A WARNING TO THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: ACL’s ARE ON THE RISE AND YOUR COMPANY MAY BE EXPOSED.

The California Department of Transportation Confusion Hill Bypass Project

● Project of the Year Award from California Transportation Association. ● A model project that is critical to the North Coast Region’s infrastructure and economy. Importance of the Project:

Features Which Avoided Permitted Impacts: Most permitted in-stream disturbance was avoided. The Certification authorized 50 temporary piles in the live stream, over 4,200 cubic yards of concrete , and no pile driving. As implemented, only six piles were of installed and approximately 12 cubic yards of concrete .

Features Which Avoided Permitted Impacts: ● A lower-level deck was not required, but was installed for additional protection. ● Access roads to the South Bridge were paved for additional protection, although not required. ● Refueling equipment was transported to the peninsula to avoid an equipment crossing. ● Fewer river crossings took place compared to what was permitted.

← Features Which Avoided Permitted Impacts: Major North Bridge access roads were avoided. The Certification allowed low-crossing access roads to be installed 10 feet above the water and ramps built from on-site gravel 10 feet high and 25 feet wide, requiring over 1,100 cubic yards of material. This change allowed 25 trees and riparian habitat to be preserved.

Features Which Avoided Permitted Impacts: Several change orders were added for SWPPP protection, costing an additional $1.05 million (this does not include contractor-shared costs or supervision, i.e., biological monitors, SWPPP managers, etc.).

CONSTRUCTION 2006 - 2009

Substantial Evidence Rule: “ There must be substantial evidence to support a finding of responsibility for each party named. This means credible and reasonable evidence which indicates the named party has responsibility.” ( Order No. WQ 85-7 (Exxon, Co., U.S.A .) (emphasis added).)

Section 401 Application : “Project specifications developed for this project will prohibit any direct discharges to the SFER and/or its tributaries for construction de-watering activities. It is proposed to utilize portions of the gravel bar for construction de-watering during the dry season. Temporary sedimentation basins would be located a minimum of 100 feet from the live stream channel .” (Emphasis added.) Location of the Dewatering Basin

Staff’s Deposition Testimony Q. And you, also, mentioned that the Regional Board, in all likelihood, have approved shorter distances than 100 feet in other situations? A. Yes. Q. Knowing that there's nothing special about the 100 foot distance here, and also knowing that the Board has probably accepted less than 100 feet in other situations, if, back at the time of the Application, Caltrans would have said: "The furthest we could put away a basin within the gravel bar in the work area is 70 feet," would there be any reason, from your standpoint, to disapprove that request? A. No. (Deposition of Dean Prat, App. 108, p. 54.) Location of the Dewatering Basin

Q. How do you know that there's petroleum product on those rocks? A. They are visually stained, and one of the plastic bags appears pink which would lead me to believe it could be red diesel. It could be hydraulic fluid. I don't know exactly what it is… Q. It could be a pink bag. A. It could be. * * * Q. Do you know where these rocks came from? A. I do not off the top of my head, no. Q. Do you know when they were collected? A. No. Q. Do you know where this picture was taken? A. No, although I will repeat that looking in the photographic record could provide context as to where the photo was taken and the time that the photo was taken. (Deposition of Kason Grady, App. 104, p. 82-83.) Ambiguous Photographs August 29, 2006 Allegation (MCM App. 16.)

Q. Do you know what type of fluid it is that's on these rocks? A. I do not. Q. Do you know when whatever type of fluid it was was discharged? A. When? Q. When. A. Well, no. I could only venture a guess. Q. Do you know what type of vehicle, if any, created the discharge? A. I do not. Q. Other than this photograph, do you have any other evidence supporting this violation on this date? A. No. (Deposition of Kason Grady, App. 104, p. 84-85.) Ambiguous Photographs September 9, 2006 Allegation (MCM App. 17.)

Full containment is difficult and presents a threat to worker safety . Welds occur quickly, and produce very little excess material. Project Welding and Cutting

Custom and practice does not require containment. No specific requirement for spark/slag containment exists in the Certification, in the A pplication, or in Caltrans’ standard BMPs. Custom and Practice

Staff’s Deposition Testimony Q. Do you have any information that introducing welding slag into a water body would create an adverse impact on water quality in any way? A. Well, at a minimum, it would be considered sediment once it's there. Q. Any toxic effects that you're aware of? A. No. Q. Any impacts to fish or wildlife that you're aware of? A. Other than the impacts that sediment would have, no. (Deposition of Kason Grady, App. 104, p. 139.) Toxicity

On request, workers used five-gallon buckets and blankets, where possible. Efforts to Contain

● Full time cleaning laborer was hired by MCM. ● Trash receptacles all over work area. ● Extra precautions taken on trestle deck, including side netting. ● Work area kept extraordinarily clean. But is the deck water tight???? Rubbish and Trash BMPs

Uncorroborated Photograph (MCM App. 88.)