San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission...San Francisco Bay Conservation and...

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 375 Beale Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, California 94105 tel 415 352 3600 fax 888 348 5190

State of California | Gavin Newsom – Governor | [email protected] | www.bcdc.ca.gov

January 15, 2021

Staff Recommendation Port of San Francisco

Heron’s Head Park Shoreline Resilience Project (For Commission consideration on January 21, 2021)

Permit Application Number: M1998.003.05 (Material Amendment No. Five)

Applicant: Port of San Francisco

Project Description: Install a beach/groyne shoreline protection system along approximately 1,600 feet of shoreline in front of the marsh at Heron’s Head Park and install oyster reef balls and other habitat enhancements.

Location: In the Bay at 32 Jennings Street, in the City and County of San Francisco.

Application Filed Complete: November 12, 2020

Deadline for Commission Action: February 10, 2021

Staff Contact: Anniken Lydon, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) (415) 352-3624; [email protected])

Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

Basis for Recommendation

The staff recommends approval of the application as conditioned in the recommended resolution, below. The project consists of a living shoreline, coarse gravel beach with rock groynes that will be constructed in front of the existing tidal marsh at Heron’s Head Park in the City and County of San Francisco to reduce onsite erosion. The project also includes oyster reef habitat enhancements that will be placed on the mudflats and natural, wood habitat enhancements along the beach berm to improve the habitat diversity on the site. The project will improve the existing public access on the site by placing additional interpretive and wayfinding signs, adding an interpretive feature near the EcoCenter, and improving areas adjacent to required benches to allow for ADA-accessible companion seating. The recommended resolution includes special conditions to protect Bay resources, provide public access amenities and improvements, and ensure that the project is developed consistent with the plans submitted as part of the application.

Staff Recommendation for Heron’s Head Park Shoreline Resilience Project Permit Application No. M1998.003.05 (Material Amendment No. Five) January 15, 2021

Recommended Resolution and Findings

Because the project involves a material amendment to an existing permit, the format of the recommendation is different from recommendations for new permits. This recommendation includes language from the permit, as well as the changes included in the subject material amendment. Language to be deleted from the permit has been struck through and language to be added to the amended permit has been underlined. Language that has neither been struck through nor underlined is language of the existing permit that will remain unchanged with the adoption of Material Amendment No. Five. The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution:

I. Authorization A. Authorized Project

Subject to the conditions stated below, the permittee, the Port of San Francisco, is hereby authorized to do the following:

Location: In the Bay and within the 100-foot shoreline band, at Pier 98, at the foot of Cargo Way, in the Port of San Francisco, in the City and County of San Francisco County.

Description: As part of a resolution for 25 acres of fill placed by the Port of San Francisco for a never-completed marine terminal at Pier 98:

1. In the Bay

a. Habitat Creation (1) Excavate and grade approximately 15,000 cubic yards of earth material to create approximately 5.05 acres of new intertidal wetlands and enhance approximately 4.05 acres of existing wetlands by lowering the elevation of portions of the site and improving water circulation (Complete);

b. Upland Cap (2) Use most of the excavated material as a cap over approximately a 4.4-acre non-inert fill area over which a geosynthetic liner will be installed (Complete);

c. Fill Removal (3) Remove debris containing creosote, protruding rebar, asphalt or other deleterious material to locations outside the Commission’s jurisdiction (Complete);

d. Shoreline Stabilization (4) Use approximately 3,600 cubic yards of appropriately sized pieces of concrete recovered from the site cleanup to stabilize existing riprap and maintain the perimeters of existing intertidal ponds (Complete);


e. Public Access (5) Provide various public access improvements including:

(1a) 27 public access parking spaces at the foot of Cargo Way (Amendment No. Four);

(2b) an eight-foot-wide, decomposed granite path from the public parking lot to the end of the peninsula to a small public viewing area and two four-foot-wide decomposed granite paths leading from the main trail to a picnic area and fishing pier;

(3c) a picnic area with three picnic benches, barbecue pits, trash containers, and landscaping;

(4d) a 10 by 32-foot-long fixed fishing pier and shoreside fishing area;

(5e) a landscaped bird blind and vista points along the main path;

(6f) interpretive signs;

(7g) landscaping of the entire upland area (formerly Bay) primarily with native grasses and herbs;

(8h) an environmental education center and associated improvements including an approximately 2,078-square-foot building to house the environmental education center; an approximately 1,300-square-foot outdoor gathering space and paths associated with the environmental education center; a series of educational exhibits within the outdoor gathering space; relocation of the storage container in the parking lot so as not to obstruct views to the Bay;

(9i) two bicycle racks at the park entry;

(10j) signage directing visitors to the park; and

f. Excavation Excavate approximately 1,000 cy of onsite soil/sand/rock and reuse the material within the beach footprint prior to placement of the gravel. Approximately 500 cy of this material may be used in the surface of the beach to create habitat for coastal dune plants (Material Amendment No. Five);

g. Headlands/Groynes Place 800 cy of quarry rock, 400 cy of bedding rock, and 100 cy of rounded cobble over approximately 4,792 square feet (0.11 acres) to create five groynes, including two headland-type structures between 65 and 80 feet in length from the top of the beach berm and three rock drift sills along the beach (Material Amendment No. Five);


h. Gravel Beach Place approximately 11,800 cy of gravel over a 117,176-square-foot (2.69 acres) area to create a gravel beach (8:1 slope with a crest elevation of +7.5 feet NAVD88) along approximately 1,600 linear feet of the southern shoreline of Heron’s Head Park, and use 500 cy of this material to create sills around three tidal ponds in the marsh (Material Amendment No. Five);

i. Oyster Reef Habitat Place and maintain a maximum of 60 oyster reef structures made of concrete, wood, shell, and fiber netting over approximately 871 square feet (<0.02 acres) of existing mudflats offshore of the two headland-type structures. Total fill for these structures is approximately 90 cubic yards, with each structure measuring 1.5 cubic yards and 16 square feet in size (Material Amendment No. Five);

j. Woody Debris and Trellises Install up to 20 cubic yards of large woody debris (up to 50 logs about 12 inches in diameter) and tree limbs/branches along the beach berm to create trellises for California seablite and other native vegetation (Material Amendment No. Five);

k. Temporary Land Access Routes Use approximately 34,412 square feet (0.79 acres) of the main public access path to access the project site and widen about 4,791 square feet (0.11 acres) adjacent to the path for vehicle access to the site. Place up to 200 cubic yards of fill material (gravel, rock, etc.) along 100 linear feet to reinforce the existing path for heavy vehicles. Place up to 40 cubic yards of decomposed granite or marsh mats to construct up to 2,178 square feet (0.05 acres) of temporary land access routes through the tidal marsh (Material Amendment No. Five);

l. Temporary Marine Access Routes Place up to 400 cubic yards of temporary fill (mooring buoys, safety buoys, anchors or other mooring equipment) over approximately 1,310 square feet (0.03 acres) to create a temporary barge mooring area if marine-based access is used during construction (Material Amendment No. Five);

m. Staging/Stockpiling Areas Use the staging/stockpiling areas covering approximately 13,068 square feet (0.3 acres) of the peninsula during construction (Material Amendment No. Five);

n. Reconstruct Public Access Path Reconstruct approximately 34,412 square feet (0.79 acres, approximately 2,500 linear feet) of the public access path impacted by construction activities related to work authorized by Material Amendment No. Five by placing approximately 260 cubic yards of fill (asphalt or decomposed granite with binder) (Material Amendment No. Five);


o. Public Access Improvements Install and maintain interpretive signs, wayfinding signs, and other interpretive elements, such as a demonstration oyster reef ball or other approved tactile, interpretive element, and construct ADA-accessible companion seating areas, (Material Amendment No. Five);

p. Restoration and Revegetation Restore and revegetate impacted areas of tidal marsh and upland habitats following completion of construction (Material Amendment No. Five); and

q. Maintenance and Adaptive Management Maintain all public access improvements, habitat features, and shoreline protection. Adaptively manage the habitat areas and habitat enhancements as necessary (Material Amendment No. Five).

2. In the Bay and within the 100-foot Shoreline Band

a. (6) Park Improvements Construct, use and maintain in-kind a public park totaling approximately 60,000 square feet (1.38 acres) at the end of Cargo Way and adjacent to Jennings Street with various amenities including an open space meadow, a picnic and barbecue area, public art, a park entrance with signage, a dog run, a restroom, lighting, site furnishings, a pathway system connecting the Park, Cargo Way and Jennings Streets and a future pedestrian connection through the adjacent PG&E parcel, a shipping container used for supplies for the park education program; recycling and composting facilities, a bus drop-off area, and maintenance vehicle access area (Amendment No. Four).

B. Authorization Basis This authority is generally pursuant to and limited by your original application dated January 24, 1998, your letter dated October 9, 2002 requesting Amendment No. One, your letter dated March 17, 2006, requesting Amendment No. Two, your letter dated August 10, 2009, requesting Amendment No. Three, and your letter dated August 23, 2011, requesting Amendment No. Four, and the letter dated September 16, 2019 requesting the project in Material Amendment No. Five, as modified by subsequent correspondence, and all accompanying exhibits, and all conditions of this amended permit.

C. Deadlines for Commencing and Completing Authorized Work Work authorized in the original permit was to commence prior to December 1, 1999, or this permit was to lapse and become null and void. Such work was also to be diligently pursued to completion and completed within one year of commencement, or by December 1, 2000, whichever was earlier, unless an extension of time was granted by amendment of the permit.


The environmental education center and associated improvements authorized by Amendment Nos. One, Two and Three was to commence prior to December 31, 2007 and were to be diligently pursued to completion and completed by April 30, 2010.

Work authorized by Amendment No. Four must was to commence by January 1, 2015 and must be completed within one year of commencement unless an extension of time is was granted by further amendment of the amended permit.

The work authorized by Material Amendment No. Five must commence by August 30, 2022 and must be diligently pursued to completion within three years of commencement, or no later than June 30, 2025, unless an extension of time is granted by a further amendment of this amended permit. Maintenance authorized by Material Amendment No. Five is authorized in perpetuity as long as the development subject to the material amendment remains in place.

D. Project Summary The original permit M1998.003.00 authorized a large portion of the fill placed in the Bay for Pier 98 construction to remain in place, although the marine terminal was never completed. The permit required the enhancement of 4.05 acres of tidal wetlands that had established on the site and creation of 5.05 acres of intertidal wetlands (tidal marsh and tidal ponds) by lowering the elevation of a portion of the site to improve water circulation on the site, and the construction of upland habitats and public access improvements on the remainder of the site. Public access amenities constructed on the site included public paths, interpretive signs, viewing areas, a parking area, a fishing pier, and a picnic area. Under subsequent permit amendments, the permittee constructed additional public access amenities, including an educational EcoCenter, expanded public parking area, additional paths, benches, and barbeque areas (Material Amendment No. Five).

1. Material Amendment No. Five Material Amendment No. Five involves: the excavation of soils near the marsh edge and reuse of the soil onsite; importation of gravel and rock to construct a beach with rock groynes fronting the existing marsh habitat for bank stabilization; placement of woody debris and trellises on the beach berm; placement of oyster reef habitat elements on the mudflats in front of the beach; and public access improvements.

a. Bay Fill Material Amendment No. Five results in approximately 157,252 square feet (3.61 acres) of permanent fill (gravel, rock, decomposed granite) in the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction and approximately (0.49 acres) of temporary fill. The permanent fill for the project involves the placement of approximately 13,470 cubic yards of solid fill for the beach, rock groynes, oyster reef balls, and trellises and wood debris. The fill associated with the beach/groyne system will stabilize the currently eroding shoreline and the oyster reef balls will provide habitat for oysters and other Bay species. Additionally, 260 cubic yards of decomposed


granite are required over approximately 34,412 square feet (0.79 acres) to repair and reconstruct the impacted public access path following the completion of the project. The project involves approximately 440 cubic yards of temporary fill placed in tidal areas and 200 cubic yards of fill placed along the existing public access path to create access routes and staging areas for construction. The temporary fill will be removed following the completion of the project, and the marsh and public access areas will be restored (Material Amendment No. Five).

b. Public Access Material Amendment No. Five results in improvements to the signage and seating areas within Heron’s Head Park. The existing public paths will be temporarily closed and used as a construction access route during the project and will need to be repaired with decomposed granite surfacing following construction. Additionally, the project includes installing two new wayfinding signs, upgrading and replacing four existing required interpretive signs, and installing three new interpretive signs. The interpretive signs will be spread along the main public path to provide an integrated educational experience spanning the entire Heron’s Head Park peninsula. ADA-accessible paths and companion seating spaces at a minimum of two existing benches will provide a more inviting and inclusive experience at the required seating areas. If the oyster reef balls are installed in the Bay as part of the project, the project will include a tactile educational element, such as a demonstration oyster reef ball, near the EcoCenter to educate the public about the habitat provided by the structures (Material Amendment No. Five).

II. Special Conditions The amended authorization made herein shall be subject to the following special conditions, in addition to the standard conditions in Part IV:

A. Specific Plans and Plan Review The development authorized herein shall be built generally in conformance with the following documents:

1. Original Plans The work authorized by the original permit was to conform to the Preliminary Design Report, Pier 98 Wetlands and Open Space Project, prepared by Levine-Fricke-Recon and dated November 13, 1997.

2. 4. Amendments Nos. One and Two Plans The work authorized by Amendment No. One shall conform to the following plans: five plans prepared by Van Der Ryn Architects, entitled: “Heron’s Head Park Living Classroom,” dated December 20, 2002, and labeled as sheets G001, AS101, A101, A201, and A301; two sheets prepared by the Port of San Francisco, entitled “Heron’s Head Park Signage Program,” and dated December 2002; and one sheet prepared by


the Port of San Francisco, entitled “Heron’s Head Park Entry and Parking Configuration,” and dated May 2003. The design of the environmental education center was further modified by Amendment No. Two such that construction of the center shall generally conform with the renderings entitled, “Living Classroom at Heron’s Head Park, San Francisco, California”, prepared by Toby Long Design and dated November 8, 2005. As required under Special Condition II-A-1II.B above, final site, grading and construction plans shall be submitted to and approved by or on behalf of the Commission prior to commencing construction.

3. 5. Amendment No. Four Plans The work authorized by Amendment No. Four shall generally conform to the plans entitled “Heron’s Head Park Improvement Project,” prepared by John Dennis, approved by the San Francisco Port Commission on June 7, 2011 (labeled as drawings G-1.0, L-2.0, L-2.1, L-2.2, L-2.3, L-2.4, L-6.2, L-6.6 and L-6.8).

4. Amendment No. Five Plans The work authorized by Material Amendment No. Five shall generally conform to the 65% draft plans entitled “Herons Head Shoreline Resiliency Project,” prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) dated April 27, 2020 (labeled as drawings G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, C-1.1, C-1.2, C-1.3, C-2.1, C-2.2, C-2.3, C-2.4, C-2.5, C-3.1, C-3.2, C-3.3, LA-1, and LA-2) (Material Amendment No. Five).

The permittee is responsible for assuring that all construction documents accurately and fully reflect the terms and conditions of this amended permit and any legal instruments submitted pursuant to this amended authorization. No substantial changes shall be made to these documents without prior review and written approval by or on behalf of the Commission through plan review or a permit amendment (Material Amendment No. Five).

B. Plan Review No work whatsoever shall commence pursuant to this amended permit until final construction documents regarding authorized activities are approved in writing by or on behalf of the Commission. All documents are reviewed within 45 days of receipt. To save time, preliminary documents may be submitted prior to the submittal of final documents. If final construction document review is not completed by or on behalf of the Commission within the 45-day period, the permittee may carry out the project authorized herein in a manner consistent with the plans referred to in Special Condition II.A of this amended permit.

1. Document Details All construction documents shall be labeled with: the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction, which encompasses the entire peninsula up to Jennings Street; the corresponding 100-foot shoreline band; the Mean High Water line and inland edge of tidal marsh vegetation; the tidal datum reference (NAVD88 or, if appropriate, Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)); property lines; the location, types, and dimensions of materials, structures, and project phases authorized herein; grading limits; and the boundaries


of public access areas and view corridor(s) required herein. Documents for shoreline protection projects must be dated and include the preparer’s certification of project safety and contact information. No substantial changes shall be made to these documents without prior review and written approval by or on behalf of the Commission through plan review or a permit amendment.

2. Conformity with Final Approved Documents All authorized development and uses shall conform to the final documents. Prior to use of the facilities authorized herein, the appropriate professional(s) of record shall certify in writing that the work covered by the authorization has been implemented in accordance with the approved criteria and in substantial conformance with the approved documents. No substantial changes shall be made to these documents without prior review and written approval by or on behalf of the Commission through plan review or a permit amendment.

3. Discrepancies between Approved Plans and Special Conditions In case of a discrepancy between final approved documents and the special conditions of this amended permit or legal instruments, the special condition shall prevail.

4. Reconsideration of Plan Review The permittee may request reconsideration of a plan review action taken pursuant to this special condition within 30 days of a plan review action by submitting a written request for reconsideration to the Commission’s Executive Director. Following the Executive Director’s receipt of such a request, the Executive Director shall respond to the permittee with a determination on whether the plan review action in question shall remain unchanged or an additional review and/or action shall be performed by or on behalf of the Commission, including, but not limited to, an amendment to the amended permit and/or consultation with the Commission Design Review Board (Material Amendment No. Five).

1. Plan Review No work whatsoever shall commence pursuant to this authorization until final precise site, grading, and landscaping plans and any other relevant criteria, specifications, and plan information for that portion of the work have been submitted to, reviewed, and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Commission. The specific drawings and information required will be determined by the staff. To save time, preliminary drawings should be submitted and approved prior to final drawings.

a. Site, Grading, and Landscaping Plans. Site, grading, landscaping, and public access plans shall include and clearly label the shoreline (the Mean High Tide Line or the inland edge of marsh vegetation where there is marsh vegetation), property lines, the boundaries of all areas to be reserved for public access, grading, irrigation, landscaping, drainage, seating, parking, signs, lighting, fences, paths, trash containers, utilities and other improvements.


Plans submitted shall be accompanied by a letter requesting plan approval, identifying the type of plans submitted, the portion of the project involved, and indicating whether the plans are final or preliminary. Approval or disapproval shall be based upon:

(1) Completeness and accuracy of the plans in showing the features required above, particularly the shoreline, property lines, and any other criteria required by this permit;

(2) Consistency of the plans with the terms and conditions of this amended permit; and

(3) Consistency with the Preliminary Design Report, Pier 98 Wetlands and Open Space Project, prepared by Levine-Fricke-Recon and dated November 13, 1997.

Plan review shall be completed by or on behalf of the Commission within 45 days after receipt of the plans to be reviewed.

2. Conformity with Final Approved Plans All work, improvements, and uses shall conform to the final approved plans. Prior to any use of the facilities authorized herein, the appropriate design professional(s) of record shall certify in writing that, through personal knowledge, the work covered by the authorization has been performed in accordance with the approved design criteria and in substantial conformance with the approved plans. No noticeable changes shall be made thereafter to any final plans or to any outside fixture, lighting, landscaping, signs, parking area, or shoreline protection work without first obtaining written approval of the change(s) by or on behalf of the Commission.

3. Discrepancies Between Approved Plans and Special Conditions In case of any discrepancy between final approved plans and Special Conditions of this authorization, the Special Condition shall prevail. The permittee is responsible for assuring that all plans accurately and fully reflect the Special Conditions of this authorization.

4. Amendment Nos. One and Two The work authorized by Amendment No. One shall conform to the following plans: five plans prepared by Van Der Ryn Architects, entitled: “Heron’s Head Park Living Classroom,” dated December 20, 2002, and labeled as sheets G001, AS101, A101, A201, and A301; two sheets prepared by the Port of San Francisco, entitled “Heron’s Head Park Signage Program,” and dated December 2002; and one sheet prepared by the Port of San Francisco, entitled “Heron’s Head Park Entry and Parking Configuration,” and dated May 2003. The design of the environmental education center was further modified by Amendment No. Two such that construction of the center shall generally conform with the renderings entitled, “Living Classroom at Heron’s Head Park, San Francisco, California”, prepared by Toby Long Design and


dated November 8, 2005. As required under Special Condition II-A-1 above, final site, grading and construction plans shall be submitted to and approved by or on behalf of the Commission prior to commencing construction.

5. Amendment No. Four The work authorized by Amendment No. Four shall generally conform to the plans entitled “Heron’s Head Park Improvement Project,” prepared by John Dennis, approved by the San Francisco Port Commission on June 7, 2011 (labeled as drawings G-1.0, L-2.0, L-2.1, L-2.2, L-2.3, L-2.4, L-6.2, L-6.6 and L-6.8).

B. Marsh Restoration Work and Plans By December 1, 2000 or within one year of commencement of project construction, whichever is earlier, the permittee shall create 5.05 acres of intertidal wetlands and enhance 4.05 acres of existing wetlands by lowering the elevation of portions of the site and improving water circulation, generally in accord with the Preliminary Design Report, Pier 98 Wetlands and Open Space Project, prepared by Levine-Fricke-Recon and dated November 13, 1997, and consistent with plans approved pursuant to Special Condition II-A of this permit.

Prior to the commencement of any work at any location pursuant to this authorization, the permittee shall submit a marsh restoration plan and program, to be approved by or on behalf of the Commission, for the restoration of 5.05 acres of new intertidal wetlands and the enhancement of 4.05 acres of existing wetlands and adjoining transitional and upland habitat. The plan and program shall contain the following:

1. Site Conditions and Modifications A topographic map of the site at one-foot contour intervals and a topographic map showing the proposed modifications. All elevations shall be relative to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The map shall include typical cross-sections showing proposed elevation of marsh plain, any channels, and any high spots. The map shall show: (1) figures for the ratios of typical horizontal to vertical slopes for existing and proposed marsh surface, channels, and sloughs; (2) proposed plant species along the cross-sections according to their expected zone of growth; (3) the elevation of adjacent surrounding properties; and (4) figures for the estimated tidal range including Mean Higher High Water, Mean High Water, Mean Lower Low Water, Mean Sea Level, the maximum predicted tide, and the 100-year tide.

2. Soil Information The program shall include a report identifying the type of soils of any fill to be imported to the site. Information shall be provided on the quantitative soil measurements of soil texture and dry density for both existing and imported soils. In addition, for imported soils only, information shall be provided on the salinity, pH, and organic content.


3. Planting and Seeding Plan The restoration plan shall include a list of the vegetation proposed to be planted, and a planting and maintenance plan. Such plans shall include a program for eliminating existing exotic vegetation and preventing the establishment of exotic vegetation at the site.

4. Schedule The program shall include a schedule indicating when excavation, fill, and grading will occur, the time to be allowed for settlement, and the time when planting will occur.

5. Monitoring Every year, starting April 1 of the year following project completion, for a five-year period, or until those portions of the restoration site subject to tidal action (exclusive of the areas below 1 foot Mean Sea Level, the unvegetated islands and pond) are approximately 80% vegetated, whichever occurs first, the permittee shall report to the Commission on the effects of the project in restoring tidal marsh and transitional habitat at the restoration site. The monitoring program and report shall include measurements of: (1) sedimentation rates, (2) percentage of the site revegetated, (3) plant survival, (4) approximate percentage representation of different plant species, and (5) a qualitative assessment of plant growth rates for the tidal restoration area, including adjacent transitional and upland habitats. Undesirable exotic plant species such as pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Spartina alterniflora, broom, pampas grass, or star thistle shall be reasonably controlled during the five-year monitoring period. Should adverse conditions be identified during the five-year monitoring period, the permittee shall take corrective action as specified by or on behalf of the Commission.

C. Public Access and Open Space

1. Area The entire peninsula known as Pier 98 up to the eastern edge of Jennings Street as shown in Exhibit B, which was updated in Material Amendment No. Five, shall be maintained as open space and associated public access.

2. Recording The permittee shall record this amended permit or a notice specifically referring to this document with San Francisco County within 30 days after execution of the amended permit issued pursuant to this authorization and shall, within 30 days after recordation, provide evidence of recordation to the Commission.

2. 3. Improvements Within the Originally Authorized Public Access Area By December 1, 2000 unless otherwise specified below, tThe permittee shall undertake the following improvements along the shoreline, within the project boundaries, and within existing shoreline areas as generally shown on Exhibit A, which was updated in Material Amendment No. Five, and as described in the


Preliminary Design Report, Pier 98 Wetlands and Open Space Project, prepared by Levine-Fricke-Recon and dated November 13, 1997, and other subsequent plans as specifically approved and required pursuant to Special Conditions II.A and II.B herein.

All public access improvements shall be installed within six months of completion of construction, unless another timeline is specified below. Upon completion of the construction activities authorized, the permittee shall restore the impacted public access areas to the condition that existed prior to the construction activities or to an improved condition (Material Amendment No. Five).

a. Public Access Parking Spaces Provide 27public access parking spaces at the foot of Cargo Way.

b. Paths Construct an eight-foot-wide, decomposed granite path/service road running from the public parking lot to the end of the peninsula to a small public viewing area, and two, four-foot-wide decomposed granite paths leading from the main trail to a picnic area and fishing pier.

c. Viewing Areas Construct a landscaped bird blind and at least three vista points along the main path at the locations shown on Exhibit A.

d. Picnic Area Construct a picnic area with three picnic tablesbenches, barbecue pits, trash containers, and landscaping.

e. Fishing Pier Construct a 320-square-foot, fixed fishing pier and shoreside fishing area.

f. Interpretive and Public Access Signs Place a minimum of four interpretive signs and three public access trail signs. The permittee shall install three additional interpretive signs and update the locations and content of the four interpretive signs already required in this permit within six months of completing construction of the project (Material Amendment No. Five).

g. Tactile Interpretive Element - Demonstration Oyster Reef Ball In the event the permittee installs the oyster reef balls authorized in Material Amendment No. Five, the permittee shall at the same time install a demonstration oyster reef ball, or other alternative public access improvement, to serve as a tactile interpretive element near the EcoCenter. Prior to installation of the oyster reef balls in the Bay, the permittee shall submit for review and approval by or on behalf of the Commission a final project description of the interpretive element associated with the oyster reef balls, and provide an


updated site plan identifying the location of the interpretive element. The proposal will be reviewed through the plan review process established in Special Condition II.B above (Material Amendment No. Five).

h. Wayfinding Signs Install two new wayfinding signs, locations to be approved by or on behalf of the Commission through plan review as outlined in Special Condition II.B, directing the public to various features in the public access area within six months of completing construction of the project (Material Amendment No. Five).

i. Bench Improvements The permittee shall install one companion seating area, a minimum of 36 inches wide and 48 inches long, next to a minimum of two of the required, granite benches along the main path, and provide an accessible route to the companion area from the main path (Material Amendment No. Five).

j. g. Landscaping Plant the entire upland area primarily with native or drought-resistant, non-invasive shrubs, herbs, and grasses.

3. 4. Improvements Associated with the Environmental Education Center (EcoCenter) By the completion of the project authorized by Amendment No. One, the permittee shall install and complete the following improvements, as depicted on the plans listed under Special Condition II-A-4:

a. Outdoor Gathering Space and Paths Associated with Building Provide an outdoor gathering space associated with the building and footpaths leading to the building and also the existing picnic area. No vehicle access shall be allowed on these footpaths for the use, operation or maintenance of the building or outdoor gathering space except in the case of an emergency.

b. Educational Exhibits Provide a series of outdoor educational exhibits that highlight sustainable characteristics of the building, park history, energy conservation and other educational topics.

c. Sign at Start of Footpath Leading to Building Provide a sign at the start of the footpath leading to the building which explains that there are outdoor exhibits for public viewing at all times, that the building is available for community meetings upon request (with contact information included) and provides some method of simply indicating when the building is open and that when it is open, it may be visited by the public.


d. Locate Storage Container Locate the storage container, which contains tools and materials which are utilized for park restoration efforts, so that it will not block views down Cargo Way toward the Bay.

e. Add Bicycle Racks Provide two bicycle racks at the park entry.

f. Signage to Direct Visitors to the Park Provide signage on Third Street and Cargo Way directing visitors to the park.

4. 5. Public Park Improvements (Amendment No. Four) By January 1, 2015, the permittee shall commence construction of public park improvements authorized in Amendment No. Four, and shall complete all improvements within one year of commencement. These improvements shall include: (a) an open meadow area; (b) a picnic and barbecue area; (c) a space for public art; (d) a well-defined park entrance, including new signage; (e) a dog run; (f) a restroom; (g) lighting and site furnishings; (h) a pathway system tied to Park, Cargo Way and Jennings Street and allowing for a future connection through the adjacent PG&E parcel along the former cooling lagoon; (i) a shipping container used for supplies for the park education program located so as not to impede public views of the Bay; (j) recycling and composting facilities; and (k) a parking lot for 27 vehicles (including the 10 spaces previously provided as part of the original authorization) and with a bus drop-off and maintenance vehicle access area (Exhibit B). The permittee shall also install directional signage as shown in Exhibit C to help the public find the park.

5. 6. Maintenance The areas and improvements authorized herein shall be permanently maintained by and at the expense of the permittee or its assignee. Such maintenance shall include, but is not limited to repairs to all path surfaces, replacement, when appropriate, of any plant materials that die or become unkempt with appropriate species; watering the plants in the planters, repairs or replacement as needed of any signs, benches, trash containers, etc., periodic clean-up of litter and other materials deposited within the access area, removal of any encroachments into the access areas, and assuring that the public access signs remains in place and visible. Within 30 days after notification by staff, the permittee shall correct any maintenance deficiency noted in a staff inspection of the site.

6. 7. Barrier-Free Access All public access facilities authorized or required under terms of this authorization shall be designed so that they provide barrier-free access for the physically handicapped persons with disabilities (Material Amendment No. Five).


7. 8. Reasonable Rules and Restrictions The permittee may impose reasonable rules and restrictions for the use of the public access areas to correct particular problems that may arise. Such limitations, rules, and restrictions shall have first been approved, in writing, by or on behalf of the Commission upon a finding that the proposed rules would not significantly affect the public nature of the area, would not unduly interfere with reasonable public use of the public access areas, and would tend to correct a specific problem that the permittee has both identified and substantiated. Rules may include restricting hours of use and delineating appropriate behavior.

8. 9. Assignment The permittee shall transfer maintenance responsibility to another public agency or another party acceptable to the Commission at such time as the property transfers to a new party in interest but only provided that the transferee agrees in writing, acceptable to counsel for the Commission, to be bound by all terms and conditions of this permit.

9. Temporary Public Access Closures and Rerouting Plan The permittee may temporarily close a portion of the public access path as is necessary during construction activities authorized by this amended permit. The permittee shall minimize the duration of the closure for construction to the minimum timeframe necessary to complete construction and repair/reconstruct the public access path. A minimum of 90 days before construction, the permittee shall provide a rerouting map and temporary signage plan for the Bay Trail during construction activities to the Commission for review and approval pursuant to Special Condition II.B. Signs shall be posted at least two weeks prior to the closure indicating the estimated length of closure, amenities that are still open and accessible during the closure, and project contact information for public questions (Material Amendment No. Five).

10. Comprehensive Signage Plan The permittee shall submit for review and approval by or on behalf of the Commission a Comprehensive Signage Plan a minimum of 90 days prior to the installation of the signs. The plan shall be designed to maximize public recognition, use, and enjoyment of the site’s public access improvements and shall at a minimum include details on the type, location, quantity, content, and design for the wayfinding signs, public access signs, interpretive signs that provide an educational experience spanning the entire Heron’s Head peninsula, and other specific signs (educational exhibits, etc.) consistent with Special Conditions II.C.3, II.C.4, and II.C.5. The signage plan shall be reviewed through the plan review process established in Special Condition II.B above. All signs shall be placed at the project site within six months of completion of the project authorized herein (Material Amendment No. Five).


D. Rock Revetments and Shoreline Stabilization 1. Riprap Material

Riprap material shall be either quarry rock or specially cast or carefully selected concrete pieces free of reinforcing steel and other extraneous material and conforming to quality requirements for specific gravity, absorption, and durability specified by the California Department of Transportation or the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The material shall be generally spheroid-shaped. The overall thickness of the slope protection shall be no more than three feet measured perpendicular to the slope. Use of dirt, small concrete rubble, concrete pieces with exposed rebar, large and odd shaped pieces of concrete, and asphalt concrete as riprap is prohibited.

2. Riprap Placement Riprap material shall be placed so that a permanent shoreline with a minimum amount of fill is established by means of an engineered slope not steeper than two (horizontal) to one (vertical). The slope of any new riprap shall be created by the placement of a filter fabric, overlaid with an appropriate graded stone filter, and protected by riprap material of sufficient size to withstand wind and wave generated forces at the site. Riprap material may be placed over existing riprap shoreline without the filter fabric and graded stone filter.

3. Maintenance The shoreline protection improvements authorized herein shall be regularly maintained by, and at the expense of the permittee. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, collecting any riprap materials that become dislodged and repositioning them in appropriate locations within the riprap covered areas, replacing in-kind riprap material that is lost, repairing the required filter fabric as needed, and removing debris that collects on top of the riprap. Within 30 days after notification by the staff of the Commission, the permittee shall correct any maintenance deficiency noted by the staff.

4. Beach/Groyne System The permittee shall place the minimum amount of fill (gravel) to establish a permanent shoreline in a manner that is no steeper than a three (horizontal) to one (vertical) slope, unless the slope is keyed in at the toe. The groynes and associated fill material (rock and bedding material) shall be constructed to meet the California Department of Transportation or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standards for such structures. The permittee shall maintain the groynes in a similar manner required in Special Condition II.D.3 above (Material Amendment No. Five).

E. Protection of Bay Resources The permittee shall minimize impacts to Bay resources and water quality at the site by implementing the following measures. Minor modifications to the below requirements may be approved by the Executive Director upon a finding that the modifications are no less protective of Bay resources or water quality (Material Amendment No. Five).


1. E. Removal of Excavated Material All excavated material must either: (1) be removed from the project site for proper disposal outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction; (2) placed at Pier 98 as a cap over approximately a 4.4-acre, non-inert fill areas over which a geosynthetic liner shall be installed; (3) used to raise the elevations of portions of the site in conformance with marsh restoration and public access plans approved pursuant to Special Conditions II-A and II-B; or (4) used to create islands or refugial mounds in conformance with approved marsh restoration plans, or (5) used to construct the beach and sills around the tidal marsh ponds. Excavated soil materials may be temporarily stored at other locations within the Commission’s jurisdiction, provided measures are employed to assure that material does not wash or erode into the surrounding marsh or waterways. No excavated material shall be permanently stored at any such temporary sites (Material Amendment No. Five).

F. Creosote Treated Wood No pilings or other wood structures that have been pressure treated with creosote shall be used in any area subject to tidal action in the Bay or any certain waterway, in any salt pond, or in any managed wetland within the Commission's jurisdiction as part of the project authorized herein.

2. G. Marsh and Upland Plant Protection During Construction and Dredging The work authorized by this permit shall be performed in a manner that will prevent, avoid, or minimize to the extent possible any significant adverse impact on any tidal marsh, other sensitive wetland resources, and existing native upland vegetation. If any unforeseen adverse impacts occur to any such area(s) as a result of the activities authorized herein, the permittee shall restore the area(s) to its previous condition, including returning the disturbed area(s) to its original elevation and soil composition and, if the area does not revegetate to its former condition within one year, the permittee shall seed all disturbed areas with appropriate vegetation consistent with plans approved pursuant to Special Conditions II.A, II.B, and II.E.7 II-A and II-B of this permit (Material Amendment No. Five).

3. H. Construction Operations All construction operations shall be performed to prevent construction materials from falling into the Bay. In the event that such material escapes or is placed in an unanticipated area subject to tidal action of the Bay, the permittee shall immediately retrieve and remove such material at its expense. The permittee shall implement monitoring during construction activities as described in the approved Heron’s Head Shoreline Resilience Project Construction Monitoring Plan dated July 6, 2020 and revised on October 8, 2020, prepared by Acta Environmental and ESA (Material Amendment No. Five).


4. I. Debris Removal All construction debris and any uncovered debris, such as concrete, asphalt, wood, plastics, etc., shall be removed from the project site for proper disposal outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. Excavated debris may be temporarily stored within the Commission’s jurisdiction, provided measures are employed to assure that material does not wash or erode into the surrounding marsh or waterways. No excess excavated material or surface debris shall be permanently stored on site; it shall be properly disposed at a location outside the Commission's jurisdiction. In the event that any such material is placed in any area within the Commission's jurisdiction, the permittee, its assigns, or successors in interest, or the owner of the improvements, shall remove such material, at its expense, within ten days after it has been notified by the Executive Director of such placement.

5. Water Quality The permittee shall implement the best management practices and measures to protect water quality during construction and shall conduct work consistent the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Water Board) Water Quality Certification (Place ID: 861636 WDID#2 CW434568) issued for the project on October 20, 2020, unless modified by the Water Board. The permittee shall submit any amendment or modification to the Water Quality Certification to the Commission.

a. Fueling and Spill Prevention No fueling, cleaning, maintenance, or storage of vehicles or equipment shall take place within or immediately adjacent to the Bay, or within areas where accidental discharge of pollutants to the Bay may occur.

b. Creosote Treated Wood No pilings or other wood structures that have been pressure treated with creosote shall be used in any area subject to tidal action in the Bay or any certain waterway, in any salt pond, or in any managed wetland within the Commission's jurisdiction as part of the project authorized herein (Material Amendment No. Five).

6. Species Protections The permittee shall take all precautions to avoid adverse impacts to the California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), endangered California seablite (Suaeda californica), Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss), and green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), and native species present in the project area, and as required below.

a. Environmental Work Windows The permittee shall conduct all in-water work authorized by this permit below the Mean High Water line between September 1st and November 30th of any year, unless the permittee seeks and obtains approval by the Executive Director to work outside this window, and consults with the National Marine Fisheries


Service (NMFS), the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding minimization and avoidance measures.

b. Timing of Work In-water work shall be conducted at low tide to the extent feasible and during daylight hours. Work near wetlands and transition zone habitat shall be avoided during extreme high tides; and

c. National Marine Fisheries Service The permittee shall adhere to the avoidance and minimization measures, such as working during the lowest feasible tides, and no dumping of bulk beach material directly into tidal waters, to minimize potential project impacts on federally-listed fish species and their habitat as described in the Letter of Concurrence dated June 3, 2020 (Reference No. WCRO-2020-01023), issued by the NMFS, or as modified by NMFS. The permittee shall submit any amendment or modification to the NMFS consultation to the Commission.

d. United States Fish and Wildlife Service The permittee shall adhere to the avoidance and minimization measures, including best management practices and worksite protocols, to protect the California Ridgway’s rail and California seablite in the vicinity of the project site as stated in the USFWS Biological Opinion (Reference No. 08FBDT00-2020-F-0164) dated October 2, 2020, unless it is modified by the USFWS. The permittee shall submit any amendment or modification to the USFWS Biological Opinion to the Commission.

e. Pacific herring The permittee shall consult with CDFW if any work is proposed during the Pacific herring spawning season (December 1st – February 28th of any year) for appropriate minimization measures. If work is to continue during herring spawning season, the permittee shall hire a Pacific herring monitor during all in-water work. If a herring spawn is detected, the permittee shall suspend all work that is within 200 feet of the spawning area for a period of 14 days (Material Amendment No. Five).

f. Eelgrass Construction vessels shall not be allowed to navigate within any emergent vegetation. The permittee shall conduct an eelgrass survey prior to conducting work. If eelgrass is found within the project site, then the permittee shall avoid and minimize impacts, or mitigate for any impacts in accordance with the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP) (Material Amendment No. Five).


7. Restoration and Revegetation The permittee shall submit a marsh revegetation and planting plan to the Commission at least 45 days prior to beginning construction for review and approval by or on behalf of the Commission. The permittee shall plant native vegetation to restore areas of the marsh or uplands that are temporarily impacted during the construction activities in accordance with the approved plan (Material Amendment No. Five).

F. Monitoring and Reporting (Material Amendment No. Five) The permittee shall conduct post-construction monitoring for a minimum ten-year period as specified below and as described in the approved Heron’s Head Shoreline Resilience Project Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) dated July 6, 2020 and revised on October 8, 2020, prepared by Acta Environmental and ESA. If this plan is modified or amended, the permittee shall provide the plan to the Commission within 60 days for review and approval by or on behalf of the Commission.

1. Success Criteria The permittee shall ensure that the following success criteria are met. If these success criteria are not met in any one year, the permittee shall consult with appropriate agencies to evaluate and determine what, if any, corrective or adaptive management actions may be necessary, and implement the corrective actions. Adaptive management shall be conducted in accordance with the MAMP. If success criteria are not met and adaptive management is necessary, the monitoring period may be extended to ensure that final performance criteria are achieved.

a. Tidal Marsh The permittee shall monitor the marsh revegetation and performance over a minimum five-year period with annual monitoring results provided in each monitoring report. Qualitative monitoring shall occur annually in Years 1-5, and quantitative surveys shall be conducted in Years 1, 3, and 5.

(1) Vegetation Cover Absolute percent cover of native tidal marsh vegetation in the replanted tidal marsh areas are a minimum of 10% absolute cover in Year 1, 50% cover in Year 3, and 70% cover in Year 5.

(2) Invasive Species Absolute percent cover of invasive species in the replanted areas shall be the same or less than the absolute percent cover of invasive species in unimpacted reference areas of tidal marsh in any monitoring year.

b. Beach and Rock Groynes The permittee shall monitor the performance of the beach/groyne system for a ten-year period. Visual inspections and photo-documentation will be conducted annually in Years 1-10, and quantitative surveys shall be conducted in Years 0, 2,


4, 6, 8, and 10. If a significant wave event occurs in an off year, this schedule may be adjusted; the quantitative surveys shall be conducted in that year and that event shall replace another future planned monitoring event.

(1) Lateral Movement of Rock Groynes No horizontal movement, as qualitatively assessed by visual inspections, of the large rocks or significant failures of groyne structures shall occur.

(2) Vertical Movement of Rock Groynes Crest elevation of at least 75% of the groyne structures (by length) remains within 1 foot of initial elevation.

(3) Beach Berm Elevation of the beach berm crest remains above 5.5 feet NAVD88 where the beach is adjacent to sensitive habitats.

(4) Tidal Channel No obstruction of tidal flow in and out of the main tidal channels.

c. Oyster Reef Balls The permittee shall monitor the performance of the oyster reef balls for a ten-year period. Monitoring shall occur annually in Years 1-5, 7 and 10.

(1) Lateral Movement of Oyster Reef Balls No significant horizontal movement of the oyster reef elements.

2. Project Goals The permittee shall provide information in the annual report on the progress toward the project goals, including: oyster reef colonization by native/non-native species, growth of seablite plantings and use of wood trellises, use of the site by seabirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds, beach equilibrium and gravel transport, and other goals discussed in the MAMP. The permittee may choose to take corrective actions or adaptive management actions if goals are not being met, but is not be required to do so if these goals are not achieved during the monitoring period (Material Amendment No. Five).

3. Monitoring Reports By January 31st of each year following a monitoring event, the permittee shall submit annual monitoring reports over the ten-year monitoring period beginning the year after construction completion. Monitoring reports shall include, at a minimum, the following: (1) a summary of the monitoring results for that year as described in the MAMP, (2) a comparison of the data to monitoring results from previous years, (3) a description of the progress towards meeting final success criteria and goals for the project, and (4) any adaptive management or corrective actions necessary. The final annual monitoring report shall discuss the overall site function and conditions and determine if any additional corrective actions are necessary. Should adverse


conditions be identified during the ten-year monitoring period because the project is not meeting success criteria, the permittee shall take corrective or adaptive management actions as specified by or on behalf of the Commission, and other agencies as appropriate (Material Amendment No. Five).

G. J. Abandonment If, at any time, the Commission determines that the improvements in the Bay authorized herein, have been abandoned for a period of two years or more, or have deteriorated to the point that public health, safety or welfare is adversely affected, the Commission may require that the improvements be removed by the permittee, its assigns or successors in interest, or by the owner of the improvements, within 60 days or such other reasonable time as the Commission may direct.

K. Certification of Contractor Review Prior to commencing any grading, demolition, or construction, the general contractor or contractors in charge of that portion of the work shall submit written certification that s/he has reviewed and understands the requirements of the amended permit and the final BCDC-approved plans, particularly as they pertain to any public access or open space required herein, or environmentally sensitive areas.

L. Assignment The permittee may make a full or partial assignment to the rights and/or duties under this permit provided that the assignee is acceptable to the Commission. The assignment shall be made in writing and clearly indicate which portions are assigned and which portions remain unassigned. Any assignee shall sign a written statement to the effect that he or she has read and understands the conditions of this permit and agrees to be bound by all terms and conditions hereof.

III. Findings On behalf of the Commission, I find and declare that:

A. Original Authorization The wetland restoration and public access project originally authorized by Permit No. M1998.003.00 resolved an enforcement action brought by the Commission against the Port of San Francisco for the placement of about 25 acres of fill in the Bay by the Port of San Francisco between 1970 and 1978 at Pier 98. The Commission authorized the fill for use as a 48-acre maritime facility, a project that was never completed. Wetlands naturally developed on portions of the fill, and people began using the site for walking, bird watching, and fishing. The Commission determined that the Port had violated the terms of the BCDC permits issued for the project by placing 25 acres of fill without ever using the fill for the specific water-oriented use authorized by the permits, for placing some fill outside the project limits, and by placing some fill containing contamination unauthorized material. To resolve this violation, in 1993 the Commission and Port entered into an agreement that obligated the Port: 1) to adopt in agreement with the Commission a precise design for the creation of new wetlands, the


improvement of existing wetlands, and the creation of transitional and upland habitat at Pier 98; 2) to comply with CEQA; 3) to obtain all necessary permits; and 4) to take all other actions necessary to allow construction of the wetland creation/improvement project as finally designed to commence.

The Commission and Port approved a preferred alternative for the project in June 1997. In December 1997, the Port and the Commission entered into a settlement agreement that would authorize a portion of the fill to remain and required the Port to seek authorization for the excavation of some of the fill to create new wetlands and improve existing wetlands, and to authorize public access improvements. Among the principles of the settlement agreement were that the Port would apply for a BCDC permit as soon as possible. The Port would commence construction of the approved project within 180 days of Commission approval, and the Port would complete construction within one year of commencing work on the project.

The project authorized by the original permit involved grading and excavation needed to create 5.05 acres of new intertidal wetlands and enhance 4.05 acres of existing wetlands, and the construction of various public access improvements. As such, the project involved the installation of new protective works in the minimum amount necessary to stabilize existing dikes and banks and provide improved fish and wildlife habitat, as defined by Regulation Section 10601(a)(2), new dredging of less than 100,000 cubic yards, as defined in Regulation Section 10602(b), and the placement and extraction of small amounts of inorganic fill in existing upland areas which will not have a substantial adverse impact on present or possible future maximum feasible public access to the Bay, as defined by Regulation Section 10601(b)(1), and thus was found to be a "minor repair or improvement" for which the Executive Director may issue: (1) a permit, pursuant to Government Code Section 66632(f) and Regulation Section 10622(a); and (2) an amendment to a permit pursuant to Regulation Section 10810.

B. Amendment No. One Amendment No. One, which authorized the construction of an environmental education center and associated improvements, was found to be consistent with the uses authorized on the fill because it would facilitate environmental education to the public regarding the wetland ecology of the park, sustainable design and ways of living, wastewater treatment and environmental toxicity. The building was sited to allow for views of the Bay from the building and outdoor space while at the same time not obstructing views to the Bay from the park entrance or Cargo Way. Thus, the project is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan as it will provides a great public access benefit while not degrading existing public access or views to the Bay.

C. Amendment No. Two Amendment No. Two to the permit authorizes slight modifications to the environmental education center (i.e., reducing the height from 24.5 feet to 16 feet, changing the material and to construct the walls so that they would be structurally insulated panels, and increasing the building footprint by 25 feet) as shown in renderings dated


November 8, 2005, and extended the dates for commencement and completion of construction of the center. As such, the activities authorized under Amendment No. Two were was determined not to result in a material alteration of the originally authorized project, as amended, pursuant to Regulation Section 10800. Thus, the Executive Director issued could issue an amendment to the existing permit pursuant to Government Code Section 66632(f) and Regulation Section 10810.

D. Amendment No. Three Amendment No. Three granted a time extension until April 30, 2010, for the construction of the approximately 2,078-square-foot environmental education center and associated improvements authorized in Section I.A.26 of the amended permit.

E. Amendment No. Four Amendment No. Four authorizes the creation and on-going maintenance of a public park on an existing parking lot with amenities including a walking path, dog run, meadow, a restroom, picnic tables, barbecue facilities, lighting and site furnishings, a retaining wall, and parking. As section 66605 of the McAteer-Petris Act defines public access as a water-oriented use for which some fill may be placed, this authorization has been conditioned to require that these area within the filled lands be used for specified public access uses. The dog run required in Special Condition II.C.5 is designed to provide a place for dogs to play away from sensitive habitat areas. The picnic tables, restroom, additional parking and other new facilities are designed to accommodate additional park users who may be attracted by the dog run, in order to relieve pressure on existing facilities in the park, including in areas adjacent to sensitive habitat.

About 50,000 square feet of this new park lies within the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction, based on an aerial photo of the site taken November 10, 1969 (prior to the 1970 start of the unauthorized fill for which the entire Heron’s Head Park is a resolution). The aerial photograph appears to show a tidally influenced channel at this location. Topographic drawings also suggest that the existing parking lot area was part of the unauthorized fill for which this permit originally provided resolution.

It cannot be determined from the aerial photo how far upstream the water extended at this location. Because of this uncertainty, the staff set the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction as ending at the southeastern edge of Jennings Street.

About 10,000 square feet of the new park immediately northeast of the section within Bay jurisdiction lies within the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction. All of the improvements in the shoreline band are for improving public access consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act requirements that projects within the shoreline band provide the “maximum feasible public access consistent with the project.”

Thus, the activities in the Bay authorized by Amendment No. Four involve the placement of public access improvements such as small structures, site furnishings, and landscaping on top of existing fill and as such constitute “minor fill for improving public access,” as defined in Regulation Section 10601 (a) (7). The activities within the


shoreline band involve the placement of a small amount of inert material that will not conflict with a priority use designation or result in environmental impacts or conflict with public access, as defined in Regulation Sections 10601(b)(1), and 10601(b)(5). Thus, the project is characterized as a "minor repair or improvement" for which the Executive Director may issue an amendment to a permit pursuant to Government Code Section 66632(f) and Regulation Section 10812.

F. Material Amendment No. Five The project authorized by Material Amendment No. Five involves the installation of a beach and groyne shoreline protection system in front of the existing tidal marsh on the Heron’s Head peninsula to stop erosion occurring at the marsh edge. Additionally, the project includes installation of oyster reef balls and wood debris/trellises habitat enhancements, restoration of impacted tidal marsh areas, and installation of new public access improvements.

1. Benefits, Purposes, and Manner of Filling The Commission may allow fill only when it meets the requirements identified in Section 66605 of the McAteer-Petris Act, which provides, in part, that: (a) the public benefits of the fill should clearly exceed the public detriment from the loss of water area and the fill should be limited to water-oriented uses (such as water-oriented recreation or public assembly) or “minor fill for improving shoreline appearance or public access”; (b) fill in the Bay should be approved only when “no alternative upland location” is available; (c) fill should be “the minimum amount necessary to achieve the purpose of the fill”; (d) “the nature, location, and extent of any fill should be such that it will minimize harmful effects to the Bay area, such as, the reduction or impairment of the volume, surface area or circulation of water, water quality, fertility of marshes or fish or wildlife resources, or other conditions impacting the environment…”; (e) “[t]hat public health, safety, and welfare require that fill be constructed in accordance with sound safety standards which will afford reasonable protection to persons and property against the hazards of unstable geologic or soil conditions or of flood or storm waters…”; (f) “fill should be authorized when the filling would, to the maximum extent feasible, establish a permanent shoreline”; and (g) “fill should be authorized when the applicant has such valid title to the properties in question that he or she may fill them in the manner and for the uses to be approved.”

a. Authorized Fill As discussed above, the entire Heron’s Head Park and peninsula are existing Bay fill that was authorized as part of prior amendments to this permit to remain in place. Prior amendments to this permit approved creation of new wetlands and transitional/upland habitats, enhancement of wetlands established on the site, and construction of public access improvements on the site. The project includes the placement of a total of approximately 13,470 cubic yards of new Bay fill (gravel, rock, decomposed granite, oyster reef balls, wood, etc.) over approximately 157,252 square feet (3.61 acres) of the Commission’s Bay


jurisdiction to stabilize and enhance the southern shoreline of Heron’s Head Park and up to 640 cubic yards of temporary fill over approximately 21,344 square feet (0.49 acres).

(1) Shoreline Stabilization The living shoreline project involves construction of a beach along the southern shoreline of the existing tidal marsh by placing gravel and rock groynes over approximately 2.82 acres of intertidal (mudflats and tidal marsh) habitat on the site. More specifically, the beach/groyne shoreline protection system includes placement of medium-grained gravel (average size of approximately 10 millimeter) in a manner so that the beach face has an approximate 8:1 (horizontal : vertical) slope. The beach berm at the top of the beach will be constructed to approximately +7.5 feet NAVD88 and slope down towards the tidal marsh behind the beach at a 3:1 slope. The beach is intended to reduce erosion and have greater shoreline stability than the current tidal marsh growing on top of fine-grained fill material that was placed in the Bay in the 1970s. The beach will be dynamic shoreline protection and is anticipated to move upslope as sea level rises over the next 30 years.

The gravel will be held in place by five rock groynes constructed of riprap and bedding rock. The five groynes will be constructed along the beach in strategic locations. The two center groynes will be “T-shaped” and served as headland-type structures near the tidal channel inlet constructed through the beach. These two headland-type groynes will minimize gravel transport in this section of the beach and minimize the filling-in of the constructed tidal channel in this portion of the beach. The three other groynes are much smaller in size to minimize fill and are intended to function as rock sills and allow some amount of transport of gravel along the beach. The 10 millimeter gravel size and the placement of the rock groynes are designed to minimize both longshore and cross-shore transport of the gravel to ensure that the beach material remains in place and provides shoreline stability during typical storm events at the site for the life of the project.

(2) Fill for Habitat To enhance habitats and increase biodiversity on the site, the permittee will place wood debris (up to 50 logs about 12 inches in diameter) and trellis-like tree branch structures along the beach berm and within the footprint of the beach to mimic natural driftwood and increase the structural complexity of the beach landscape for native plants, animals, and birds at the site. Some large wood debris may be partially embedded within the beach to reduce the likelihood of these elements floating away during storm events. The wood trellises are intended to provide temporary roosting and refuge habitat for


shorebirds, terrestrial marsh species, and vegetation, but are intended to be short-term features that will naturally drift away and be replaced by other natural driftwood that makes it to the project site.

Additionally, the permittee will place about 60 oyster reef balls over existing mudflats located off of the two headland-type groynes in the center of the beach. The oyster reef balls will each be made of concrete, wood, shell, and fiber netting. The oyster reef balls will be spaced out on the mudflats near the center of the beach. The oyster reef balls are designed to attract native marine invertebrates, such as Olympia oysters, and other native species. These habitat features are designed to provide a refuge area for these species during extreme events and to increase habitat connectivity between populations of marine organisms around the Bay.

Although the oyster reef balls were incorporated into the project to provide habitat only, these features can also function as wave attenuation structures. However, for coastal engineering purposes, these features were not included in the calculations for the shoreline protection due to lack of certainty on how much wave attenuation or shoreline protection these elements could provide. The combination of the coarse gravel beach and the nearshore oyster reef balls are in line with the general recommendations in the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas (SFEI and SPUR 2019)1 to use combined strategies for shoreline protection and sea level rise adaptation that will adapt over time and also provide habitat.

(3) Public Access In the upland areas, approximately 260 cubic yards of new Bay fill (asphalt or decomposed granite) will be placed over approximately 34,412 square feet (0.79 acres) to repair the public access path used to access the site during construction. The fill also includes enhancements to the public seating areas by adding ADA-accessible companion seating. Additionally, a small amount of new fill will be added along the public access paths to enhance the signage on the project site. The project includes three new interpretive signs and four existing signs that will be upgraded with new content and placed along the main public access pathway. Two new wayfinding signs will also be added near the entry to the park to help the public easily navigate the site.

b. Public Benefit Versus Detriment and Water-Oriented Use The overall purpose and goal of the project is to provide shoreline protection for the existing tidal marsh onsite and to enhance the habitat for native species in the project area by placing habitat elements, such as oyster reef balls and wood trellises, to increase the habitat complexity within the project area. Although the

1 SFEI and SPUR. (2019). San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas: Working with Nature to Plan for Sea Level Rise Using Operational Landscape Units. Publication #915, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. Version 1.0 (April 2019)


project will permanently convert approximately 2.82 acres of intertidal (mudflats and tidal marsh) and shallow water habitats to coarse gravel beach, and hard substrates, the fill for the beach will provide shoreline stabilization to preserve the existing tidal marsh habitat and include habitat enhancements that will provide new habitat opportunities for native species in the project area. Additionally, some Bay fill is necessary for the project to improve public access amenities and water-oriented recreation on the site.

The project site is not located in a designated priority use area but is located within the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (SAP) Southern Waterfront planning area. The project site is within India Basin, which the SAP designates for public recreation/open space/public access and marina uses. The policies in the SAP require that areas within India Basin be used for waterfront parks and that some fill may be needed for this purpose. The SAP also says that continuous public access should be provided along the west side of Pier 98 and India Basin, which is where Heron’s Head Park is located. The project includes a public open space area that will be enhanced through the construction of the beach that will preserve the existing marsh and stop further erosion of this habitat. Additionally, the project will enhance the existing public access opportunities on the site through improved signage and content, adding ADA-accessible areas adjacent to required benches on the site, and improving habitat quality and diversity by drawing a number of species to the site. Therefore, the Commission finds that the public benefits of the project exceed the public detriments and that the fill is for a water-oriented use and the project is consistent with the policies of the SAP.

c. Alternative Upland Location The existing tidal marsh along the southern shoreline of the park is experiencing wave-induced erosion. If no action is taken at the site, the tidal marsh will continue to erode; habitat areas will be lost, and public access may also be threatened. The fill associated with the project will reduce onsite erosion at the edge of the existing tidal marsh, which is part of the public open space required herein. Beaches by their nature are located in the intertidal range and fill is necessary to create the beach with a sufficient height and slope to protect the marsh from the ongoing erosion over the approximately 30-year project life. Additionally, the fill for the habitat features are intended to provide habitat for the target species and will be placed within particular tidal ranges and elevations known to be necessary for these species in San Francisco Bay. The oyster reef balls are intended to provide intertidal hard substrate for Olympia oysters to colonize, as well as other native, marine species, and these features need to be placed in the intertidal range below mean sea level. The woody debris and trellises will provide relatively short-term habitat for plants and refugia for other species along the beach berm and back beach. The fill associated with the habitat elements will be placed to test how species may utilize these structures


and the site. Therefore, the Commission finds that there is no alternative upland location for the project that avoids the need to fill the Bay while also achieving the purpose of the fill.

d. Minimum Amount Necessary The McAteer-Petris Act states, in part, that fill should be “the minimum amount necessary to achieve the purpose of the fill…” Bay fill associated with the project includes approximately 13,100 cubic yards of solid fill (gravel, rock, bedding material) placed over approximately 121,968 square feet (2.8 acres) to construct a beach fronting the marsh to protect the marsh from further erosion. Additionally, the project includes approximately 90 cubic yards of fill for habitat that include up to 60 oyster reef balls covering less than 0.02 acres of mudflats bayward of the edge of the beach and 20 cubic yards of wood debris and natural trellises that will be contained within the footprint of the beach mentioned above.

Currently the southern shoreline of Heron’s Head is experiencing erosion as is indicated by the formation of a marsh scarp on the site and the exposure of rubble within the historic fill footprint after the fine-grained sediment has eroded away. The northern and eastern portions of the site are protected by revetments put in place when the marine terminal was undergoing construction. However, the southern shoreline did not have much shoreline protection installed. Since 1998, wave-induced erosion has resulted in the loss of about 2 acres of tidal marsh habitat and retreat of the marsh edge by about 50 feet in some locations. Shoreline protection is necessary to minimize this erosion and preserve and enhance the remaining tidal marsh. As noted in the permittee’s Basis of Design Report the project is designed “[t]o balance the competing objectives of providing shoreline protection while minimizing impacts to adjacent habitats,” and “uses the steepest slope that is expected to provide acceptable stability under anticipated wave conditions.”

For the shoreline protection, the permittee designed a coarse gravel beach that included other habitat enhancements rather than strictly installing riprap or other hard infrastructure methods to protect the eroding shoreline. The permittee wanted a more natural solution to shoreline protection that fit with the character of the project site and one that will still allow the marsh to be tidally inundated during certain tides to maintain the function of the habitat on the site. The permittee first proposed to construct a beach with five headland-type rock groynes along the beach. Based upon feedback from the agencies, the permittee determined that three of the rock groynes could be constructed as smaller drift sills along the beach and still offer a similar level of shoreline stabilization and the permittee revised the project designs to the project authorized in Material Amendment No. Five.


To design the beach, the permittee used other natural coarse beaches within San Francisco Bay as reference sites for the beach face slope, material type, height, and other design aspects. The beach is designed to be a coarse gravel beach (average grain size (D50) of approximately 10 millimeters) that will be dynamically stable during typical wave conditions on the site and the groynes and rock sills will reduce sediment/gravel transport during large wave events. The beach design also minimizes the need for additional fill for future maintenance or beach nourishment to help avoid repeat disturbance of sensitive habitats onsite in the future. For the gravel, this size of the material is anticipated to be nearly immobile during typical wave conditions at the site, but could be mobilized during larger wave conditions and move in the cross-shore (up and down) or along-shore (along the beach) directions. However, transport in both of these directions is anticipated to be minimal over the life of the project. The fill placed within the Bay for the shoreline protection is the minimum amount necessary to achieve the goals shoreline stabilization goals through 2050 and to minimize impacts to sensitive habitats.

In addition to stabilizing the shoreline, the permittee will also enhance and create some habitat opportunities at the site. Originally, the permittee proposed to place up to approximately 100 oyster reef balls along the toe of the beach. However, after the permittee further evaluated the fill associated with the groynes and reduced that number of headland-type structures along the beach from five to two, the number of oyster reef habitat elements was also reduced to up to 60 oyster reef balls. The oyster reef balls need to be placed by equipment from atop the headland-type groynes on the beach or via barge from the water. The oyster reef balls are being placed near the beach to provide habitat for marine invertebrates, fish, and birds that may be present at the site. The exact number of oyster reef balls necessary to provide adequate and functional habitat at the project site is not known, but these elements will have a relatively small footprint of less than 0.02 acres. The permittee will be placing these habitat elements to test if these elements can provide habitat for the target species and increase the biodiversity of the site. The Commission’s Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats and Subtidal Areas policies do allow for fill for habitat purposes. The permittee will also be monitoring these features to learn whether they are successful at providing habitat.

The permittee will place approximately 260 cubic yards of asphalt or decomposed granite over approximately 0.79 acres of the uplands on the peninsula, which is entirely within the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction, to reconstruct the existing pedestrian pathway that will be used as one of the main access points to the site for any land access necessary during construction of the beach. Additionally, the project includes up to 200 cubic yards of temporary fill that will be placed in upland areas to create construction staging areas and up to


440 cubic yards of fill for temporary access roads and facilities during the beach construction. All temporary fill will be removed following the completion of construction on the project.

The project involves the minimum amount of fill necessary to achieve shoreline protection for the existing tidal marsh, to provide additional habitat enhancements, and construct public access improvements.

e. Minimize Harmful Effects to the Bay

(1) Water Quality The Bay Plan Water Quality Policy No. 1 states, in part, that “[b]ay water pollution should be prevented to the greatest extent feasible. The Bay's tidal marshes, tidal flats, and water surface area and volume should be conserved and, whenever possible, restored and increased to protect and improve water quality.” Policy No. 2 states, in part, that “[w]ater quality in all parts of the Bay should be maintained at a level that will support and promote the beneficial uses of the Bay…” and “[t]he policies, recommendations, decisions, advice and authority of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Board, should be the basis for carrying out the Commission's water quality responsibilities.” Additionally, Policy No. 3 states, in part, that “[n]ew projects should be sited, designed, constructed and maintained to prevent or, if prevention is infeasible, to minimize the discharge of pollutants into the Bay by: (a) controlling pollutant sources at the project site; (b) using construction materials that contain nonpolluting materials; and (c) applying appropriate, accepted and effective best management practices…” Finally, Policy 4 states, “[w]hen approving a project in an area polluted with toxic or hazardous substances, the Commission should coordinate with appropriate local, state and federal agencies to ensure that the project will not cause harm to the public, to Bay resources, or to the beneficial uses of the Bay.”

The continued erosion of the southern shoreline of the park is currently impacting water quality near the project site by increasing the turbidity within the area. To address this issue, the permittee will install the beach/groyne system as shoreline protection to stop the ongoing erosion. The site has lost approximately 40,700 cubic yards of sediment/soils over an approximately 4.3 acre-area since 1989. When fill was originally placed as part of the marine terminal construction, the fill was not all tested and some of the fill was later determined to contain contamination material. As part of original permit, some of this material was removed and disposed at an appropriate location outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. Additionally, there was a clay cap constructed under some of the upland portions of the site to contain some of the contaminated fill material. This cap area is located on the interior of the site and it is unlikely that continued erosion


along the southern shoreline will impact the cap integrity. However, the shoreline protection project will further reduce the chance that the current erosion issue could impact the cap integrity.

The beach is being constructed with gravel and the riprap and bedding material are also rock material. These construction materials are less likely to contain contaminants of concern and sediment/soil testing is not necessary as part of this project. The project requires excavation of a small amount of soil (approximately 500 cubic yards) at the edge of the tidal marsh. This material will be reused within the beach berm or to create pond sills under tidal marsh vegetation.

The project will temporarily impact water quality during construction activities by increasing the localized turbidity around the site. The construction activities will be conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts to water quality during construction by limiting the work period to time of low tide if using land based equipment, not staging equipment near the Bay, fueling and cleaning equipment away from the Bay in the designated staging areas, and other best management practices.

The Water Board issued a Water Quality Certification for the project on October 20, 2020 and required that the permittee follow best management practices such as minimization of vegetation removal, reestablishment of native vegetation, conducting fueling, cleaning, and maintenance activities in areas where accidental discharge to the Bay could not occur, not allowing construction materials to washed into the Bay, and abiding by conditions of the General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water during construction or land disturbance activities to reduce water quality and habitat impacts during the project. Special Condition II.F.5 requires the permittee to comply with the conditions of the Water Quality Certification. Construction activities will be limited periods of lower tides to avoid excessive turbidity and minimize potential impacts to aquatic species.

(2) Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats, Subtidal Areas, and Fish and Wildlife Resources Bay Plan Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats Policy No. 1 states, in part: “[t]idal marshes and tidal flats should be conserved to the fullest possible extent…” Fish, Other Aquatic Organisms, and Wildlife Policy No. 1 states, “[t]o assure the benefits of fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife for future generations, to the greatest extent feasible, the Bay's tidal marshes, tidal flats, and subtidal habitat should be conserved, restored and increased.” Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats Policy 10 states that “[b]ased on scientific ecological analysis, project need, and consultation with the relevant federal and state resource agencies, fill may be authorized for habitat enhancement,


restoration, or sea level rise adaptation of habitat.” And Policy 11 states that “[t]he Commission should encourage and authorize pilot and demonstration projects that address sea level rise adaptation of Bay habitats.”

To protect species present in, or using, the project area, the Bay Plan Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats Policy No. 2 states, “[a]ny proposed fill, diking, or dredging project should be thoroughly evaluated to determine the effect of the project on tidal marshes and tidal flats, and designed to minimize, and if feasible, avoid any harmful effects.” Additionally, Subtidal Areas Policy No. 1 states, in part, that “[p]rojects in subtidal areas should be designed to minimize and, if feasible, avoid any harmful effects.”

Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats Policy 6 states, in part that, the “[d]esign and evaluation of the project should include an analysis of: (a) how the project’s adaptive capacity can be enhanced so that it is resilient to sea level rise and climate change; (b) the impact of the project on the Bay’s and local embayment’s sediment transport and budget; (c) localized sediment erosion and accretion; (d) the role of tidal flows; (e) potential invasive species introduction, spread, and their control; (f) rates of colonization by vegetation; (g) the expected use of the site by fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; (h) an appropriate buffer, where feasible, between shoreline development and habitats to protect wildlife and provide space for marsh migration as sea level rises; (i) site characterization; (j) how the project adheres to regional restoration goals; (k) whether the project would be sustained by natural processes; and (l) how the project restores, enhances, or creates connectivity across Bay habitats at a local, sub-regional, and/or regional scale.” And Subtidal Areas Policy No. 1 states, in part, that “[a]ny proposed filling or dredging project in a subtidal area should be thoroughly evaluated to determine the local and Bay-wide effects of the project on: (a) the possible introduction or spread of invasive species; (b) tidal hydrology and sediment movement; (c) fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; (d) aquatic plants; and (e) the Bay's bathymetry…”

When originally constructed, the park included 10 acres of intertidal habitats, including tidal marsh, tidal channels, marsh ponds, and some transition/upland mounds within the marsh. Currently, the site supports approximately 8.1 acres of tidal marsh habitat for native rare plants, animals, and birds and 14 acres of upland area that include public access amenities. Mudflats are located Bayward of the tidal marsh edge and support invertebrates, fish, and birds in the vicinity of the project site. The tidal marsh habitat present on the project site has been reduced by about 2 acres since 1989 and up to 50 feet of shoreline loss in some locations. The


permittee estimates that between the period when the marsh was constructed in 1998 to about 2018, the southern shoreline lost approximately 25,000 cubic yards (approximately 1,250 cubic yards per year). The permittee’s project will address this ongoing erosion issue to preserve the marsh until approximately 2050.

To construct the beach/groyne system that will protect the marsh, the project will result in approximately 2.82 acres of permanent impacts to existing intertidal and shallow open water habitats along approximately 1,600 linear feet of the southern shoreline of Heron’s Head Park. More specifically, these habitats include approximately 1.17 acres of intertidal mudflat, 1.27 acres of rock shoreline and lag-covered mudflat, 0.20 acres of subtidal water, and up to 0.05 acres of vegetated tidal marsh. The project will convert these habitat areas to approximately 2.62 acres of coarse gravel beach, 0.11 acres of solid fill for the groynes, and less than 0.02 acres of oyster reef balls. The project also includes some temporary impacts to upland habitat areas and approximately 0.10 acres of tidal marsh during construction access, and these areas will be restored and monitored following completion of the project.

The beach will be constructed in front of the existing tidal marsh and within the footprint of the original fill placed along the southern shoreline and there will be loss of some intertidal mudflat areas. There are extensive mudflats in India Basin and the conversion of the approximately 2.44 acres of mudflats to beach habitat may have short-term impacts to native species, such as shorebirds and fish, by temporarily displacing these individuals to adjacent mudflats and open water areas for foraging in India Basin or other areas of the Bay. These impacts are anticipated to be short-term and not likely to significantly affect these species, and the project is anticipated to result in net benefits for these species by increasing foraging and roosting opportunities on the site. During the construction of the beach, it is likely that many invertebrates will also be buried. However, it is likely that the adjacent, unimpacted mudflats also contain similar populations of invertebrates that will continue to inhabit the area and provide a food source for fish and bird species in the project area. The coarse gravel beach is also expected to provide habitat for the endangered California seablite that is already found in a small area of the site and to help expand habitat for this species and other high marsh plants at the marsh/beach edge.


Recent research (Lacy et al. 2020)2 has shown that marshes within San Francisco Bay received suspended sediment from the adjacent mudflats to help them accrete and keep pace with sea level rise. There was some initial concern about placing a beach in front of the marsh and cutting off the connection between the mudflats and the marsh for both the species present and the marsh itself. However, the ongoing erosion problem needs to be addresses and the placement of the beach will help reduce the current erosion issue and also provide habitat opportunities. Although the marsh may no longer be directly connected with the mudflat in front of the marsh, it is anticipated the marsh will still receive some suspended sediment during daily tidal inundations through the tidal channel and when the Bay waters overtop the beach berm and flow onto the marsh. Many of the marsh species that used the mudflats may also be able to cross the beach area to reach the mudflats. The woody debris and trellises that will be constructed on the beach crest and back beach are also likely to benefit species present in the marsh by providing high tide refugia for these species.

Additionally, there are extensive mudflats within India Basin and there was some concern about whether the erosion of soils/sediments from the peninsula was contributing to the local suspended sediment supply within India Basin and feeding the nearby mudflats that have been shown to be undergoing accretion in southern portions of India Basin (Moffat & Nichol 2017)3. The permittee estimates that about 78% of the water in India Basin is flushed out into the deep offshore channel during daily low tides, where strong currents are expected to carry any suspended eroded sediments northwards towards the Central Bay and Golden Gate. Additionally, these sediments are not likely return to the basin during a subsequent rising tide after mixing with Central Bay water that has low suspended sediment. The permittee estimated the amount of sediment/soil eroded from Heron’s Head Park in one day and calculated that the eroded soil increases the suspended sediment concentration in the area by 2-7% in India Basin relative to the ambient estuarine suspended sediment concentration in Central Bay and the San Francisco Waterfront. The permittee suggested that the deposition of sediment on the mudflats is dominated by the estuarine sediment supply and that the shoreline protection project is unlikely to significantly alter the sediment budget in India Basin.

2 Lacy, J.R., Foster-Martinez, M. R., Allen, R. M., Ferner, M. C., & Callaway, J. C. (2020), Seasonal variation in sediment delivery across the bay-marsh interface of an estuarine salt marsh. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 125, e2019JC015268. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015268 3 Moffat & Nichol. March (2017). India Basin Waterfront Parks and Open Space Coastal Processes and Shoreline Improvements Study. Prepared for BUILD.


There is no natural source of coarse sediment to the site. The beach will not be sustained and supplied by an external sediment source, but the beach has been designed with groynes the help keep the sediment in place and limit along-shore transport of the gravel over the life of the project. The beach is designed to need little maintenance and/or nourishment over the 30-year life of this shoreline stabilization structure.

The fill placed for the oyster reef balls will permanently convert approximately 0.02 acres of additional mudflat area to hardscape structures. There is not data currently on whether Olympia oysters are likely to recruit to this site or not. However, local experts on oyster reef habitat elements within San Francisco Bay were consulted during the design of the project and there is some agreement that these habitat features are likely to support Olympia oysters at this site and other native marine invertebrates and be beneficial for fish and bird species also present in the project area. The San Francisco Bay is an estuary that contains a high number of invasive species. The materials for the oyster reef balls will be selected to ensure that new invasive species are not introduced to the estuary as a result of the project. These structures are likely to have similar chances of being colonized by invasive species as any rock or riprap materials that may be placed in the Bay, but unlike traditional rock or riprap, the reef materials and shape of the structures are intended to specifically be ideal for oyster colonization.

This living shoreline project is a pilot for understanding how beaches and combined habitat features, such as oyster reefs and woody debris/trellises, will impact habitat biodiversity for native species in the project area. The primary purpose of the beach is shoreline protection, but it does have habitat and ecological value and is a nature-based approach to shoreline protection that the Commission’s policies support. The oyster reef balls placed on the mudflats and the wooden debris/trellises at the top of the beach are included in this project as habitat enhancement features designed to improve the biodiversity of the site and are considered fill for habitat purposes.

Special Conditions II.D and II.E contain measure to ensure that impacts to species present in the project area will be minimized to the extent that they can during construction. These conditions include conducting work during periods of lower tides to limit turbidity impacts and conducting work during daylight hours (beginning half an hour before sunrise and extending half an hour after sunset) to reduce impacts to species that may be present in the project area. Work in the tidal marsh, mudflats and the footprint for the new beach are not be allowed when tidal elevations are higher than 5 feet NAVD88 to minimize impacts to species that may enter the site during high tides or seek refuge in portions of the site during this time. The contractor


will not operate equipment on access roads that are submerged by tides and the permittee will have biological monitors present onsite during project construction as required by the USFWS. All work will be conducted during the environmental work windows, unless otherwise approved and authorized by the agencies.

(3) Consultations with State and Federal Wildlife Agencies The Bay Plan Fish, Other Aquatic Organisms and Wildlife Policy No. 4 states, in part, “[t]he Commission should: (a) Consult with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service whenever a proposed project may adversely affect an endangered or threatened plant, fish, other aquatic organism or wildlife species; (b) Not authorize projects that would result in the "taking" of any plant, fish, other aquatic organism or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened…unless the project applicant has obtained the appropriate “take” authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, or the California Department of Fish and Game; and (c) Give appropriate consideration to the recommendations of the California Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in order to avoid possible adverse effects of a proposed project on fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife habitat.”

The current project site contains intertidal mudflat habitat in the Bay and tidal marsh habitat that has been constructed on artificial fill. The current project site includes habitat for California Ridgway’s rail, California seablite, Central California Coast steelhead, and green sturgeon as well as many other native species. The project site contains critical habitat for central California coast steelhead and green sturgeon, but there is no designated critical habitat for terrestrial species found on the site.

The project is likely to impact approximately 2.82 acres of intertidal and shallow water habitats and bury benthic invertebrates and potential prey items for fish and birds in the area. The placement of the coarse gravel beach material is expected to alter the species that are present in the area by attracting different species to the site and may alter the food availability for fish. Additionally, the beach will help stabilize the shoreline and preserve the small patch of marsh that has been shown to support California Ridgway’s rail in the past and provides habitat for terrestrial species. Currently, the site supports California seablite in a small area along the southern shoreline. The beach will provide desirable habitat areas for the California seablite to expand following seablite plantings that will be conducted along the beach berm and back beach. The addition of woody debris/trellises that can provide


height near the marsh for vegetation to grow is likely to increase the habitat complexity of the site and provide habitat for species present in the project area during periods when the marsh may be inundated.

The project will also impact a small area (less than 0.02 acres) of mudflats where oyster reef elements will be placed on top of the mudflats. This activity will bury the invertebrates present under the structures. However, the structures will be spread out and each one will be surrounded by adjacent mudflat areas that support similar invertebrate species. The oyster reef balls will provide habitat for oysters and other benthic invertebrates that serve as a food source for various species of fish, birds, and crabs, etc. Additionally, the structures may also serve as spawning habitat for the Pacific herring and other species in the Bay.

The fill for the oyster reef balls and the wooden trellises is considered fill for habitat consistent with the Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats Policy 10 as fill for habitat enhancement. While not necessarily directly related to sea level rise, the fill associated with the oyster reef balls may help oysters and other species deal with climate change by providing refugia areas where populations can recover from after extreme events.

NMFS issued a letter of concurrence for the project on June 3, 2020 and determined that with the implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect central California coast steelhead and green sturgeon and their critical habitat. Additionally, NMFS determined that the proposed project could include degradation of water quality and alteration of foraging habitat with the conversion of mudflats on the site to beaches, rock groyne, oyster reef, and tidal ponds. The project may result in increased turbidity during in-water construction and vessel activities disturbing sediment that may impact listed fish species by disrupting normal feeding, reducing growth rates, increasing stress levels, and reducing respiratory functions. NMFS included minimization measures such as reduced by working during low tide, requiring that materials for the beach be pushed or gently lowered in a controlled manner. Additionally, these measures are also likely to reduce resuspension of any potential contaminants that may be present in the mudflats on the site. NMFS also determined that permanent conversion of existing subtidal habitat to a beach may alter the food availability for fish. However, NMFS found that habitat elements like oyster reef balls will improve habitat quality for foraging fish and that fish could also move to other areas to forage on soft-bottom muddy substrates. The project will not adversely affect designated critical habitat for steelhead and green sturgeon.


NMFS determined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that the project will adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) through increased turbidity and contaminant exposure, and temporary loss of benthic prey resources. NMFS found that these affects are likely to be short-term and temporary in nature and that the habitat elements of the project will enhance the habitat value of EFH by increasing habitat diversity following the project.

Eelgrass has been historically present at the project site, but has not recently been found at this location. NMFS has required that the permittee conduct eelgrass surveys in accordance with the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP). If eelgrass is found, NMFS required the permittee to avoid, minimize, and potentially mitigate for any impacts to eelgrass according to the CEMP. NMFS determined that with the avoidance and minimization measures included in the project that no additional EFH conservation recommendations needed to be included in the Letter of Concurrence. Special Condition II.F.6.b requires the permittee to comply with the conditions of the Letter of Concurrence and Special Condition II.F.6.e requires the permittee to conduct eelgrass surveys and abide by the CEMP if eelgrass is found within the project site.

The USFWS issued a Biological Opinion for the project on October 2, 2020 and determined that the project is not likely to adversely affect endangered California Ridgway’s rail or the endangered California seablite. The USFWS included conservation measures to protect California seablite and California Ridgway’s rail during project construction. The project was designed to avoid existing seablite assemblages. These conservation measures for the seablite included pre-project surveys in suitable habitat, work buffer areas and no work zones, having a qualified biologist present onsite to monitor activities within 50 feet of seablite populations. Additionally, the California seablite and other high marsh native plant populations are anticipated to greatly increase as a result of the project. If these plants grow up the trellises on the beach, they may create arbor-like structures that provide refugia from predatory gulls.

The permittee conducted a California Ridgway’s Rail survey in 2020 and did not detect any Ridgway’s rails currently present in the project area. Additionally, the USFWS determined that due to the predation pressure from western gulls near the recycling facility across Lash Lighter Basin and the small patch size of the existing marsh, that the site does not provide sufficiently high-quality habitat to support continued breeding at the site, but breeding or foraging individuals may pass through the site during construction. USFWS determined that the project is a net benefit for this species and is likely to result in improved habitat for Ridgway’s rail through the restoration of marsh ponds and protection of the tidal marsh habitat.


USFWS determined that some effects to Ridgway’s rail are likely to occur during the project as a result of noise, vibrations, and visual disturbance during the construction, monitoring, and adaptive management. The permittee will use noise barriers during construction activities in tidal marsh areas to minimize some of these effects. In addition, work in suitable habitat for Ridgway’s rail will occur outside the breeding window to minimize impacts, or the permittee will implement additional measures required in the Biological Opinion when the work cannot be confined to this period.

USFWS determined that appropriate work buffers may also help reduce direct visual and noise effects to Ridgway’s rail. Under no circumstances will equipment be used during the breeding season within 300 feet of breeding Ridgway’s rail. These buffers are laid out in the Biological Opinion. USFWS determined that effects to Ridgway’s rail will be temporary and minimized with the implementation of the conservation measures. USFWS determined that the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Ridgway’s rail in the project area and the effects are likely to be small in magnitude, temporary, short-term, and localized. USFWS also issued an Incidental Take Statement for the California Ridgway’s rail that included non-discretionary measures, such as having a biologist or biological monitors present on the site, reporting and notifying the USFWS of any injured or dead listed species or unanticipated habitat damage in the proposed project area, and reporting any sightings of any listed species. The permittee is required in Special Condition II.F.6.c to comply with the conditions and conservation measures included in the Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement.

CDFW did not have a nexus to issue any authorizations related to this project. However, CDFW was included in project discussions and the measures required herein are also intended to address any potential concerns about state-listed species and their habitat within the project area. Pacific herring is a fishery in San Francisco Bay that is managed by CDFW. Special Condition II.F.6.d requires the permittee to consult with CDFW if work is proposed beyond November 30th of any year and within the Pacific herring spawning window and to abide by the conditions required by CDFW.

In addition to the minimization requirements of NMFS, USFWS, and CDFW, the permittee is also required in Special Condition II.E to implement minimization measures to reduce construction impacts on species present in the project area.

(4) Monitoring Both the Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats and Subtidal Areas policies state that projects should include success criteria to monitor habitat projects. Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats Policy 6 states, in part, that “[a]ny habitat project should include clear and specific long-term and short-term biological and


physical goals, success criteria, a monitoring program, and as appropriate, an adaptive management plan…” Subtidal Areas Policy 4 requires that “[i]f a habitat project’s success criteria have not been met, benefits and impacts should be analyzed to determine whether appropriate adaptive measures should be implemented. If substantial adverse impacts to the Bay or native or commercially important species have occurred, the project should be further modified to reduce its impacts.

The permittee submitted the Heron’s Head Shoreline Resilience Project Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) for long-term monitoring of the impacts of the project on species and the habitat areas present on the project site. The permittee is required in Special Condition II.F to monitor the long-term success of the various project elements according to the approved MAMP and to provide annual reports to the Commission over a ten-year period on the long-term success of the project. Additionally, the permittee is required to take adaptive management actions, as necessary and approved by the agencies, if the success criteria for the project are not being met.

The MAMP includes monitoring of the beach performance, colonization of the oyster reef elements, growth of the California seablite, usage of the site by various avian species, and revegetation of marsh areas impacted during project construction. The Plan includes both project goals and success criteria. The project goals are what the project is trying to achieve, and the success criteria are metrics that are necessary to determine whether the project is performing as expected and if adaptive management may be necessary. To provide flexibility for this pilot project and encourage habitat enhancement and green infrastructure, many of the habitat enhancements are considered project goals rather than success criteria. These project goals do not require adaptive management actions to be taken if they are not being fully achieved. Although, the permittee may still choose to take adaptive management actions with approvals from the agencies, it is not required to do so. The permittee will monitor the project elements to see if they are meeting biological project goals, such as the oyster reef elements achieving densities of greater than 5 adult oysters per square meter of oyster reef structure and native marine flora and epifauna making up greater than 50% of the surface area on over 75% of the oyster reef elements, and report these results to the Commission as required in the annual report. This information is likely to provide key information on whether these habitat elements are functioning as intended and minimum amount necessary.

The success criteria are related to features that require restoration or where there may be a likelihood of subsidence or movement of the fill material that may cause greater habitat impacts that were not analyzed as part of this project. The success criteria are generally related to marsh revegetation,


elevations of the beach, groynes, and oyster reef balls, and any lateral movement of these structures. The permittee is required to monitor the natural recover of the approximately 0.05 acres of tidal marsh habitat that will be impacted during construction and to ensure that this habitat recovers and meets the success criteria required in Special Condition II.H.1.a over a five year monitoring period. To ensure that the fill is mostly staying in place as designed and not impacting adjacent habitats significantly, the permittee is required to monitor and meet the success criteria for the physical conditions of some of the fill, including monitoring for any subsidence of the rock groynes, the elevation of the beach berm crest, horizontal movement of the groynes, obstruction of the tidal channel, and no significant horizontal movement of the oyster reef elements. The permittee will monitor the physical elements over a ten-year period and meet the required success criteria or take adaptive management actions after consulting with agency staff.

Although there are some concerns about hard structures such as the oyster reef elements attracting invasive species to the area, the oyster reefs will be treated in such a way prior to installation that they are not likely to increase or bring in any new invasive species present within San Francisco Bay, which is a heavily invaded estuary. The permittee will monitor these structures for species composition and native species percent cover on these structures to understand whether these structures are providing habitat for native species and meeting the project goals or attracting invasive species. The habitat enhancements are intended to provide habitat for native species and refugia area, and is considered fill for habitat. The permittee is not required to remove the fill for the oyster reef elements or the large woody debris and is not required to take adaptive management actions, although the permittee may still choose to do so if the goals of the project are not being achieved. The information and results on the colonization of these structures and their performance may help inform other similar project in other locations of the Bay.

As conditioned, the Commission finds the project is consistent with the Fish, Other Aquatic Organisms and Wildlife, Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats, Water Surface Area and Volume, and Water Quality policies in the Bay Plan and the requirements of the McAteer-Petris Act.

f. Sound Safety Standards The Bay Plan Shoreline Protection Policy No. 1 states that “[n]ew shoreline protection projects and the maintenance or reconstruction of existing projects and uses should be authorized if: …(c) the project is properly engineered to provide erosion control and flood protection for the expected life of the project based on a 100-year flood event that takes future sea level rise into account…”


and that “[p]rofessionals knowledgeable of the Commission's concerns, such as civil engineers experienced in coastal processes, should participate in the design.”

The Bay Plan Climate Change Policy No. 2 says that larger shoreline projects should have an engineer prepare a risk assessment “based on the estimated 100-year flood elevation that takes into account the best estimates of future sea level rise and current flood protection and planned flood protection…” This project is not a larger shoreline project that requires a risk assessment to be prepared. However, other Bay Plan policies require an assessment of the project’s resilience to flooding and sea level rise. Climate Change Policy No. 7 states, in part, that “[u]ntil a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy can be completed, the Commission should evaluate each project proposed in vulnerable areas on a case-by-case basis to determine the project’s public benefits, resilience to flooding, and capacity to adapt to climate change impacts. The following specific types of projects have regional benefits, advance regional goals, and should be encouraged, if their regional benefits and their advancement of regional goals outweigh the risk from flooding: …[including](d) a natural resource restoration or environmental enhancement project.” The Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats Policy No. 6 states, in part, that for habitat projects the “[d]esign and evaluation of the project should include an analysis of: (a) how the project’s adaptive capacity can be enhanced so that it is resilient to sea level rise and climate change;…” The Bay Plan Climate Change Policy No. 5 states that “[w]herever feasible and appropriate, effective, innovative sea level rise adaptation approaches should be encouraged.” Additionally, Safety of Fills Policy No. 4 states, in part, that “[a]dequate measures should be provided to prevent damage from sea level rise and storm activity that may occur on fill or near the shoreline over the expected life of a project. The Commission may approve fill that is needed to provide flood protection for existing projects and uses. New projects on fill or near the shoreline should either be set back from the edge of the shore…or employ other effective means of addressing the impacts of future sea level rise and storm activity…”

The project will provide new shoreline protection in front of the tidal marsh at Heron’s Head Park to stop the ongoing erosion of the marsh edge that is currently occurring along the southern shoreline of the park. Special Condition II.A.4 requires the project to be constructed in accordance with the 65% project plans prepared by ESA and dated April 27, 2020. The permittee is required to submit a final signed plan set for plan review prior to initiating construction on the project. This condition ensures that final construction documents conform to the plans reviewed as part of the application package. If the plans are substantially modified, then the permittee is required in Special Condition II.B to obtain Commission approval through plan review or an amendment to this permit if necessary.


The permittee stated that the expected life of the project is approximately 30 years. This design life was used to inform the design of the beach and groynes necessary for the project. The permittee submitted the Basis of Design Report dated March 2020, revised April 13, 2020 and prepared by ESA that discusses the background information and design criteria that were used to develop this innovative shoreline protection design. The design of the beach was developed based upon similar type reference beaches in San Francisco Bay, and the beach slope, volume, and height are designed to minimize impacts to adjacent habitats while also providing acceptable stability during anticipated wave conditions and storm events. Additionally, the project’s technical advisory committee recommended an 8:1 slope minimum for a beach at Heron’s Head Park based upon the committee’s prior project experience. The beach is not designed to fully prevent flooding because tidal inundation is necessary for the tidal marsh to function, but the beach will limit daily tidal inundation at the front of the marsh except during king tides. The permittee’s coastal engineer modeled anticipated sediment mobilization for the project design and the results indicated there will be negligible mobilization of the gravel off the beach during most conditions, but that some may occur during large wave events.

The long-term performance of the beach and groyne system, including how much longshore and cross-shore transport of gravel may occur, cannot be predicted with certainty in part due to the affect that rare, large storm events could have on the site. The permittee has conducted analysis based on the likely wave climate affecting the site over the 30-year project lifespan, which suggest that the beach and groyne system is expected to provide adequate shoreline protection over this period. However, there is a remote possibility of problematic rates of longshore and cross-shore transport occurring during rare storms. The MAMP and monitoring required herein in Special Condition II.F includes using field markers, such as painted rocks or landscape rocks that contrast the beach material, that will be placed along the shoreline in distinct stripes and that can be visible in low-elevation aerial photos. The large rock groynes will provide stationary reference points for the permittee to evaluate the movement of the painted rocks and to estimate the amount of transport occurring on the beach. Pursuant to Special Condition II.F, the permittee will monitor the beach at regularly scheduled intervals. However, in an attempt to understand the impact of significant wave events on the beach, the permittee will attempt to estimate significant storm events based upon movement of the painted rocks along the beach and use prior storm data to identify what storm events occurred that may have mobilized the painted rocks. If future wind and wave conditions of a similar magnitude occur during the ten-year monitoring period, the permittee will then schedule a monitoring event after the storm to collect more direct, empirical data of transport that may occur as a result of these events. Monitoring data on the beach performance will be provided in annual reports submitted to the Commission.


The rock groyne structures have been designed with the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations to avoid excessive subsidence and slope failure risk. In addition, the MAMP and Special Condition II.F require the permittee to monitor these features for vertical movement or failure during the first ten years after the project is constructed to ensure that these elements are performing as anticipated and providing a stable shoreline.

The beach is designed to be resilient and protect the marsh through 2050. The beach is designed to transgress as sea level rises and continue to offer some amount of erosion protection for the tidal marsh with up to 1.9 feet of sea level rise. However, the permittee states that it may not be feasible to sustain the existing tidal marsh habitats beyond mid-century without additional measures to enhance the local sediment supply or raise the marsh elevation. The beach is designed to an elevation of +7.5 feet NAV88 and is designed to be overtopped by highest tides, such as king tides, several times a year. A small section of the beach will be constructed at a slightly lower elevation to allow for muted tidal exchange with the existing wetlands.

g. Sea Level Rise Projections In analyzing a project’s risk of flooding and the adaptive capacity as sea level rises, the Commission currently relies on the sea level rise estimates provided in the 2018 California Sea Level Rise Guidance from the Ocean Protection Council and Natural Resources Agency (“2018 State Guidance”), which represents the best available science. The 2018 State Guidance recommends use of probabilistic projections to understand potential sea level rise impacts, which associate a likelihood of occurrence with projected sea level increases and rates tied to a range of emission scenarios.

The 2018 State Guidance provides an approach to planning that requires establishing the level of risk aversion that can be tolerated for the project given the consequences of future flooding, then making use of probabilistic projections of sea level rise that relate to the chosen degree of risk aversion. An “extreme risk aversion” projection should be used for projects where no adaptive capacity exists, the onsite assets would be irreversibly destroyed or prohibitively costly to relocate or repair, or considerable health, safety, or environmental impacts might occur as a result of the flooding. A “medium/high risk aversion” projection has a 1-in-200 chance of occurring and should be used for projects where there may be low adaptive capacity, or the area is more vulnerable and the consequences of underestimating sea level rise could result in medium to high impacts. In analyzing the safety of this shoreline protection project, the Commission relies on the “medium/high risk aversion” scenario to evaluate flooding and sea level rise because this project includes elements that will protect both existing habitat and public access on the site and there is limited adaptive capacity.


The project is designed to provide resilience to coastal erosion and up to 1.9 feet of sea level rise under a medium/high risk aversion scenario at 2050 using the 2018 State Guidance. Employing the medium/high risk aversion scenario at the project site, where the current Mean High Water (MHW) level is approximately +5.90 feet NAVD88, current Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) level is approximately +6.50 feet NAVD88 (Station ID 854; FEMA/AECOM SF Bay Tidal Datums Study, 2016) and using the FEMA BFEs (10 feet NAVD88) for the Heron’s Head Park, the anticipated future water levels are:

• At 2050, with an anticipated rise in sea level of 1.9 feet, the MHHW level will be +8.40 feet NAVD88. The water level during a 100-year (1 percent likelihood) storm will be approximately +11.83 feet NAVD88.

• At 2100, assuming a high-emissions scenario with an anticipated rise of sea level of approximately 6.9 feet, the MHHW level will be +13.40 feet NAVD88. The water levels during a 100-year (1 percent likelihood) storm will be approximately +16.83 feet NAVD88.

The existing marsh plain elevation is between +5-6.5 feet NAVD88 and the shoreline protection beach element will be constructed with a berm crest elevation of +7.5 feet NAVD88. After construction, the tidal marsh will be inundated during typical MHW and MHHW tides as water flows onto the marsh via the existing tidal channel. Regular inundation is necessary for the functioning of the tidal marsh habitat behind the beach and this is designed to continue. The beach berm in front of the marsh will not be overtopped during today’s typical tides, including MHHW, but will be overtopped during a current king tide and during storm events. The lowest points on the public access path running along the northern edge of the peninsula appear to be around +9.23 feet NAVD88 according to surveys conducted by ESA at the site in January of 2018. The public access path is not being raised as part of the is project. However, it will be impacted during construction and will require repair/reconstruction to meet the requirements of this permit for a decomposed granite path that is a minimum of eight-feet-wide. The public access path, if it is not raised during the path reconstruction, will not be overtopped by the current MHHW or even up to a 25-year storm, but it will be overtopped during a 100-year storm. The path is likely to be temporarily closed during the storm event and may require minor repairs to the path, but will remain usable during typical conditions.

At 2050 with a medium-high risk aversion scenario, the beach will be overtopped daily during MHW and MHHW tides and the tidal marsh will experience regular inundation for any tides higher than Mean Low Water. It is likely that the marsh will be inundated a majority of the time and could be inundated by about 3.4 feet of water during a MHHW tide. Additional actions may need to be taken if the marsh is intended to survive the flooding that may occur as sea level rises. The public access path will not be flooded during normal daily tides, but lower


portions of the path will be overtopped during a king tide and any storm events. This will make portions of the path unusable during king tides and some storm events and the path may require repair after such storm events, but will remain usable for much of the year.

The beach is designed to be resilient to erosion, which is currently the cause of habitat and open space loss in the park. However, the project is not designed to address habitat loss that may be due to accelerated sea-level rise that is projected after 2050. Sea level rise beyond midcentury will increasingly stress the existing tidal marsh, especially given projected low suspended sediment concentrations and accretion rates for this area. There is very low suspended sediment supply in the project area. The project will only preserve the marsh in its current form for the next 30 years and is intended to address the current onsite erosion that threatens current habitat. The elevation of the beach berm and movement of beaches upslope with rising water levels will allow the beach to be resilient to sea level rise at 2050. In the future beyond 2050, the tidal marsh may experience lateral erosion and drowning, and additional actions will need to be taken if the marsh is intended to persist beyond that time. The permittee predicts that between 2060 and 2070 the marsh will no longer be able to support tidal marsh vegetation and will convert to mudflats unless additional adaption measures are taken. The project will address the immediate issue at the park and allow for long-term planning effort related to the threat of marsh drowning, habitat conversion, and public access preservation on the site.

h. Permanent Shoreline The Bay Plan Shoreline Protection Policy No. 1 states, in part, that “[n]ew shoreline protection projects and the maintenance or reconstruction of existing projects and uses should be authorized if: (a) the project is necessary to provide flood or erosion protection for (i) existing development, use or infrastructure, or (ii) proposed development, use or infrastructure that is consistent with other Bay Plan policies; (b) the type of the protective structure is appropriate for the project site, the uses to be protected, and the causes and conditions of erosion and flooding at the site;…(e) the protection is integrated with current or planned adjacent shoreline protection measures; and (f) adverse impacts to adjacent or nearby areas, such as increased flooding or accelerated erosion, are avoided or minimized. If such impacts cannot be avoided or minimized, measures to compensate should be required…” Additionally, Shoreline Protection Policy No. 5 states, in part, that “[a]ll shoreline protection projects should evaluate the use of natural and nature-based features such as marsh vegetation, levees with transitional ecotone habitat, mudflats, beaches, and oyster reefs, and should incorporate these features to the greatest extent practicable. Ecosystem benefits, including habitat and water quality improvement, should be considered in determining the amount of fill necessary for the project purpose. Suitability and sustainability of proposed shoreline protection and restoration strategies at


the project site should be determined using the best available science on shoreline adaptation and restoration…” and Policy No. 7 states that “The Commission should encourage pilot and demonstration projects to research and demonstrate the benefits of incorporating natural and nature-based techniques in San Francisco Bay.”

The Bay Plan Climate Change Policy 6 states that while the Region is working on formulating a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy that it should consider a number of strategies and goals, including “…(c) integrate the protection of existing and future shoreline development with the enhancement of the Bay ecosystem, such as by using feasible shoreline protection measures that incorporate natural Bay habitat for flood control and erosion prevention;…”

The northern and western shorelines of the peninsula are currently protected by a rock revetment and no modification to these is proposed as part of the project. The southern shoreline is not protected and is highly vulnerable to wave-induced erosion. Since the completion of construction of the tidal wetland and tidal ponds, the southern shoreline of the peninsula has eroded and resulted in a loss of approximately 2 acres of tidal marsh and tidal pond habitats. This erosion was likely made worse by the settlement and consolidation of the Bay mud underlying the fill originally placed in the 1970s. There is likely to be continued consolidation of the bay muds under the fill, but the permittee anticipates that this will be limited to less than one foot of subsidence. Loss of tidal marsh area is likely a combination or the erosion and subsidence occurring at the site. The permittee used historic aerial imagery to estimate that the southern shoreline of the park is moving northward and experiencing erosion of approximately 0.5 to 2.5 feet per year along various portions of the shoreline. Between 1989 when the fill was placed for the marine terminal and 2018, the southern shoreline of the park appears to have lost approximately 40,700 cubic yards of sediment over approximately 4.3 acres. Additionally, the natural processes, including the suspended sediment supply in the area, are not likely to sustain the marsh in this area.

The design of the beach was informed by technical knowledge from gravel beaches in Puget Sound, coastal engineering manuals, consultations with local scientists and technical advisors, and considering local conditions. The beaches constructed at Pier 94 and Aramburu Island were also used as reference beaches in the design of the beach/groyne in this project. The permittee looked at a variety of gravel beaches and their slopes to identify the appropriate slope and volume for the project. The beach berm crest is designed to be at elevation +7.5 feet NAVD88 after construction, which is approximately one foot lower than these reference beaches. The technical advisory committee for this project determined this elevation was appropriate to ensure the beach was of sufficient


height to address coastal erosion, while minimizing the volume and footprint of the beach and also allowing sufficient tidal flow to preserve the existing tidal marsh habitats in the interior of Heron’s Head peninsula.

The beach berm crest elevation is equal to the expected wave run-up elevation during a 100-year extreme wave event with tides at MHHW today. The beach berm will be slightly notched near the existing tidal channel and other key locations to ensure that there are unimpeded tidal flows that can continue to inundate the marsh. The beach crest elevation will rise to +8.5 feet NAVD88 at each of the rock groyne structures in order to minimize the amount of exposed large rock and to provide a sufficient thickness of non-rock substrate above the crest of each rock structure to support marsh vegetation. In addition to shoreline protection, the beach will provide incidental flood protection in the form of wave dissipation.

According to the Basis of Design Report, significant longshore transport of the gravel on the beach would likely occur without the groynes being in place. This material could move westward and to the former warm water channel near the PG&E power plant and down shore to India Basin Shoreline Park. Coastal engineering practices often discourage groyne structures on natural shorelines because it can disrupt desirable longshore transport processes and cause sediment deficits down shore. However, in this case, the gravel material does not naturally occur in the area and there is likely to be limited adverse effects to neighboring shorelines and the groynes will extend the life of the shoreline protection and limit the need for future maintenance.

The Heron’s Head project is located in India Basin, which supports other areas of tidal marsh and mudflat habitat to the south of the project area. Sedimentation is an essential part in the maintenance and growth of tidal marshes and tidal flats. Other projects in India Basin have mentioned that the mudflats in the southern portion of the basin have high rates of sediment accretion. However, Heron’s Head Park is to the north in this basin and near the deep offshore channel and experiences a different wave climate than other areas of the basin. Staff were initially concerned that the addition of a beach in front of the marsh would cut off the marsh from inundation and from the mudflat that may provide suspend sediment onto the marsh plain. Additionally, there was concern that the addition of the beach may cutoff suspended sediment coming from erosion of the marsh that may be delivered to other areas of the basin that have been shown to have accretion of the mudflats. The permittee provided a Basis of Design Report that discussed that the project area has very low suspended sediment supply and is currently experiencing erosion. The permittee did an analysis and calculated that any eroded soil coming from the marsh is likely only contributing a very small amount to the suspended sediment concentration in the basin. The permittee stated that the project is not likely to significantly impact sediment delivery to adjacent mudflat areas.


In the project area, the Adaptation Atlas suggests that nature-based adaptation measure may include beaches, tidal marsh, and submerged aquatic vegetation, but does not specifically recommend nearshore reefs for this location. However, the Adaptation Atlas does recognize the combined adaptation strategies can provide a multitude of benefits including habitat enhancements beyond strictly using hard shoreline protection features. The beach is designed to have capacity to move upslope as sea level rises before coming up against the marsh in the future and will provide sea level rise risk management for the site until 2050. The oyster reef balls may also contribute to storm surge and erosion management in the area incidental to the habitat values they are intended to provide. All of these features will provide habitat and space for waves to dissipate before they could approach the low portions of the public access pathway from the south and cause flooding. These features will also stabilize the southern shoreline of the park.

Installation of oyster reefs is consistent with the recommendations of the Subtidal Habitat Goals Report (2010)4 that suggests artificial oyster reefs should be placed in the Bay to: create habitat for native Olympia oysters and other species, help with water quality, stabilize the shoreline through sediment trapping, and provide habitat refuge areas for populations during extreme events resulting from climate change. Additionally, the fill placed for the gravel beach is a larger volume of fill than may be necessary if a fully gray infrastructure solution was proposed. Although this gravel and rock may include a larger volume and take up a larger area, it will also provide habitat for the endangered California seablite, and may move dynamically upslope as sea level rises to provide some degree of continued protection for the front edge of the marsh.

i. Valid Title of Project Site The permittee provided the Commission with a document summarizing the Port’s legal property interest in the project area under the Burton Act of 1968, which granted the public trust lands to the City and County of San Francisco. This land is subject to the public trust uses for the purposes of commerce, navigation, and fisheries.

As conditioned, the Commission finds that the fill removal and placement for the project is consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act and Bay Plan policies on allowable fill of the Bay.

4 California State Coastal Conservancy, Ocean Protection Council, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service and Restoration Center, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and San Francisco Estuary Partnership. (2010). San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report: Conservation Planning for the Submerged Areas of the Bay.


2. Maximum Feasible Public Access The McAteer-Petris Act Section 66602 states, in part, that “…existing public access to the shoreline and waters of the…[Bay] is inadequate and that maximum feasible public access, consistent with a proposed project, should be provided.” Additionally, Section 66605.1, states in part, that “to make San Francisco Bay more accessible for the use and enjoyment of the people, the bay shoreline should be improved, developed, and preserved…” When the activity under consideration is proposed by a public agency, such as the Port of San Francisco, the Commission also evaluates whether the proposed public access is reasonable in light of the project scope.

The project involves the placement of fill for shoreline stabilization to protect the tidal marsh from continuing to erode. This marsh is constructed on fill placed in the Bay as part of the Port’s original Pier 98 project. This permittee was not required to remove the approximately 25 acres of fill, but was required herein to construct tidal marsh habitats for native species and to construct public access improvements such as trails, viewing areas, a fishing pier, and other amenities, and to dedicate the entire peninsula as open space.

a. Maximum Feasible Public Access In assessing whether the project provides maximum feasible public access consistent with the authorized activities, the Commission relies on the McAteer-Petris Act, the Bay Plan policies on Public Access and other policies in the Bay Plan. Bay Plan Public Access Policy No. 1 states, “[a] proposed fill project should increase public access to the Bay to the maximum extent feasible, in accordance with the policies for Public Access to the Bay.” Policy No. 2 states, in part, that “[i]n addition to the public access to the Bay provided by waterfront parks, beaches… and fishing piers, maximum feasible access to and along the waterfront and on any permitted fills should be provided in and through every new development in the Bay or on the shoreline…” Public Access Policy No. 3 states that “[p]ublic access to some natural areas should be provided to permit study and enjoyment of these areas. However, some wildlife are sensitive to human intrusion. For this reason, projects in such areas should be carefully evaluated in consultation with appropriate agencies to determine the appropriate location and type of access to be provided.”

Policy No. 6 states that “[p]ublic access should be sited, designed, managed and maintained to avoid significant adverse impacts from sea level rise and shoreline flooding.” Additionally, Shoreline Protection Policy No. 1 states, in part, that new shoreline protection projects should be approved if “…d) the project is properly designed and constructed to prevent significant impediments to physical and visual public access…”


Heron’s Head Park already has a number of public access amenities onsite and the entire peninsula is required open space. To further improve public access on the site, the permittee will update and relocate four existing interpretive signs and add three new interpretive signs. The permittee will place the seven interpretive signs along the length of the eight-foot public access path to provide an immersive educational experience as the public walks out to the end of the peninsula. Additionally, the public access improvements also include the installation of two new wayfinding signs to help the public locate the public access amenities on the site. For the seating areas required in Special Condition II.C.3, the public access improvements include adding companion seating areas adjacent to a minimum of two benches located along the public pathway, but the permittee may add companion seating at other park benches if it is feasible to do so. If the oyster reef balls are installed as part of the project, the permittee will also install a corresponding interpretive element, such as a demonstration oyster reef ball or other project element near the EcoCenter, to educate the public on the purpose of these project features.

b. Protection of Existing Public Access The tidal marsh habitat is part of the designated open space and the erosion of the marsh edge has resulted in loss of approximately 2 acres of the overall habitat and designated open space on the site. To prevent further loss of habitat and to preserve the experience for the public at Heron’s Head Park, the permittee will install the beach/groyne system to provide a more natural or nature based approach to protect shoreline protection that will also provide protection to the public access improvements and make them resilient to sea level rise through 2050.

c. Signage and Seating Area Improvements The required public access associated with the project includes improvements to interpretive signage on the site through the update to the content and location of the four existing signs and the addition of three, new required interpretive signs along the pathway. These interpretive signs will be spread along the main public access pathway to provide an experiential educational opportunity along the peninsula. Additionally, the permittee is required to provide ADA-accessible companion seating adjacent to two required granite benches along the main path (one near the bird blind and one at the terminus of the path at the peninsula). The permittee is also required to provide two additional way-finding signs to help the public find various public access amenities and structures on site. There are a number of public access, interpretive, and wayfinding signs that have been required at the site with each new amendment to this permit. To ensure that these improvements and future improvements are not duplicate requirements, the permittee is required to submit a comprehensive signage plan to the Commission Staff for review and approval.


d. Impacts to Existing Public Access During Construction There will be direct impacts to public access during construction of the shoreline protection and temporary closure of the public access on the site during the 2-3 month construction period and a little time before and after the construction period to prep the site and reconstruct public access amenities as necessary. The permittee has committed to reopening the public access pathway and any other public access areas closed during construction as soon as feasible following the completion of construction. The main public access pathway is necessary as the land-based access route for all construction vehicles entering the site and will need to be closed to the public from approximately the location of the EcoCenter to the end of the peninsula during construction. The permittee is required by Special Condition II.D.3 to repair the main path to its originally required condition following the completion of this project.

e. Adjacent Community The project site is located in the Bayview Hunter’s Point community of San Francisco. This community includes some commercial properties, and many residential units, including public housing complexes. The community is comprised of many people of color and low-income households.

The site is located in an area of San Francisco that the Commission’s Community Vulnerability Mapping Tool’s 2020 census data indicates has high social vulnerability and high contamination vulnerability within India Basin. The most significant indicators of social vulnerability in this area are residents with the following characteristics: renters, single parent homes, being a person of color, and having very low income. Heron’s Head Park provides natural wetland habitat areas and spaces for these residents and visitors to access the Bay in a variety of ways. Additionally, this park is included in plans as part of the Blue Greenway along the San Francisco southeastern waterfront and is intended to be connected to the other parks around India Basin to provide open space and recreational areas for the public.

As conditioned, the Commission finds the project is consistent with the policies in the Bay Plan on Public Access, and the requirements of the McAteer-Petris Act.

G. F. Consistency With The Bay Plan The project authorized by this permit is consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan in that it will not adversely affect the Bay nor public access to and enjoyment of the Bay. The special conditions included herein that protect existing wetland vegetation are intended to assure that the construction activities are carried out in such a way as to minimize potential impacts on existing wetland resources, which is necessary for the project to be consistent with the Bay Plan policies on Fish and Wildlife, and Marshes and Mudflats, Water Quality, and Subtidal Areas. The Specific Plans and Plan Review and Marsh Restoration Cconditions are necessary to ensureinsure that the project is appropriately designed. Monitoring has been required so that the


progress of the restoration and performance of the living shoreline can be assessed and so that information will be available if corrective actions are needed to speed marsh restoration protect the marsh and adjacent habitats.

The wetland restoration and public access improvements would occur at a location that is lightly used by fishermen, walkers, birdwatchers and others. The public access improvements required by this permit are intended to assure that the existing public access use of Pier 98 is maintained and enhanced, while protecting the natural resources that exist and will be created at the site. The project therefore provides the maximum feasible public access consistent with the project, as required by the McAteer-Petris Act (Material Amendment No. Five).

H. G. Consistency With The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 The Commission further finds, declares, and certifies that the activity or activities authorized herein are consistent with the Commission's Amended Management Program for San Francisco Bay, as approved by the Department of Commerce under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.

I. H. California Environmental Quality Act The Port of San Francisco certified a negative declaration for this project on November 10, 1997. The San Francisco Planning Department determined that the project authorized in Amendment No. Five was categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 33 as a small habitat restoration project that does not exceed 5 acres in scope and restores, enhances, and/or protects habitats for plants, wildlife, and fish. The Categorical Exemption Case No. 2019-003714ENV was issued by the lead agency, City of San Francisco Planning Department, on 8/25/20. The Notice of Exemption was filed with the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on 11/12/20 (Material Amendment No. Five).

J. I. Listing Pursuant to Regulation Section 10620, the original project was listed with the Commission on June 18, 1998.

IV. Standard Conditions

A. Permit Execution This amended permit shall not take effect unless the permittee(s) execute the original of this amended permit and return it to the Commission within ten days after the date of the issuance of the amended permit. No work shall be done until the acknowledgment is duly executed and returned to the Commission.

B. Notice of Completion The attached Notice of Completion and Declaration of Compliance form shall be returned to the Commission within 30 days following completion of the work.


C. Permit Assignment The rights, duties, and obligations contained in this amended permit are assignable. When the permittee(s) transfer any interest in any property either on which the activity is authorized to occur or which is necessary to achieve full compliance of one or more conditions to this amended permit, the permittee(s)/transferors and the transferees shall execute and submit to the Commission a permit assignment form acceptable to the Executive Director. An assignment shall not be effective until the assignees execute and the Executive Director receives an acknowledgment that the assignees have read and understand the amended permit and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the amended permit, and the assignees are accepted by the Executive Director as being reasonably capable of complying with the terms and conditions of the amended permit.

D. Permit Runs with the Land Unless otherwise provided in this amended permit, the terms and conditions of this amended permit shall bind all future owners and future possessors of any legal interest in the land and shall run with the land.

E. Other Government Approvals All required permissions from governmental bodies must be obtained before the commencement of work; these bodies include, but are not limited to, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State Lands Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the city or county in which the work is to be performed, whenever any of these may be required. This amended permit does not relieve the permittee(s) of any obligations imposed by State or Federal law, either statutory or otherwise.

F. Built Project Must be Consistent with Application Work must be performed in the precise manner and at the precise locations indicated in your application, as such may have been modified by the terms of the amended permit and any plans approved in writing by or on behalf of the Commission.

G. Life of Authorization Unless otherwise provided in this amended permit, all the terms and conditions of this amended permit shall remain effective for so long as the amended permit remains in effect or for so long as any use or construction authorized by this amended permit exists, whichever is longer.

H. Commission Jurisdiction Any area subject to the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission under either the McAteer-Petris Act or the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act at the time the amended permit is granted or thereafter shall remain subject to that jurisdiction notwithstanding the placement of any fill or the implementation of any substantial change in use authorized by this amended permit. Any area not subject to the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission that becomes, as a result of any work or project authorized in this amended permit, subject to tidal action shall become subject to the Commission’s “bay” jurisdiction.


I. Changes to the Commission’s Jurisdiction as a Result of Natural Processes This amended permit reflects the location of the shoreline of San Francisco Bay when the amended permit was issued. Over time, erosion, avulsion, accretion, subsidence, relative sea level change, and other factors may change the location of the shoreline, which may, in turn, change the extent of the Commission’s regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore, the issuance of this amended permit does not guarantee that the Commission’s jurisdiction will not change in the future.

J. Violation of Permit May Lead to Permit Revocation Except as otherwise noted, violation of any of the terms of this amended permit shall be grounds for revocation. The Commission may revoke any amended permit for such violation after a public hearing held on reasonable notice to the permittee(s) or their assignees if the amended permit has been effectively assigned. If the amended permit is revoked, the Commission may determine, if it deems appropriate, that all or part of any fill or structure placed pursuant to this amended permit shall be removed by the permittee(s) or their assignees if the amended permit has been assigned.

K. Should Permit Conditions be Found to be Illegal or Unenforceable Unless the Commission directs otherwise, this amended permit shall become null and void if any term, standard condition, or special condition of this amended permit shall be found illegal or unenforceable through the application of statute, administrative ruling, or court determination. If this amended permit becomes null and void, any fill or structures placed in reliance on this amended permit shall be subject to removal by the amended permittee(s) or their assignees if the amended permit has been assigned to the extent that the Commission determines that such removal is appropriate. Any uses authorized shall be terminated to the extent that the Commission determines that such uses should be terminated.

L. Permission to Conduct Site Visit The permittee(s) shall grant permission to any member of the Commission’s staff to conduct a site visit at the subject property during and after construction to verify that the project is being and has been constructed in compliance with the authorization and conditions contained herein. Site visits may occur during business hours without prior notice and after business hours with 24-hour notice.

M. Abandonment If, at any time, the Commission determines that the improvements in the Bay authorized herein have been abandoned for a period of two years or more, or have deteriorated to the point that public health, safety or welfare is adversely affected, the Commission may require that the improvements be removed by the permittee(s), its assignees or successors in interest, or by the owner of the improvements, within 60 days or such other reasonable time as the Commission may direct.


N. Best Management Practices

1. Debris Removal All construction debris shall be removed to an authorized location outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. In the event that any such material is placed in any area within the Commission's jurisdiction, the permittee(s), its assignees, or successors in interest, or the owner of the improvements, shall remove such material, at their expense, within ten days after they have been notified by the Executive Director of such placement.

2. Construction Operations All construction operations shall be performed to prevent construction materials from falling, washing or blowing into the Bay. In the event that such material escapes or is placed in an area subject to tidal action of the Bay, the permittee(s) shall immediately retrieve and remove such material at its expense.

O. In-Kind Repairs and Maintenance Any in-kind repair and maintenance work authorized herein shall not result in an enlargement of the authorized structural footprint and shall only involve construction materials approved for use in San Francisco Bay. Work shall occur during periods designated to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife. The permittee(s) shall contact Commission staff to confirm current restricted periods for construction.

A. Permit Execution. This amended permit shall not take effect unless the permittee executes the original of this amended permit and returns it to the Commission within ten days after the date of the issuance of the amended permit. No work shall be done until the acknowledgment is duly executed and returned to the Commission.

B. Notice of Completion. The attached Notice of Completion and Declaration of Compliance form shall be returned to the Commission within 30 days following completion of the work.

C. Permit Assignment. The rights, duties, and obligations contained in this amended permit are assignable. When the permittee transfers any interest in any property either on which the activity is authorized to occur or which is necessary to achieve full compliance of one or more conditions to this amended permit, the permittee/transferor and the transferee shall execute and submit to the Commission a permit assignment form acceptable to the Executive Director. An assignment shall not be effective until the assignee executes and the Executive Director receives an acknowledgment that the assignee has read and understands the amended permit and agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the amended permit, and the assignee is accepted by the Executive Director as being reasonably capable of complying with the terms and conditions of the amended permit.

D. Permit Runs With the Land. Unless otherwise provided in this amended permit, the terms and conditions of this amended permit shall bind all future owners and future possessors of any legal interest in the land and shall run with the land.


E. Other Government Approvals. All required permissions from governmental bodies must be obtained before the commencement of work; these bodies include, but are not limited to, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State Lands Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the city or county in which the work is to be performed, whenever any of these may be required. This amended permit does not relieve the permittee of any obligations imposed by State or Federal law, either statutory or otherwise.

F. Built Project must be Consistent with Application. Work must be performed in the precise manner and at the precise locations indicated in your application, as such may have been modified by the terms of the amended permit and any plans approved in writing by or on behalf of the Commission.

G. Life of Authorization. Unless otherwise provided in this amended permit, all the terms and conditions of this amended permit shall remain effective for so long as the amended permit remains in effect or for so long as any use or construction authorized by this amended permit exists, whichever is longer.

H. Commission Jurisdiction. Any area subject to the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission under either the McAteer-Petris Act or the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act at the time the amended permit is granted or thereafter shall remain subject to that jurisdiction notwithstanding the placement of any fill or the implementation of any substantial change in use authorized by this amended permit. Any area not subject to the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission that becomes, as a result of any work or project authorized in this amended permit, subject to tidal action shall become subject to the Commission’s “bay” jurisdiction.

I. Changes to the Commission’s Jurisdiction as a Result of Natural Processes. This amended permit reflects the location of the shoreline of San Francisco Bay when the permit was issued. Over time, erosion, avulsion, accretion, subsidence, relative sea level change, and other factors may change the location of the shoreline, which may, in turn, change the extent of the Commission’s regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore, the issuance of this amended permit does not guarantee that the Commission’s jurisdiction will not change in the future.

J. Violation of Permit May Lead to Permit Revocation. Except as otherwise noted, violation of any of the terms of this amended permit shall be grounds for revocation. The Commission may revoke any amended permit for such violation after a public hearing held on reasonable notice to the permittee or its assignee if the amended permit has been effectively assigned. If the amended permit is revoked, the Commission may determine, if it deems appropriate, that all or part of any fill or structure placed pursuant to this amended permit shall be removed by the permittee or its assignee if the amended permit has been assigned.


K. Should Permit Conditions Be Found to be Ilegal or Unenforceable. Unless the Commission directs otherwise, this amended permit shall become null and void if any term, standard condition, or special condition of this amended permit shall be found illegal or unenforceable through the application of statute, administrative ruling, or court determination. If this amended permit becomes null and void, any fill or structures placed in reliance on this amended permit shall be subject to removal by the permittee or its assignee if the amended permit has been assigned to the extent that the Commission determines that such removal is appropriate. Any uses authorized shall be terminated to the extent that the Commission determines that such uses should be terminated.

L. Permission to Conduct Site Visit. The permittee shall grant permission to any member of the Commission’s staff to conduct a site visit at the subject property during and after construction to verify that the project is being and has been constructed in compliance with the authorization and conditions contained herein. Site visits may occur during business hours without prior notice and after business hours with 24-hour notice.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission...San Francisco Bay Conservation and...

Documents

Transcript of San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission...San Francisco Bay Conservation and...