APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

This environmental document was prepared in consultation and coordination with various federal, state, and local agencies, organizations, and individuals of Bay Area communities. Agency consultation and public participation have been accomplished through a variety of formal and informal methods, including scoping meetings, a series of informal community open houses, responses to website letters requesting information, responses to e-mails, meetings with individual public agencies and interest groups, public hearings, and a series of informational newsletters. This section summarizes these activities.

Project Organization and Committees

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are serving as joint lead agencies to prepare this Environmental Impact Statement/Statutory Exemption. The U.S. Coast Guard is a Cooperating Agency.

Project Development Team

A Project Development Team (PDT) was assembled by Caltrans to serve as a technical advisory committee to Caltrans’ decision-makers. The PDT consists of representatives from affected agencies and meets periodically to address project issues requiring technical direction or resolution. Twelve PDT meetings have been held, the first on November 4, 1997, the most recent on March 1, 2001.

The following agencies and organizations have participated in the PDT:

Alameda -Contra Costa County (AC) Transit District

City of Oakland - Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board

City and County of San Francisco - Office of the Mayor

Public Utilities Commission - Treasure Island

Contra Costa Congestion Management Agency

Port of Oakland

City and County of San Francisco - Mayor’s Office, TI Project Office

American Institute of Architects

East Bay Regional Park District

Port of San Francisco

City and County of San Francisco - Planning Department

California Highway Patrol

East Bay Municipal Utility District

San Francisco Bay Trail Project

Bay Area Council

Federal Highway Administration

Oakland Base Reuse Authority

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

Bay Area Rapid Transit District

National Park Service

City of Oakland - Planning Department

San Francisco Transportation Authority

RIDES for Bay Area Commuters

U.S. Army

City of Oakland - Office of the Mayor

City and County of San Francisco - Department of Parking and Traffic

Regional Bicycle Advisory Committee

U.S. Coast Guard

City of Oakland - Public Works Agency

City and County of San Francisco - Department of Public Works

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

U.S Navy

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Bay Bridge Design Task Force

Following the January 1997 recommendation from the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to Governor Pete Wilson that consideration be given to replacement of the East Span, Bay Area legislators recommended that MTC coordinate local deliberations for the location, design, and funding strategies for amenities on a replacement structure. In February 1997, MTC formed the Bay Bridge Design Task Force to assist MTC in developing recommendations for bridge design options and amenities. The Task Force is comprised of seven MTC Commissioners.

The Task Force conducted a series of public meetings in April and May 1997 at which recommendations related to replacement alternatives were presented. The Task Force, with advice from its Engineering and Design Advisory Panel (see description following) and citizen and agency input, has adopted recommendations for the design and alignment of a replacement alternative. The Task Force adopted seventeen EDAP recommendations on July 23, 1997. These recommendations are:

  1. The Commission should support a two-year extension of tolls and establish a priority for use of the estimated $230 million as follows: first, for the additional costs for a cable-supported structure; second, for a portion of the cost of the Transbay Transit Terminal; and third, a bicycle and pedestrian facility on the East Span of the bridge should continue to be evaluated through the 30% design stage.
  2. Caltrans should select two design teams to develop the two cable-supported alternatives to approximately 30% design stage, so that reliable information as to seismic performance, cost, visual design, and other issues can be obtained before a final recommendation is made.
  3. The EDAP and the Bay Bridge Design Task Force should remain in place through the 30% design stage of the project to make final recommendation on bridge design type and thereafter to provide continuous review of final design and engineering details.
  4. The existing eastern span of the Bay Bridge should not be retrofitted, but replaced with a new structure.
  5. The new eastern span and existing western span retrofit should be designed to provide post-earthquake "lifeline" service.
  6. The new eastern span should have ten traffic lanes, five in each direction, with two standard 10’ shoulders in each direction as part of its base cost.
  7. The new eastern span does not require a dedicated bus/carpool lane. Caltrans’ design should minimize weaving conflicts between high occupancy and other vehicles at the transition from the dedicated HOV approach lanes to the bridge itself.
  8. The new eastern span should be designed in accordance with Caltrans’ proposed design loading which will accommodate the possibility of future rail service.
  9. The Yerba Buena Island ramps are an inherent part of the bridge, and Caltrans has the responsibility to replace the ramps in order to assure safe traffic flow on the bridge.
  10. The new eastern span should be built in the northern adjacent alignment.
  11. The new eastern span should have a cable-supported main span with a single vertical tower with single or multiple legs in the transverse direction and single or multiple places of supporting cables.
  12. The new eastern span should not be double-decked. It should have two parallel separated decks on the causeway section and either parallel separated decks or a single deck on the cable-supported span.
  13. The structural elements of the new eastern span should be visually consistent throughout.
  14. The causeway section should have long, equal span lengths, although closer span lengths might be necessary just adjacent to the Oakland shore.
  15. For the causeway section, particular attention should be paid to the design of the supporting pier as it enters the water, including the possibility of submerging the pile cap below water.
  16. The cable or suspension tower on the eastern span should be no taller than the suspension towers on the existing western span.
  17. The "diamond" shape for the tower base should not be employed in any cable or suspension tower on the eastern span.

On June 22, 1998, the MTC Task Force adopted four additional recommendations that either were new or replaced some of the original recommendations. These recommendations were needed to account for engineering feasibility information that had become available after the original recommendations were adopted in June 1997.

18. For the causeway section, the pile cap should be above the water.
19. The cable-supported portion of the new east spans of the Bay Bridge should be a single-tower self-anchored suspension span.
20. A constant-depth steel and variable-depth concrete skyway with at least 160-meter (525-foot) spans should be carried to bid.
21. One 4.7-meter (15.5-foot) bicycle/pedestrian path on the south side of the new bridge should be constructed as part of this project

Caltrans has provided technical support to the MTC Task Force and its EDAP. MTC Bay Bridge Task Force recommendations have been considered in the development of alternatives for the East Span Seismic Safety Project. Replacement Alternative N-6 Self-Anchored Suspension Design Option with a bicycle/pedestrian path reflects the Task Force’s recommendation.

MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force Engineering and Design Advisory Panel (EDAP)

The MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force assembled 36 technical experts in structural and civil engineering and architecture to form the EDAP. Panel members include academic and consulting industry professionals. Organizations represented on the EDAP include:

The role of the EDAP is to provide expert technical analysis to the Task Force. In fulfilling this role, the EDAP has also conducted a series of public meetings at which bridge design concepts were reviewed. The Task Force recommendations (see previous section) were developed through EDAP deliberations.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Elderly/Disabled Advisory Committee

When Governor Wilson announced that Caltrans would evaluate replacement of the East Span as a retrofit strategy, bicycle enthusiasts became active in the East Span Seismic Safety Project advocating installation of a bicycle/pedestrian lane or path in replacement alternatives. Over the ensuing months, several more bicycle, alternative transit, and public access groups began to advocate non-vehicular access on the East Span. Caltrans initially met with several of the approximately 40 participating groups. Several individuals from these groups formed a Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to represent the interest of the numerous groups. During the course of this project, ten meetings have been held with the BPAC. Caltrans will continue to work with BPAC to address path design refinements such as signage, striping, and path furnishings.

The Elderly/Disabled Advisory Committee provides guidance to MTC and the bridge designers regarding accessibility and safety of a bicycle and pedestrian path for elderly and disabled path users. This group participates in the BPAC meetings and decision-making.

Oakland Gateway Planning Group

The Oakland Gateway Planning Group was established to coordinate actions in the Oakland Touchdown area. The group was formed following a request from the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) that efforts to establish a shoreline park in the Oakland Touchdown area be coordinated with East Span Seismic Safety Project alternatives. The overall goal of the Planning Group is to have a master plan agreement that includes funding and designation of the agency which will be ultimately responsible for the proposed park.

Caltrans, as initial host of a series of planning meetings, invited the participation of representatives of BCDC, EBRPD, Port of Oakland, City of Oakland, Oakland Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, Oakland Army Base Reuse Authority, National Park Service, and the Association of Bay Area Governments/Bay Trail.

As part of the planning efforts, East Span Project alternatives’ development has included identification of planning constraints and investigation of gateway concepts at the Oakland Touchdown area to create a visually memorable East Bay arrival point when exiting the East Span. Gateway design concepts developed in coordination with the East Span Project have evolved in response to recommendations from planning group members to expand the gateway concept to include land design concepts at the touchdown currently owned by Caltrans, Port of Oakland, and Oakland Army Base. EBRPD has taken the leadership role in hosting the planning meetings. In order for Caltrans land to become part of the park, it would need to be declared no longer needed for transportation purposes by Caltrans. Once this occurs, the land would revert to the Port of Oakland. Once under Port control, the Port could decide to transfer the land to EBRPD. Caltrans will continue to participate in planning efforts to create a gateway park.

Agencies Contacted

Agencies formally or informally consulted during the preparation of this environmental document include the following:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Federal Transit Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Park Service
U.S. Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Navy
Dredged Material Management Office
California Department of Fish and Game
California Highway Patrol
Native American Heritage Commission
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
State Historic Preservation Office
State Lands Commission
Association of Bay Area Governments
East Bay Municipal Utility District
East Bay Regional Park District
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Pacific Gas and Electric
Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Region
City of Oakland
City and County of San Francisco
Port of Oakland
Port of San Francisco

An extensive list of federal, state, and local agencies, organizations, and others received the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and the Draft EIS for review. This list has been revised for FEIS distribution and can be found in Appendix C.

KEY AGENCY MEETINGS

NEPA/404 Integration Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Process

Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) began consultation with federal agencies participating in the NEPA/404 MOU process in August 1997 (see Appendix F for explanation of the NEPA/404 MOU process). Under the MOU process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are asked to concur on the project purpose and need statement, criteria for alternative selection and range of alternatives to be considered. In addition, concurrence on the jurisdictional delineation of wetlands and compliance with Section 404(b)(1) is obtained. The EPA and ACOE concur on the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) and provide preliminary agreement on the conceptual mitigation for special aquatic sites; USFWS provides preliminary agreement on mitigation.

Several meetings regarding the project purpose and need were conducted. At the first three meetings, participants considered the seismic safety project’s purpose and need statement, the range of alternatives proposed for evaluation, and the selection criteria. Following the meetings, written concurrence was received from each agency (see Appendix F).

Consistent with the NEPA/404 Integration MOU, Caltrans and FHWA have identified a Preferred Alternative (Replacement Alternative N-6); ACOE and EPA have identified that the Preferred Alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) of the federal Clean Water Act. Subsequent actions under the NEPA/404 Integration MOU are the publication of this Final EIS by Caltrans and FHWA and notification and issuance of the Section 404 Individual Permit by the ACOE.

Other federal, state, and regional agencies with regulatory and permitting obligations for the East Span Project were invited to participate in the NEPA/404 MOU meetings. Participants included:

Consultation Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Background. In April 1997, several organizations were invited to submit comments on the East Span Project with respect to historic properties. These organizations included:

In July 1997, Caltrans gave a presentation on the East Span Project to representatives of the Oakland Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, Oakland Heritage Alliance, California Preservation Foundation, and San Francisco Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. The Oakland Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board responded by letter on January 14, 1998, advocating that consideration be given to retrofitting of the existing bridge rather than replacing it, and suggesting several mitigation measures if a replacement alternative was selected.

On December 10, 1998, Caltrans held a meeting to which historic preservation organizations and local governments were invited, to discuss possible measures to mitigate project effects on historic properties. Representatives from the City of Oakland and its Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, the Oakland Heritage Alliance, and the Port of Oakland attended.

On February 1, 1999, a representative from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) toured the project area and the historic properties with representatives from Caltrans, FHWA, the Navy, the USCG, CCSF, and the SHPO. The following day, two meetings were held with invited historic preservation organizations and local governments, to further discuss project effects on historic properties and mitigation measures. The first meeting was attended by representatives of the City and County of San Francisco, California Preservation Foundation, National Park Service, Navy, USCG, FHWA, SHPO, and ACHP. This meeting included discussion of the replacement alternatives and their differing effects on Navy and Coast Guard facilities on Yerba Buena Island, as well as proposed measures to mitigate project effects on historic properties. The second meeting continued the discussion of measures to mitigate for the loss of the East Span of the Bay Bridge under the replacement alternatives, and was attended by representatives from the City of Oakland's Landmarks Board and Public Works Department, Port of Oakland, FHWA, SHPO, and ACHP.

An Addendum Finding of Adverse Effect Report and Consideration of Proposed Mitigation Measures were sent to the SHPO, ACHP, Navy, USCG, local governments, and other interested parties in October 1999. A draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was also distributed for review and comment. Based on comments received, the MOA was revised and executed in May 2000, and circulated for concurring parties’ signatures in May and June, 2000.

There are no federally recognized tribes in the vicinity of the project area; Caltrans therefore contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission to obtain a list of potentially interested Native American individuals and groups. In November 1997, Caltrans sent letters to the 14 individuals on this list, inviting their participation and comments concerning archaeological site CA-SFr-04/H on Yerba Buena Island. Mr. Tony Cerda responded by letter, asking to participate in the consultation concerning the treatment of this archaeological site. In addition, Ms. Jakki Kehl responded to Caltrans by phone with concerns about the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) as it potentially relates to the treatment of this site.

The Archaeological Survey Report for CA-SFr-04/H was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission and the Native American monitor who was present during previous site excavations. Caltrans will submit a treatment plan for CA-SFr-04/H to all parties to the MOA and interested Native Americans for review, with the goal of soliciting early input on its development.

Chronology:

June 24, 1998 Copies of the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), including an Historic Architecture Survey Report and an Archaeological Survey Report were sent by Caltrans to the City and County of San Francisco, the Navy, and the USCG.

Aug. 13, 1998 SHPO review of the HPSR and response to FHWA: SHPO concurs with some of the document’s conclusions and requests additional information.

Aug. 19, 1998 Caltrans letter to the SHPO, providing additional information requested in the SHPO’s letter of August 13, 1998.

Aug. 21, 1998 SHPO response to Caltrans’ letter of August 19, 1998, concurring with the conclusions of the HPSR.

Sept. 10, 1998 SHPO review of the Finding of Effect reports and response to FHWA: SHPO concurs that the undertaking will adversely affect historic properties.

Dec. 10, 1998 Meeting with Caltrans, City of Oakland, Port of Oakland, National Park Service and Oakland Heritage Alliance to discuss effects on historic properties and mitigation measures.

Jan. 19, 1999 Caltrans, FHWA, and SHPO staff met to discuss the proposed MOA.

Feb. 1, 1999 ACHP staff toured the project area and the historic properties, and discussed the project with Caltrans, FHWA, SHPO, the Navy, and the USCG.

Feb. 2, 1999 Meetings with Caltrans, FHWA, Navy, Coast Guard, SHPO, ACHP, City and County of San Francisco, City of Oakland, and California Preservation Foundation to discuss effects on historic properties and mitigation measures.

May 7, 1999 Caltrans sent letters to 14 individuals on a list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission, inviting their comment on the treatment of archaeological site CA-SFr-04/H on Yerba Buena Island.

May 14, 1999 Mr. Tony Cerda, Chairman of the Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, responded to Caltrans’ letter of May 7, 1999. Mr. Cerda requested to participate in consultation concerning the treatment of the archaeological site on Yerba Buena Island. In addition, Ms. Jakki Kehl responded to Caltrans by telephone with concerns about the treatment of the site.

Oct. 14, 1999 "Addendum Finding of Adverse Effect" and "Consideration of Proposed Mitigation Measures" transmitted by Caltrans to the City and County of San Francisco, the City of Oakland, and Bay Area historic preservation groups.

Oct. 20-21, 1999 "Addendum Finding of Adverse Effect," "Consideration of Proposed Mitigation Measures" and proposed MOA transmitted by FHWA to the SHPO.

"Finding of Adverse Effect," "Addendum Finding of Adverse Effect," "Consideration of Proposed Mitigation Measures," and proposed MOA transmitted by FHWA to ACHP, with copies to the Navy and USCG.

Oct. 27, 1999 "Phase I Archaeological Survey Report ­ Maritime Archaeology" for the Pile Installation Demonstration Project transmitted by FHWA to the SHPO.

Nov. 19, 1999 SHPO review of the Addendum Finding of Adverse Effect and response to FHWA: SHPO affirms earlier determination that all build alternatives will adversely affect historic properties.

Nov. 19, 1999 USCG response to FHWA requesting revisions to the MOA to make it clear that archaeological work will be carried out and funded by Caltrans.

Dec. 1, 1999 SHPO review of the maritime archaeology report for the Pile Installation Demonstration Project and response to FHWA: SHPO concurs that there are no maritime archaeological resources eligible for the NRHP in APE.

May 26, 2000 ACHP, FHWA, SHPO, and USCG execute MOA; Caltrans signs as concurring party.

June, 2000 The MOA was sent to the following parties for concurring signatures: U.S. Navy, City of Oakland, CCSF, and Native Americans.

June 6, 2000 The SHPO concurred with the Addendum Archaeological Survey Report’s findings that there are no underwater historic properties in the Area of Potential Effect eligible for the NRHP.

Meetings with the City of Oakland and City and County of San Francisco

Meetings with the City of Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco have been held with agency directors, planning officials and others to discuss potential benefits and impacts of the project to each of the municipalities.

City of Oakland. Numerous meetings have been held with the Mayor’s Office and staff from Planning, Economic Development, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, and Public Works divisions. City representatives have made presentations and comments at other public meetings, such as the MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force EDAP. The City’s key concerns are the aesthetic design of the East Span and the Oakland Touchdown area, mitigation for impacts to the historic existing East Span and the potential for community involvement and employment during the construction phase.

City and County San Francisco. Numerous meetings have been held with various staff members, including the Mayor’s Treasure Island Project Office, Planning, Traffic and Parking, and Public Works staff. The key concerns are alignment alternatives, land use, access impacts at Yerba Buena Island and Treasure Island, and detours and ramps on Yerba Buena Island.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT COMPLIANCE

For projects that have the potential to substantially impact the environment, NEPA requires that an appropriate level of public involvement and environmental analysis take place. Major milestones in the NEPA process that were conducted or will be completed for the East Span Project include:

Public Involvement

In addition to the scoping process, public open houses, and public hearings, a variety of public participation activities have been conducted over the course of the engineering and environmental studies. The public has been encouraged to participate in the process by asking questions and making comments. Meetings were held with the general public and special interest groups. Public involvement activities are listed below followed by a brief description.

Scoping Meetings

MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meetings held in April and May 1997 allowed agencies and the general public the opportunity to provide input on alternatives and issues to be evaluated in the EIS. Meetings were held in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and Solano counties. Three of the four meetings were publicly announced after publication of the Notice of Intent. Caltrans and FHWA used these three public meetings as scoping meetings pursuant to NEPA.

Environmental Organizations Meeting

In October 1997, Caltrans held a meeting with environmental interest groups in collaboration with the BCDC and the MTC. At the meeting, those present reviewed the project purpose and need, alternatives, and the environmental process and construction schedules. In addition, information was mailed out to several of the groups that did not attend.

Open Houses

A series of four public information open houses was provided to enable interested Bay Area residents to view the preliminary design concepts and obtain more information about the project. The open houses were held in Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties in December 1997, and in Solano County in March 1998, with approximately 300 people attending.

Public Hearings

Following distribution of the DEIS, Caltrans and FHWA held four public hearings to give the public an opportunity to learn more about the project and to discuss the project with Caltrans staff. A copy of the Draft EIS was available for viewing at each meeting. The hearings also provided opportunities for the public to submit formal comments on the project by providing written comments or by giving oral comments to a court reporter. These hearings were held in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and Solano counties in October 1998. Approximately 174 people signed in as attending the hearings. Other people attended, but did not sign the attendance sheets.

Presentations

In addition to the meetings formally presented in this Appendix, presentations about the project have been made to various organized groups. These groups include:

Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
American Institute of Architects
American Public Works Association
American Society of Public Administrators
American Society of Civil Engineers
Association of Environmental Professionals
Association of General Contractors
Bank of America
Bay Area Municipal Forum
Bike the Bridge Coalition
Building Futures Council
California Land Surveyors Association
California League of Conservation Voters
California Preservation Foundation
California Retired Engineers
California Transportation Commission
Californians for Better Transportation
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California
Contra Costa County Council
Diablo Valley Lions Club
Emeryville City Council
Golden Gate Breakfast Club
Hercules Rotary Club
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Institute of Transportation Engineers
International Right-of-Way Association
Joint Congestion Management Agency
Kiwanis Club of Walnut CreekLeague of California Cities
Masonic Club
Oakland Chamber of Commerce
Oakland City Council
Oakland Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Oakland Rotary Club
Napa Engineers
North Bay Engineers Club
Peninsula Association of Contractors
Perry Street Residents
Piedmont City Council
Portland Concrete Cement Association
Retired Teachers Association
Rossmoor Engineers Club
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Clock Tower Group
San Pablo Rotary Club
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
Society of Professional Engineers
Sons in Retirement
South Bay Engineers
St. Paul’s Towers
Structural Mechanics Association
West County Business and Professional Association
West Oakland Commerce Association
Western Council of Construction Consumers
Vacaville Rotary Club

Mailing List

A mailing list of interested parties has been compiled and contains approximately 3,500 names and addresses, including federal, state, and local agencies; elected and appointed officials; city and county staff persons; special interest groups; and the general public.

Newsletters

Four newsletters have been produced and distributed to the entire mailing list. These have described the study alternatives, process and schedule, announced the public meetings, and provided information about study progress and activities. Newsletters will continue to be produced and distributed periodically.

Chronology of Consultation and Coordination

Following is a chronology of key consultation and coordination events over the course of the studies leading to this document.

March 27, 1997, First MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

April 16, 1997, Opportunity for Scoping provided for interested agency staff and the general public at the MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting in Contra Costa County.

April 21,1997, A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register to announce the intent to prepare an EIS and provide a description of the alternatives being considered.

April 22, 1997, Opportunity for Scoping provided for interested agency staff and the general public at the MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting in Alameda County.

April 23, 1997, Opportunity for Scoping provided for interested agency staff and the general public at the MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting in Solano County.

May 8, 1997, Opportunity for Scoping provided for interested agency staff and the general public at the MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting in San Francisco County.

June 24, 1997, Second MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force Meeting.

July 16, 1997, Third MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force Meeting.

July 23, 1997, Fourth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force Meeting.

August 18, 1997, Formal letter request for listing of rare or endangered species to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; response dated on August 29, 1997.

September 9, 1997, First NEPA/404 integration meeting to discuss project purpose and need.

October 3, 1997, Environmental Organizations meeting.

October 7, 1997, Tour of Oakland Army Base property with the East Bay Regional Park District and Oakland Gateway Planning Group.

October 8, 1997, Fifth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

October 23, 1997, Second NEPA/404 integration meeting to discuss project purpose and need.

October 24, 1997, First coordination meeting with the City of Oakland.

October 28, 1997, First coordination meeting with the City and County of San Francisco to discuss the Treasure Island Redevelopment Plan.

October 28, 1997, First meeting with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

October 30, 1997, Second meeting with the Oakland Gateway Planning Group.

November 4, 1997, First Project Development Team meeting.

November 12, 1997, Sixth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

November 13, 1997, Third NEPA/404 integration meeting to discuss alternatives.

November 18, 1997, Third meeting with the Oakland Gateway Planning Group.

November 20, 1997, Second coordination meeting with the City and County of San Francisco.

December 8, 1997, Open House in Alameda County (Lake Merritt Sailboat House, Oakland).

December 9, 1997, Open House in Contra Costa County (JFK University Law School Auditorium, Walnut Creek).

December 11, 1997, Open House in San Francisco County (One Market Plaza, San Francisco).

December 16, 1997, Second meeting with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

January 14, 1998, Seventh MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

January 22, 1998, Third meeting with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

February 11, 1998, Eighth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

February 17, 1998, Fourth meeting with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

February 18, 1998, Fourth meeting with the Oakland Gateway Planning Group.

February 18, 1998, Second coordination meeting with the City of Oakland.

March 4, 1998, Fifth meeting with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

March 25, 1998, Open House in Solano County (Solano Mall, Fairfield).

March 30, 1998, Third coordination meeting with City and County of San Francisco.

April 7, 1998, Second Project Development Team meeting.

April 8, 1998, Ninth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

April 17, 1998, First coordination meeting with the U.S. Navy.

April 27, 1998, Fourth meeting with the City and County of San Francisco.

May 7, 1998, Third coordination meeting with the City of Oakland.

May 13, 1998, Tenth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

May 20, 1998, Fifth meeting with the Oakland Gateway Planning Group.

June 8, 1999, Second coordination meeting with the U.S. Navy.

June 10, 1998, Eleventh MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting. Public hearing to review design alternatives and EDAP recommendations.

June 16, 1998, Fourth coordination meeting with the City of Oakland.

June 18, 1998, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission hearing and vote on policy issues of concern related to the Bay Bridge Project.

June 22, 1998, Twelfth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

June 24, 1998, MTC adopted recommendations on bridge design and amenities and act on toll surcharge extension.

July 6, 1998, Third Project Development Team meeting.

July 7, 1998, Meeting with the City of Oakland to discuss mitigation measures for historic properties.

July 8, 1998, First meeting with the Dredged Material Management Office.

July 21, 1998, Tour of historic properties at the Oakland Touchdown area with the City of Oakland.

July 21, 1998, Third coordination meeting with the U.S. Navy.

July 22, 1998, Sixth meeting with the Oakland Gateway Planning Group.

July 23, 1998, Fifth coordination meeting with the City of Oakland.

August 3, 1998, First meeting with the U.S. Coast Guard.

August 19, 1998, Sixth meeting with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

August 25, 1998, Fourth coordination meeting with the U.S. Navy.

August 26, 1998, Meeting with the National Marine Fisheries regarding marine impacts.

September 24, 1998, DEIS distributed

September 29, 1998, Fourth Project Development Team meeting.

September 29, 1998, Sixth coordination meeting with the City of Oakland.

October 14, 1998, Thirteenth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

October 14, 1998, Public Hearing in Alameda County (MTC, Oakland).

October 15, 1998, Public Hearing in San Francisco County (One Market Plaza, San Francisco).

October 20, 1998, Public Hearing in Contra Costa County (Contra Costa Christian High School, Walnut Creek).

October 22, 1998, Public Hearing in Solano County (John F. Kennedy Library, Vallejo).

November 13, 1998, Fifth meeting with the City and County of San Francisco.

December 2, 1998, Fifth Project Development Team meeting.

December 2, 1998, Seventh meeting with the Oakland Gateway Planning Group.

December 10, 1998, First Historic Resource Agency Consultation meeting.

December 22, 1998, Second meeting with the Dredged Material Management Office.

January 11, 1999, Second meeting with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

January 12, 1999, First meeting with the East Bay Municipal Utility District.

January 13, 1999, Fourteenth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

January 20, 1999, Third meeting with the Dredged Material Management Office.

January 22, 1999, Second meeting with the U.S. Coast Guard.

January 22, 1999, Second meeting with the East Bay Municipal Utility District.

January 27, 1999, Eighth meeting with the Oakland Gateway Planning Group.

February 1, 1999, Coordination meeting and field review with Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

February 2, 1999, Agency consultation meeting on historic resources.

February 10, 1999, Ninth meeting with the Oakland Gateway Planning Group.

February 23, 1999, Meeting with Golden Gate Audubon Society and California Department of Fish and Game about cormorant colony on existing bridge.

February 24, 1999, Fifteenth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

March 16, 1999, Third meeting with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

March 22, 1999, Sixth meeting with the City and County of San Francisco.

March 24, 1999, Fourth meeting with the Dredged Material Management Office.

March 31, 1999, Meeting with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding dredged materials.

April 2, 1999, Seventh meeting with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

April 8, 1999, Sixth Project Development Team meeting.

April 29, 1999, Fourth meeting with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

April 30, 1999, Meeting with the San Francisco Fire Department.

May 12, 1999, Tenth meeting with the Oakland Gateway Planning Group.

June 10, 1999, Eight meeting with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

July 14, 1999, Sixteenth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

July 21, 1999, Third meeting with the U.S. Coast Guard.

September 8, 1999, Seventeenth MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force meeting.

September 16, 1999, Seventh Project Development Team meeting.

September 17, 1999, Meeting between MTC and East Bay Regional Park District regarding the Oakland Touchdown Park.

November 4, 1999, BCDC public meeting on solid fill at the Oakland Touchdown Area; advisory vote.

November 11, 1999, Meeting with FHWA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and East Bay Municipal Utility District.

December 9, 1999, Ninth meeting with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

December 13, 1999, Meeting with FHWA and Navy regarding land use.

January 7, 2000, Meeting with FHWA and Navy regarding the EBMUD sewer outfall.

January 13, 2000, Eighth Project Development Team meeting.

January 19, 2000, Fifth meeting with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

March 1, 2000, Meeting with FHWA and Navy regarding Section 106 issues.

March 29, 2000, Seventh coordination meeting with the City of Oakland.

April 13, 2000, Ninth Project Development Team meeting.

May 10, 2000, First interagency meeting on special aquatic sites.

June 5, 2000, Tenth meeting with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

June 6, 2000, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Engineering Criteria Review Board meeting.

June 26, 2000, Meeting with the East Bay Regional Park District regarding special aquatic sites.

July 10, 2000, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Design Review Board meeting.

July 12, 2000, Second interagency meeting on special aquatic sites.

July 24, 2000, Meeting with San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission staff.

August 7, 2000, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Design Review Board

August 9, 2000, Third interagency meeting on special aquatic sites.

August 30, 2000, Meeting with Oakland Base Reuse Authority regarding land use.

August 31, 2000, Tenth Project Development Team Meeting.

September 11, 2000, Meeting with San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development staff about the bicycle pedestrian pathway.

September 22, 2000, ACOE presentation of interim results of its study of retrofit versus replacement.

October 4, 2000, Meeting with EPA regarding project overview.

October 10, 2000, Meeting with the ACOE, EPA, FHWA, and Caltrans on the LEDPA.

October 27, 2000, ACOE presentation of final results of its study of retrofit versus replacement.

November 6, 2000, Interagency meeting on special aquatic sites.

November 6, 2000, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Design Review Board.

November 8, 2000, Fourth interagency meeting on special aquatic sites.

November 27, 2000, Meeting with the ACOE, BCDC, and EPA on special aquatic sites.

November 30, 2000, Eleventh Project Development Team Meeting.

December 6, 2000, Meeting with the Regional Water Quality Control Board on special aquatic sites.

December 7, 2000, Meeting with the Engineering and Design Advisory Panel.

December 11, 2000, Meeting with USCG and CHP regarding property issues on YBI.

December 14, 2000, Meeting with Port of Oakland regarding right-of-way issues.

December 18, 2000, Meeting with Regional Water Quality Control Board on storm water management.

January 18, 2000, Meeting with Navy and CCSF regarding land conveyance issues on YBI.

January 24, 2001, Meeting with Navy and CCSF regarding utility issues.

February 2, 2001, Meeting with Oakland Base Reuse Authority regarding right-of-way issues.

February 6, 2001, Meeting with Port of Oakland regarding right-of-way issues.

February 15, 2001, Meeting with Port of Oakland regarding right-of-way issues.

February 21, 2001, FHWA met with Navy and EPA regarding land conveyance issues on YBI.

February 26, 2001, Meeting with EBMUD regarding issues affecting its outfall pipeline.

February 28, 2001, Meeting with Oakland Base Reuse Authority and Port of Oakland

regarding right-of-way issues.

March 1, 2001, Twelfth Project Development Team Meeting.

March 14, 2001, Meeting with BCDC regarding permit coordination.

March 15, 2001, Meeting with FHWA, Navy, EPA, USCG, CCSF, DTSC and RWQCB regarding land conveyance issues on YBI.

March 16, 2001, Meeting with Port of Oakland regarding right-of-way issues.

Permits and Approvals

The following permits and/or approvals are required from the respective agencies:

Agency

Approval or Permit

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

  • Grant permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
  • Permit discharge of dredged material in San Francisco Bay under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended.
  • Participate in the NEPA/404 Integration Process.
  • Grant permit pursuant to Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act for deep ocean disposal

U.S. Coast Guard

  • Signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
  • Approve the location and placement of bridges under Section 9 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, as amended.
  • Approve bridge construction under the General Bridge Act of 1946.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

  • Participate in the NEPA/404 Integration Process.
  • Participate in the process to regulate disposal of dredged material in ocean/bay waters
  • Review and comment on BCDC and ACOE permits.
  • Grant permit pursuant to Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act for deep ocean disposal

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

  • Engage in consultation regarding potential impacts to sensitive species in accordance with Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act.
  • Review and comment on BCDC and ACOE permits.
  • Participate in the NEPA/404 Integration Process.

National Marine Fisheries Service

  • Marine Mammal Protection Act authorizations.
  • Engage in consultation regarding potential impacts to sensitive species in accordance with Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act.
  • Engage in consultation regarding essential fish habitat.
  • Review and comment on BCDC and ACOE permits.
  • Participate in the NEPA/404 Integration Process.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

  • Signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Bay Conservation and Development Commission

  • Approve a permit to place fill, extract materials or change the use of any land, water, or structure within its jurisdiction pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act.
  • Participate in the process to regulate disposal of dredged material in ocean/bay waters.
  • Review and comment on ACOE permit.
  • Make a Finding of Consistency with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

California Department of Fish and Game

  • Engage in consultation regarding sensitive species in accordance with the California Endangered Species Act.
  • Review and comment on BCDC and ACOE permits.

Port of Oakland and Port of San Francisco

  • Grant drilling permits and property rights

Regional Water Quality Control Board

  • Grant or waive a Water Quality Certificate pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
  • Verify that the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan demonstrates compliance with the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.
  • Participate in the process to regulate disposal of dredged material in ocean/bay waters.
  • Review and comment on BCDC and ACOE permits.

State Historic Preservation Officer

  • Signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO)
(consisting of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Regional Water Quality Board, and the State Lands Commission)

  • Determine the suitability of dredged materials for unconfined aquatic disposal; recommended appropriate disposal site(s) to its member agencies.