State and federal laws require a formal review of projects that may affect the environment. Caltrans is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency in the environmental review process for the East Span Project.

East Span Project - NEPA Process

Caltrans and FHWA began the NEPA environmental review for the East Span Project by filing a Notice of Intent to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in the Federal Register on April 21, 1997. A scoping process was used to gather public input and help develop project alternatives to be studied in the FEIS. Scoping meetings were held jointly by MTC's Bay Bridge Design Task Force, FHWA, and Caltrans during the spring of 1997, and were attended by members of various interest groups and the general public.

As part of the NEPA process Caltrans and FHWA released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in September 1998. An EIS studies a reasonable range of alternatives, which partly or fully meet the project's purpose and need and identifies the potential environmental impact of each alternative. Information contained in an FEIS allows an informed decision to be made in recommending an alternative for implementation.

Following the release of the DEIS, four public hearings were held in October 1998. A 60-day public comment period was also observed. Nearly 700 public and agency comments were received. The primary topics included requests for more detailed information about mitigation measures, dredged material disposal and reuse, land use developments and impacts, the development of commuter rail on the bridge, bike path designs, and discussion of the project's purpose and need.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the NEPA/404 Integration Process outlines the means of integrating the procedures of NEPA with the procedures of Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. MOU signatories include the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Federal Transit Administration, FHWA, and Caltrans. In 1997 and 1998, following a series of meetings about the project pursuant to the MOU, the MOU signatory agencies concurred in the purpose and need for the project.

The purpose of the project is to:

• Connect Yerba Buena Island (YBI) in San Francisco and the Bay Bridge Toll Plaza in Oakland
• Connect to a lifeline route linking the East Bay, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Peninsula
• Maintain the current vehicular capacity of the existing East Span
• Provide for the safety of bridge users during a maximum credible earthquake
• Improve operational and safety design to meet current standards to the greatest extent possible

The MOU signatories concurred in the criteria for alternative selection, as follows:

• Meets lifeline criteria
• Meets current standards for operations and safety to the greatest extent possible
• Does not preclude a pedestrian/bicycle path
• Does not preclude future improvements to YBI access ramps
• Minimizes impacts to environmental resources
• Maintains existing number of traffic lanes during and after construction

East Span EIS Alternatives

Based on preliminary studies, scoping, recommendations from MTC, and the participation of the NEPA/404 MOU signatory agencies, Caltrans studied five alternatives for implementing the East Span Project: No-Build, Retrofit, and three Replacement Alternatives.

The MOU signatories agreed on the range of alternatives, concurring that the following alternatives would be studied during the environmental process:

No-Build Alternative

This is a standard EIS alternative. It studies the impacts of taking no action and serves as a point of comparison for the impacts of the other alternatives.

Retrofit Alternative

This alternative would seismically strengthen the existing bridge to withstand a design event earthquake. It would not, however, fully meet Caltrans standards for a lifeline route, nor would it meet current design and operational standards or increase the useful life of the bridge to the extent of the replacement alternatives. The retrofit alternative would not include a pedestrian/bicycle path.

Replacement Alternatives

Each of the three replacement alternatives would construct a new bridge and would dismantle the existing East Span. Each replacement alternative has a different alignment.