoring the implementation of these measures and requirements. Appendix B lists other agencies with responsibility for permit issuance along the ROW.

6.12.1 General Approach to Field Monitoring; Philosophy and Strategy

Monitoring Philosophy: The proposed Pacific Pipeline Project went through an extensive environmental review process managed by State and Federal lead agencies. The major focus of the environmental review processes was the identification of significant environmental impacts. These impacts then, were assumed to be reduced by numerous measures either recommended by the agencies or committed to by the Applicant. After careful review of the analysis conducted in these processes and documented in the more than 2000 page EIS/SEIR and EIR, the Agencies' decision makers approved these project subject to successful implementation of recommended mitigation which was adopted as conditions for issuance of appropriate permits. Thus, it is imperative that these adopted conditions be implemented and that they achieve the reductions they were designed for which were assumed in the final decisions. The purpose of the monitoring program is to ensure compliance with mitigation measures, applicant-proposed measures, approved plans, and permit conditions and requirements in a non-threatening manner using open and honest communication.

Monitoring Strategy. Environmental monitors will be in the field every work day monitoring construction activities. Emphasis will be placed on sensitive sites (stream or fault crossings, sensitive habitats, etc.) or activities (traffic control, for example). The strategy is:

1. Through careful planning, and to the maximum extent possible, anticipate potential scenarios that could cause confusion or conflict, and attempt to reserve these problems in the preconstruction phase of the project

2. Through training and communication, convey the importance of this program to all parties involved.

3. Be very specific about the criteria that would determine the full compliance with the intent of the mitigation measures.

4. Use the flexibility, speed, storage capacity, and communication capabilities of modern hardware and software to track, manage, and document our activity as systematically as possible.

5. Use experienced and trained monitors so that they provide both an assurance of meeting the intent and spirit of every mitigation and mature experience to deal with the progmation required at the field and handling every changing circumstances.

6.12.2 Description of Mitigation Measures from 1993 EIR and 1996 EIS/SEIR

As described in Section 6.1 (the history of the Pacific Pipeline Project), two separate environmental documents were prepared for this project, as necessitated by the modifications to the project. The Final EIR, issued in 1993, recommended numerous mitigation measures that covered the full length of the pipeline from Santa Barbara County (the original starting point of the project) to the refineries in Los Angeles. However, based on the relocation of the origination point of the project from Santa Barbara County to Emidio in south Kern County, the mitigation measures specifically referring to impacts on resources in Santa Barbara and Ventura County, are no longer relevant, because the pipeline (as modified) would not traverse these areas. However, the mitigation measures recommended in this FEIR that are associated with the last 65 miles of the pipeline (from the Castaic Junction to refineries) will remain in effect. The FEIS/SEIR issued in January of 1996 focuses on that part of the pipeline located between Emidio (the new origination point) and the Castaic Junction, where the newly proposed segment will join the originally proposed pipeline. Thus, the majority of the mitigation measures proposed in this EIS/SEIR are associated with this northern segment of the pipeline. However, based on some new information or regulatory requirements (such as President's Executive Order No. 12989), the EIS/SEIR also recommended additional mitigation measures for the Castaic to refinery segment of the pipeline. Appendix A of this Implementation Plan has combined the two sets of the mitigation measures from both documents, now addressing the full length of the modified pipeline, from Emidio to refineries in Los Angeles area.

6.12.3 Approach to Monitoring of Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures

This project is one of the first major projects that has adopted mitigation measures to respond to the President's Executive Order requiring that "Environmental Justice" be addressed in an EIS. Most of these mitigation measures will not be implemented at the construction site, but throughout the areas with high-minority and low-income populations that might be affected by pipeline construction and operation. The LEM and EMs will be aware of the mitigation monitoring efforts that will be occurring separate from construction activities, so they can inform the public, agencies, or PPSI/Contractor personnel, as appropriate. This section describes those activities that will result from monitoring the mitigation measures related to Environmental Justice (Section C.16 of the EIS/SEIR).

Through the Public Access Program, Aspen will maintain an active, visible, and flexible involvement with the overall community outreach efforts for the project to ensure monitoring of all activity in a representative and fair manner. For example, the student intern group will be used, as appropriate, to test the effectiveness of Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures ML-1 through ML-8. Specific strategies involved in monitoring these mitigation measures are as follows:

Community Outreach and Communications Program (ML-1). Aspen will request to be placed on PPSI's master community database for receipt of any public notices and mail-outs sent by PPSI for the Pacific Pipeline Project to ascertain whether notices and mail-outs provide comprehensive information and are appropriate. We will attend Community Liaison Group meetings periodically and on a random basis to assess community participation, provision of adequate communication services and project information, and overall community understanding and relationship with the project.

Community Partnership Program (ML-2). Community organizations will be randomly selected to assess their participation in the Community Partnership Program, including job training, job opportunities and overall receipt of project educational information. Ideally, the CBO Survey described in Section 3.5, will include some of the community organizations involved in this program. The online Community Partnership Network will be tested periodically to ensure that accurate and adequate project information is being provided to the public. This includes testing the network at one of the ten designated locations set up for access by PPSI.

Local Community and Minority-Owned Business Enterprise Hiring Program (ML-3). Quarterly reports will be obtained to assess PPSI's hiring practices as they relate to the surrounding minority and low-income communities, and whether those practices are representative of surrounding ethnic communities. Data in the reports would include residence of workers, ethnicity, socioeconomic data, types of jobs, and a list of construction unions including their involvement with Minority-Owned Business Enterprise (MBE) programs for the Pacific Pipeline Project. These quarterly reports will also include data on contracting of local (within 5 miles) and MBE firms for goods and services to reach a goal of 40%.

Attractive Landscaping in Open Areas (ML-4). Aspen will review PPSI's landscaping plans prior to implementation and provide appropriate input. Construction and planting activities will be monitored to ensure that PPSI is following the approved landscaping plan. Also, periodic drive-throughs of the project area will be conducted for appropriate buffering of project construction activity from surrounding neighborhoods.

Communication of Potential Emergencies to Non-English Speaking Populations (ML-5). The demographic and language analysis of the surrounding neighborhoods, prepared by PPSI, will be reviewed to determine appropriate languages required for emergency communications. We will verify the identification of communications specialists to be consulted for development of emergency communications plans. Aspen will also review media lists and translators lists, identified by PPSI, to be used in the event of a and emergency.

For the operational phase of the project, Aspen will request to be included on the emergency communications list for any call-outs to the community in the event of and emergency. Furthermore, community organizations will be randomly surveyed in post-emergency situations to assess communication quality, timeliness, and responsiveness.

Support of the Business Impact Mitigation Plan (ML-6). Local businesses, impacted by project construction, will be randomly surveyed to assess their areas of concern. Also, the survey will include an evaluation of what these businesses feel about the effectiveness of local transit systems.

Oil Spill Response Equipment (ML-7). Aspen will review PPSI's proposed placement of oil spill response equipment in relation to population density statistics to evaluate appropriate locations and sufficient provision of response capabilities (operation phase).

Equal Application of Mitigation Measures (ML-8). Aspen will observe the application of mitigation measures across neighborhoods to ensure equity, regardless of the particular visual or land use character of a neighborhood.

6.12.4 Applicant-Proposed Measures and Project Parameters from 1993 EIR and 1996 EIS/SEIR

In addition to the recommended (and subsequently adopted) mitigation measures in both the FEIR (1993) and FEIS/SEIR (1996), PPSI has proposed and committed themselves to a number of measures that would mitigate potential impacts associated with the project. Since these measures were proposed by PPSI, they were assumed during preparation of the environmental documents to be part of the Proposed Project. Thus, the analysis of the impacts in both above documents was based on full implementation of these measures and proposals. In order to insure these measures are successfully implemented as proposed, the Aspen team needs to monitor them as other mitigation measures. These measures, and associated performance criteria, are listed under each issue area in Appendix A.

Further, the project parameters (such as thickness of the pipes, number/type/location of proposed valves) affects the determination and analysis of potential impacts from the project. The analysis and the identified impacts (and the recommended mitigations) are all based on the assumptions that the project will be built as described in the above two documents. In order to insure that this assumption, upon which the project was subsequently approved, remains true, we need also to monitor the implementation of the major project parameters described in the final document. These parameters are also listed in Appendix A and will be monitored by the EMs and during the plan review phase (pre-construction).

6.12.5 Responsible and Cooperating Agencies

The two Lead Agencies (CPUC and ANF) have adopted the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR (1993) and FEIS/SEIR (1996) as conditions for their approval decision and attached them to their respective permits. Other responsible agencies who have issued permits (or will issue permits in the future) for this project (such as Franchise Permits issued by a few cities) might stipulate certain conditions in their approval processes. Aspen will coordinate our monitoring efforts with these agencies by providing this Implementation Plan to them so they are aware of the MMCRP requirements. The agencies issuing these other permits are listed in Appendix B.

6.12.6 Other Regulatory Requirements

The project will be built in compliance with all applicable rules, regulations and policies of the agencies which have jurisdiction over the project. These regulations and laws were generally considered under each issue area in the FEIS/SEIR and FEIR. For example, the Clean Air Act, which is the most significant federal law protecting the quality of the air, has been considered in the Air Quality issue area. The requirements of this law are implemented by Federal, State, and regional agencies. In very rare occasions, there might be other environmental laws applicable to this project which are not considered in the three categories of measures above (i.e., Mitigation Measures, Applicant Proposed Measures, Permit Conditions) and were required by any agency during the construction. The EMs will coordinate these requirements with PPSI, the agency involved, and the Lead Agencies. These laws and regulations are summarized in Appendix C for use as a reference by the EMs.

6.13 Safety

Philosophy: Our team will take all necessary steps to conduct this program with minimum risk and to prevent potential safety hazards.

Responsibilities. Each Environmental Monitor (including the LEM) is responsible for his/her own safety and working safely is a condition of employment. EMs are responsible for the timely and accurate reporting of all reportable accidents or injuries (requiring more than first aid) to their immediate supervisor.

Consumption of drugs and alcohol is strictly prohibited during work hours. All Aspen employees have signed their understanding of the Aspen's Drug-Free Policy. If an EM is taking prescription medication, the LEM must be notified. This information will be kept confidential unless the EM is involved in a accident or injured and testing is required.

PPSI and the Contractor are responsible for providing the training, tools and work environment to ensure that EMs can perform their tasks safely. This includes teaching compliance with all federal, state, local and company policies and procedures. EMs are responsible for utilizing the tools and training to perform their tasks safely.

Safety Equipment

The following safety equipment will be issued to Environmental Monitors, installed in field vehicles, or stored at the field office:

Personnel safety items:

hard hat

safety glasses

ear plugs

florescent vest

Field Office:

first aid kit

Vehicle-related items:

vehicle accident reporting

sheets

2½ lb fire extinguisher

first aid kit

flashlight

3 gallon water cooler

Each EM/LEM is responsible for providing her/his own:

* steel-toed boots

* sun protection (sunscreen, sunglasses, hats)

* field-appropriate clothing and outerwear.

Environmental Monitors are expected to care for the equipment that is assigned to them and to return all equipment to Aspen at the conclusion of either their employment or their task, whichever comes first. If required by Aspen Managers, all equipment will be returned to Aspen immediately upon request, at any stage of work or project.

Emergency Action Response

Initial emergency action response is the responsibility of PPSI and the Contractor. The responsibility of the Environmental Monitor is to assist as requested by PPSI or the Contractor. PPSI or the Contractor will make all necessary contacts.

If an Environmental Monitor is alone and encounters an emergency situation, the following protocol applies:

Call for help and provide the following information:

- brief description of what happened (if you know)

- location of accident

- number of people injured

- type(s) of injuries

- type of assistance required.

Attend to the injured person. If you do not have a current Red Cross certificate, only comfort the victim until trained help arrives.

Back to Implementation Plan - Table of Contents