Regulation of dredging summary of the report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Zone
ation
te r

10
CI-ASTAL ZONE
A7
M CENTER
AUG 2 11978

0, y.

7"!,: @5!t@2.@e
)lr h
R e I t

DI'r

KFC San Francisco Bay Conservation
792
-C2
and Development Commission
R4
1976 The Resources Agency of California

THE REGULATION

DREDGING

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION

AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISION

STAFF REPORT

U.S. DEPARTMENT 0F COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

Property of CSC Library

This report, prepared pursuant to an interagency agreement between the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the State
Resources Agency, was approved by a unanimous vote of the Commission
after a public hearing on January l5, 1976. The authorization and
funding for the study is provided for by Senate Bill 2418 authored by,
Senator Milton Marks in the 1973-1974 legislative session.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
30 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
PHONE: 557-3686
COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER
January 23, 1976

Dr. Claire T. Dedrick
Secretary for Resources
Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento,California 95814

Dear Secretary Dedrick:

It is a pleasure to transmit to you the enclosed report, "The Regulation
of Dredging." This report was prepared pursuant to an interagency agreement,
dated December 5, 1974, with your Agency. The Commission held two public hear-
ings and received numerous comments from the public, interested parties, and
several State and Federal agencies. Copies of the minutes of the Commission's
hearings and written comments on this report are included as Appendix K. The
report was approved for transmittal to you by a unanimous vote of the Commis-
sion on January 15, 1976.

Your support during the preparation of the report and interest in carrying
out its recommendations are most appreciated. Fulfillment of these recommenda-
tions, most of which can be done administratively, will be of public benefit by
clarifying and expediting the process of obtaining permits for dredging.

Please let me know if the Commission can be of further assistance.

Very truly yours,

JOSEPH C. HOUGHTELING
Chairman

Enc.

JCH/mc

C 0 N T E N T S

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii

FOREWORD xv

SUMMARY xvii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER II. PROBLEMS AND ANALYSIS

Duplicated Activities 8

a. Multiplicity of Agencies

1. Federal and State Regulatory Structure 9
2. Legislative Approach--the Concept of
Specialization 10
3. Recommendations Regarding Multiplicity
of Agencies 10

b. Duplication of Reviews 11

1. Multiple Land Use Reviews 11
2. Multiple Fish and Wildlife Reviews
3. Water Quality Review 13
4. Multiple Enviromntal Document
Preparation 14
5. Recommendations Regarding Duplication
of Reviews 15

c. Duplication of Procedural Steps 16

1. Multiple.Comment Solicitation 3-6
2. Indepent Processing of Applications 17
Application Forms Unique to Each Agency 18
Duplication,of Public Hearings 18

Ambiguous Requirements 19

a. Length of Time:to Process Applications 19

1. No Sanctions for Delays 21
2. Workload and Backlogs 26

Page

b. Guidance and Consistency of Agency
Evaluations 27

1. Formal Policies, Plans, and Decision-
Making Criteria 27
2. Administrative Regulations 32
3. California Environmental quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines 34

Unnecessarily Repetitive or Detailed Regulation 35

a. Minor Projects 35@

b. Maintenance Dredging 39

CHAPTER III. COORDIX&TION EXTERnEXT EVALUATION 4l

operations of the.Coordination Experiment 41

Evaluation of the Coordination Experiment' 46

CHAPTER IV. RECOMNDATION IMPLEMENTATION 53

Formalization of Policies-and Procedures 54

Interagency Relations 61

Residual Implementation Elements 64

Federal Agency Action 66

Conclusion. 681

F G UR E S

Page

Figure l.. Location and Nature.of-Dredging.Activi@y--San@.
Francisco Bay System 2

Figure -2 Jurisdictional Boundaries of Agencies in the..
Bay Area 5

Figure 3 Size Classification f Dredging Projects
0 1
t
1/70 o 6/75 B 37-

V11

Page

Figure 4 Agency Jurisdiction--Regional Coastal
Commissions D-7

Figure 5 Agency Jurisdiction--Regional Water Quality
Control Boards & Reclamation Board D-10

Figure 6 Agency Jurisdiction--Department of Fish and
Game D-24

Figure 7 Agency Jurisdiction--Corps. of Engineers D-30

T A B L E S

Table I Agency Time Limits 22

Table 11 Existence of Formal Policies to Guide Decisions
on Permit Applications 28

Table III Existence of Administrative Regulations for
Dredging 33

Table IV Existence of Simplified Procedures for
Processing 36
Table V Average Processing Times 45

Table VI Summary of Recommendations 55

Table VII Average Annual Number of Applications and Volume
of Dredging by Activity B-2

Table VIII Ports and:Marinas Surveyed J-1

A P P E N D I C E S

Appendix A Senate Bill No-2418, Chapter 12742 and
Interagency Agreement. A-1

Appendix B Applications and Projects B-1

Appendix C Legal Regulations and Environmental Impact
Requirements C-1

Appendix D Agency Procedures, D-1
Appendix E Order Adopting Regulations of the Resources
Agency

Appendix F Information for Obtaining Authorization
for Dredging F-1

Page

Appendix G Application for Dredging Permit G-1

Appendix H Dredging Application Process Records H-1

Appendix I Out-of-State Coordination Systems

Appendix J Questionnaire Returns J-1

Appendix K Minutes of Public Hearings and Written Comments K-1

ACKNOWLEDGIENTS

This report was prepared by the following members of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission staff: L. Thomas Tobin, Staff Engineer;
Philip S. Weismehl,, Staff Attorney; Linda L. Roschel, and Joseph Nicholson., Junior
Staff Analysts; Michael J. Seaman, Diane Nastich., Fred G. Danielson, and Mari G.
Collins, Graduate Student Assistants; Alan B. Hislop, Research Writer; and Lola
E. Chirgwin., Stenographer.

Staff members of other agencies participating in the regulation of dredging or
concerned with the need for dredging were also involved in this study. Their insight
was extremely important in understanding the perspectives of both the regulatory
agencies and those.regulated,, and in evaluating the coordination experiment.

Two groups were consulted.for advice on preliminary drafts of this report.
Members of these groups and their affiliation are listed below. Theirefforts
are gratefully acknowledged.

DREDGE ADVISORY GROUP

Michael Cheney., California Marine Affair& William H. Pierce, Environmental
and Navigation Conference; Protection Agency;,
Joseph E. Duda, Dredging Contractors' Robert C. Riddle, U. S.. Army Corps
Association; of Engineers;
Norm Harvey., State Lands Division; Michael Rugg, Department of Fish
Richard Kroger, U. S. Fish and Wildlife and Game;
Service; James C. Wolfe, U. S. Army Corps
Fred Minkler,-National Marine Fisheries of Engineers; and
Service; Dr. Teng-Chung Wa., San'Francisco Bay
Regional-Water Quality Control Board

ADVISORS ON SEXATE BILL 2418 STUDY

Ronald R. Brill, San Francisco Bay Area Jack Fraser,, Department of Fish and
1: Game;
Courni
Frank Goodson, Resources Agency; Robert Langner, California Marine
Richard M. Farrell, Marina and Recreation Affairs and Navigation Conference;
'Association; William Leet, National Marine Fisheries
William T :Davoren,.,California Coastal Service.-
zone Conservation, Commissi .on; Senator.Milton Marks
Senate Select
Paul.DeFalco, E4 onmental Protecti= Committee on Maritime Industry;
Agency;, Cmdr. Phillip Parisius., U. S. Navy;
Fredtierker' San Francisco B
ay Regional Dr. R. Ritschard, Save San Francisco Bay;
Water Quality Control Board; Felix, Smith,,: U. S. Fish.and Wildlife.
Joseph,E'.,Duda..,,Dredging contractors' Service;-
Association; Frank Torkelson, Department of Naviga-
Col. H. A. Flertzheim, Jr., U. Army tion and Ocean Development; and.
Corps of Engineers; Professor Eugene Lee, Institute of
William F..Northrop, State Lands Commission;- -Governmental.Studies

Xiii

FOREWORD

Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his inaugural address, expressed

concern over the apparent conflict between the need to provide the physical

development and services that society requires and the necessity to achieve
and maintain a healthy environment. "For our part, the State must cut",

through the tangle of overlapping environmental and land use rules which

delay needed construction. In the long run, the air, the water, and the

land will be protected,, but only by clear rules which are fairly enforced

and without delay."

It is toward this objective that this study is directed.

S%MRY

In 1974, the State Legislature directed the Resources Agency to study

dredging regulation and establish temporary procedures for an experimental

tione-stop" coordination system for.specified dredging.projects within the

jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

(BCDC). The Agency was to report to the Legislature by February 1,, 1976,,

identifying the problems in permitting procedures, making recommendations on

ways to speed up the process,, and advising the Legislature on the statewide

applicability of the experimental procedures. By interagency agreement BCDC

undertook these duties.

Three groups of related problems were identified in the regulatory process.

First, repetitive steps occur in the application process that slow it down.

Second, the requirements that applicants must meet are sometimes unclear. Third,

some regulation appears to be unnecessarily repetitive or detailed. Even minor,

regularly recurring maintenance dredging projects must often go through the

entire regulatory process each time they come up.

The BCDC's permit coordination experiment provided much of the information

that has gone into this report. The number of applications thus far submitted

for coordination is small, but the experiment appears to show that a rigid

coordination system is not the answer to theregulatory problems., other sources

of information came from an examination of the State and Federal laws and regula-

tions that pertain to dredging, from the responses to a questionnaire sent to

many,ports:and marinas on the@Pacific Coast, and from interviews with.agency

personnel who handle. dredging applications.

xvii

For this reason, the recommendations made in the report are generally'

directed toward the modification of existing policies and procedures, most

of which can be carried out by the agencies themselves without legislative

action. Table VI,, on page 55., provides a concise'summary of the recommenda-

tions. Each agency should establish and adhere to clear criteria for decision-

making., and time limits for processing an application should be more rigorous.

Relations among State agencies and between State and Federal agencies can be

improved, and existingagencies should be-designated as "principal agencies"

to serve as the focal points of all State dredging permit activities. This

approach to modifying the regulatory proces.s. will simplify the reg4lation

of dredging without jeopardizing natural resources,or environm ntal protec-

tion.

Xviii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.

San Francisco Bay is both a great natural resource and the site of a

vast amount of commercial and recreational activity. The Bay's commercial

importance for the economy of the western United States is balanced by its

incomparable scenic and recreationalvalue and biological productivity.

Continuing use of the Bay, however,, requires dredging. For one thing, the

Bay is too shallow in many places for harbors or even recreational boating

without dredging. In addition, siltation--the deposit of silt, sand, and

clay in the Bay--is aconstant problem. Every year, the Sacramento and San

Joaquin river systems carzy some eight to ten million cubic yards of sedi-

ment into the Bay. Although about one-third of this material is carried'

out to sea, what remains does not simply settle to the bottom. Every day,

waves and currents shift huge quantities-of sediment from the Bay's exten-

sive mudflats, some of which settles in the more sheltered., deeper areas

of the Bay.

Dredging is therefore necessary to maintain ports') military bases,

commercial fishing facilitles, navigation channels, and marinas. New

shoreline projects, such as the construction of shipping or ferry terminals,.

public works activities, and the removal of sand and shells for sale, may

also require dredging, and these new projects al=ost always require main-

temance dredging on a regular basis. Figure 1 shows the locations of,

s6-eral recent. dredging projects.

New dredging can have a significant effect on land use.. Forexample..

if a port is dredged to accommodate larger vessels than it could formerly.

serve., the nature of related industrial or commercial activity may be.

116

OORT 0
;@wl
Otto$

PORT

0 LAND

SA 'ORARCI

OORT:

Locat1w and Nature of Dredging Activity
San Francisco Bay System

a Commercial Pon/Petroleurn Transfer Pler

0 Marina/ Launching Ramp

1.250,000 0 Perry Terminal
0 10 (D Aquatic Of3POSW Site
SCALE IN MILES .. . .... COE Maintained Channel

Figure

-2-

changed. There may even be indirect effects on land traffic, industrial

growth, and air:pollation. Maintenance dredging, while not raising new

land use issues, differs from other maintenance activities (like resurfacing

:Q a road) by the great volume of material involved and its possible effects on

resources.

Studies conducted during the preparation of the San Francisco Bay Plan

showed that dredging and spoiling--the disposal of the dredged material--could

damage marine organisms,, marshes., mudflats, and beaches.. It is also possible

that dredging could strip the watertight seal from fresh water supplies beneath

the Bay, allowing saltwater intrusion. Dredging done near a pier could adversely

affect its stability and safety. These,facts and,othe.rs clearly indicate that

dredging mazt be regulated to avoid, or at the very least to minimize., its

potentially harmful effects.

The Federal Government.has regulateddredging for over seventy-five-years.

The Federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 gave the U. S. Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps) permit jurisdiction over dredging (and other activities) in

waterways used for navigation, including San Francisco Bay. Formany years

the Corps' primary role was ensuring that navigable waterways remained open

to waterborne commerce.. In recent years, however, as public awareness of envi-,

ronmental issues and,resources management-has become more prominent.-both the

Federal and State Governments have increlased-itheir -Participatiom ini the.. .

regulation of dredging. The resalthas been a closer scrutiny of dredging

projects. The State. Legislature has responded to these concerns by charging

s
veral agencies with.speci ic responsibilities. For example
e if in 1961,, the

State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control

Boards were strengthened to protect water quality. In 1969, the San Francisco

-3-

Bay Conservation and Development Commission was made a permanent State-agency-,

with the power to regulate dredging in San Francisco Bay. In addition, the

Corps' jurisdiction has been redefined to include vetlands, and areas not

traditionally used for navigation. Figure 2 shows the jurisdictional bound-

aries for Federal and State agencies regulating dredging in the Bay Area.

Early in 1974., the California Senate Select Committee on Maritime

Industry considered the regulatory aspects of dredging. The,Committee.,

chaired by Senator Milton Marks, received testimony from the dredging

industry that the process of obtaining permission to dredge involved too

many agencies and too much time and money. According to the Committee's

former consultant Anthony Taormina, "Applicants must often wait from thirteen

to twenty Months before receiving the necessary approvals of maintenance dr-edg-

ing projects." The Committee noted that many applicants.had difficulty under-

standing the complex permit application process.

Those concerned with the Committee's investigation recognized that the

complexity and delay grew not by agency design but because concern with

resources management and environmental protection has,increased the regula-

tions governing dredging. Thus,, although the regulatory process serves the

goals set forth by the law., it too often@does so in a way which may appear

time-consuming and confusing..

'The Committee.-Idid not propose basic@regulatory 'changes,, howeverbecause

it needed more information about the.problems of permit applications for dredg-

ing and how they might be.'allevlated without sacrificing.enviro=en.tal safeguards.

Instead osed a study of dredging regulation. This.pro osal, Senate Bill
it prop
V

.@:4.18 (marks), becamd law on January, 1, 1975, (enclosed in Appendix A). Under

this legislation., the State Resources Agency was required to establish temporary

-4-

COE i.F.-' C07E Sacto.
District District

lit

-IT
F & G Regi n
G Region lit

7
-k .7cz@- R QC@ Regio'@'2-

Region 5

N-<
A

0 10
7@
SCALE 114 MILES iNr\
%
101

LIA

A
12

JURISDICTIONAL
BOUNDARIES
171
OF AGENCIES
IN THE BAY AREA. ra

Corps of Engineers

- - - - Fish and Game

**assume RWQCB

L
J,
NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE
(0epartina t of interior?

AGENCIES WITH STATEWIDE JURISDICTION
,BCDC jurisdictionand area-of STATE. FE.DERAL
dredging permit coordination The Resources Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
generally lie within a line 100 ft. State Lands Commission (oept. of interior)
inland of Bay shoreline and in- National Marine Fisheries Service
ciuding thbse areas shaded grey. State Water Resources Control Board (0ept. of Cornmercel

Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 2

-5-

procedures for an experimental "one-stop" coordination system intended*to

speed-the processing of permit applications for specified dredging projects

within the jurisdiction of BCDC. By February 1. 1976, the Resources-Agency

was to report to the Legislature,, identifying the.problems in permitting pro-

cedures., making recommendations concerning ways to expedite the process, and

advising the Legislature on the feasibility of the statewide application of

the new procedures. By interagency agreement, the Secretary for Resources

delegated to BCDC the responsibility to carry out this law. A copy of the

interagency agreement is enclosed in Appendix A. Although.the focus of this

report is on procedures of agencies regulating within the same area as the BCDC,

the recommendations are intended to apply to dredging regulatory procedures

throughout California. Nothing was found to indicate that the regulatoxv:

problems were unique to the Bay Area and therefore any recommendations con-

cerning them should be relevant to other areas as well.

The recommendations offered in this report are based on information

derived from a variety of sources. First, the State and Federal laws and

tegulations.that pertain to dredging were examined. A questionnaire was

sent to the@ managers,.directors*, or owners of commercial.ports, marinas,

and private terminals in Californial Oregon, Washington) and Alaska-., asking

for specific information concerning dredging at their facility. Eighty per

cent.-of.@those surveyed responded.. A copy of the questionnaire and a brief

analysis is inAppendix.J. In addition., interviews were conducted with all

agency personnel handling dredging regulation for San Francisco Bay, as well

as with dredgers and facility operators. A survey was made of the regulatory

procedures of the Reclamation Board and each district of multiple district

agencies--California Coastal Zone Conservation Com:rass io.n, Regional Water

-6-

quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game, and Corps -of Engineers--t.a

determine how their procedures varied from district to district. The cd6rdina-

tion experiment that the BCDC conducted was itself a valuable source of infor-

mation about the regulatory process.

The report consists of four chapters and eleven@appendices. Chapter II

describes the problems with the regulatory process that were identified during

the course of preparing the report and briefly states our proposals for remedy@-

ing or mitigating them. Chapter 1171 evaluates the experiment with permit.

coordination. Chapter IV amplifies recommendations contained in the two

preceding chapters and suggests methods for implementing them.

This report supersedes an earlier study, "The Regulation of Dredging,

Part I.," which described.the legislative basis of dredging regulation and,

the procedures of the agencies that regulate dredging. Appendices B, C, and

D reproduce much of the descriptive material from the earlier study in a

slightly amended form that includes information about the regulation of dredg-

ing in 'areas other than the Bay. Any reader unfamiliar with dredging and the

regulatory processes affecting it.will find reading these.appendices helpful..

Those who are familiar with these matters may want to use the-appendices for

reference.

CHAPTER 11. PROBLEMS AN ANALYSIS

This reportlis directed at identifying problems in the procedural

aspects of dredging regulation rather than the policies or goals for

which that regulation is undertaken. In general, it has been found that

the regulatory goals of the State and Federal agencies involved are being

met, with project screening occurring in a manner to ensure conformance

with legislative mandates. Applications are ultimately processed to con-

elusion. It is the mechanism by which this. processing occurs, not the

decisions made, that is the subject of this study. This report may

appear critical at times. It is a study to identify problems and its

emphasis is in that direction., Positive elemenf.s of the regulatory

mechanism are indicated principally where they serve as an example of

a.well structured procedure.. A desire to both maintain a concise. focus

in the studyand to avoid self-laudatory Comm nts have not allowed a full

description of those procedures that are operating most effectively.

We have divided the problems of the regulatory process into three groups:

(1) duplicated activities; (2) ambiguous requirements; and (3) what appears to

be unnecessarily repetitive or detailed regulation. Each of these categories

has been broken down so that specific problems emerge. In this chapter the

recommendations forso.1ving or alleviating the problems are stated in a

general way. In Chapter �V they are set out in detail, along with specific

suggestions for carrying them out..

Duplicated Activities

The first group of problems falls under the heading of "duplicated

activities, which encompasses all@reviews or procedures that are repeated at

least once during the processing of the same application. Although

comparable but independent reviews are.often beneficial, it was generally

the finding of this report that for many dredging projects repetitive pro-

cesses occur that may neither add to.the understanding of a project nor

help.protect the environment or preserve resources.

a. Multiplicity of Agencies

Duplication of reviews and procedures is a result of the number of

regulatory agencies involved directly or indireetly'in either a permitting

or comm n ing capacity.. A request to dredge in San Francisco Bay is certain

to involve seven agencies and usually involves nine. There are two principal

reasons for the profusion of agencies:

1. Federal and State Regulatory.Structure

Dredging is regulated by parallel review structures involving

State agencies on one level and Federal agencies on another. Any involve-

ment of local agencies, i.e.,, city or county, adds a third level. Agencies

of both the State a nd Federal Governments will,be involved in virtually every

dredging project undertaken in California. Among the State agencies will

usually be the Regional Water Quality.C6ntrol Board *and State Water Resources.

Control Board., the Department of Fish and Game, and possibly the State Lands

Co=ission. For Bay Area or Coastal projects,. the San Francisco Bay Conser-

vation and.Developm6nt Commission or the.Cal-ifornia.Coast,al.Zone@Conservation

Commission,-respectively, will have jurisdiction. In Lake Tahoe, the California

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency:@and the Tahoe Regional. Planning Agency will have

.,jurisdiction. Projects in the Channels or flood lain-of the Sacramento or San.
P

Joaquin river systems will involve the StateReclamation Board,. Federal agencies

generally include the Corps:of Engineers, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,

the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

-9-

2. Legislative Approach--the Concept of Specialization

Both the State and Federal Governments establish regulatory

programs to meet specific needs as they arise, and nearly all agencies

regulating dredging -Oere created to deal with a fairly limited range of

issues. BCDC was created to control the filling of San Francisco Bay;

the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission to protect coastal

resources; the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to regulate use of certain

waterways in addition to its construction activities; the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game to protect

and regulate marine and terrestrial life; the National Marine Fisheries

Service to protect marine, estuarine and anadromous fish resources; and

the Regional Water Quality Control Board and State Water Resources Control

Board to regulate State water-quality.

Although each agency was created to protect public interests

and promote the public welfare, in practice they exercise different responsi-

bilities and their policies and procedures may differ. The State Department

of Fish and Game may oppose a project that would interfere with seasonal fish

runs, while the State's Re gional Water Quality Control Board might find the

project acceptable with respect to contamination levels.of spoils. The

Federal Fish and Wildlife, Service may request project mitigation to protect

wildlife resources,, although the:Corps of Engineers. might view other consid-

erations as beneficially offsetting. Because of the different statutory

interests of the,agencies, it.is not reasonable to expect them to always

reach-ideritical decisions.

3. Recommendations Regarding'Multiplicity of Agencies
No recommendation is made'to alter the existing number or

substantive jurisdiction of any State or Federal regulatory agency. It

_10-

is recommended, however, that certain procedural consolidations,, discuLsed

below, be undertaken to aid each agency in carrying out its responsibilities

and to minimize unnecessary overlap. These changes should not cause any

reduction in the effectiveness of existing resource management. Along with

the other recommendations of this-study., they will.'probably increase this

effectiveness by allowing moreproductive effort by the limited number of

regulatory personnel.

b. Duplication of Reviews

For every review undertaken by a State agency, there will probably

be a comparable review of the same subject by a Federal agency, and vice

versa. Some duplication of review may exist even. within the samegovern-

mental level. Duplication occurs principally because of the two-tiered

Federal/state regulatory system mentioned earlier.

A number of State agencies derivesome of their regulatory authority

from Federal law, and thus to some extent comparable State and Federal reviews

have been the intentional result of Federal legislation. For example, the

State Department of Fish and Game derives extensive commenting authority

from the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act; the Regional Water Quality Control.Boards and the State Water Resources

Control Board, as authorized by the State Porter-Col:ogne Act, exercise some

water quality control responsib.i.1, i ties established under the Federal.. Water

Pollution Control-Act. Virtually all State and local agencies concerned

with resources or-land use receive public notices seeking comment on applii-

cations for Corps permits which fall within their jurisdiction.

I...- Multiple Land Use Reviews

Both BCDC and the Coastal Commission have specific statutory

responsibility toregulate the use of land by determining what types of

development or projects are to be allowed within the area of their sepal*ate

jurisdictions. The State Lands Commission also may be:conce,rned with land

use in these areas from two perspectives. It is the agency that supervises

lands owned by the State and in that way has the responsibility to control

what use is made of those lands--whether it be leases allowing development,,

or permits allowing the extraction of minerals contained on the land. It

is also the State"agency charged with protecting the "public trust" which

requires the control of land uses which might interfere with those trust

requirements. Thia is principally found in the control of-shoreline uses

that might restrict access to waters or the placement of obstructions in

@waters which might interfere with fishing or navigational needs.

The Corps of Engineers also regulates land use by its control

over developments in certain specified waters. The Corps' concern is not

solely with the propriety of particular developments at particular locations
from a land use concern but also from. a vide r4@ge of navigational, environ-

mental,, economic and other concerns which bear on the projects they review.

In evaluating the appropriateness of specific uses of land, the Corps refers.

extensively to local and State.land use determinations, the BCDC Bay Plan

being-a prime example.
2. Multiple Fis'h and Wildlife Reviews

P-Three agencies inde'endently:review projectimpacts on fish and'
p@

...wildlife resources: two Federal agencies-wthe United States Fish and Wildlife

Service and the National Marine-Fisheries Service--and one. State agency--the..

Department of;Fish and.Game. The National Marine Fisheries:Service reviews

the impacts of,proje.c.ts on marine, estuarine., and anadromous-fish re.sources-.

The scope of review of:.,the other two agencies--the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game--is much broader and

virtually identical to each other. The United States Fish and Wildlife

Service is concerned with the broad range of fish and wildlife., including

the enhancement and protection of migratory birds and endangered species.

1@ is charged not only with undertaking programs to directly protect these

resources,, but also with providing the input to other agencies to assist in

the making of decisions which will affect those resources. The Department

of Fish and Game is charged with protecting and regulating California's

fish and wildlife resources. In areas where the Department of Fish and
Game possesses commenting rather than permitting authority, the agency

derives some of its authority from the same source as the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service--the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act--

for projects undertaken or regulated by the Federal Government., Addi-

tional commenting authorityis derived from. the Porter-Cologne Act, the

McAteer-Petris Act, the Fish and Game Code and,other State statutes.

3. Water Quality.Review

Although four agencies are. responsible for reviewing water

quality problems in California, there is generally little duplication of

review. Because of the way these reviews are carried out, however, it

offers an excellent example of a way to handle multiple, reviews. The

Regional. Water. Quality Control 'Board is@ t-he basic. enf rcing agency for

the State water quality lav,, the Porter-Cologne Act, and is also certified

by the Environmental Protection Agency.to undertake what.would otherwise be

Federallwater. ality review r sponsibilitles The@ State Water Resources
qu e 1.

Control Boardis.,the agency making the official certification of accept

ability to the Federal agencies,,.but it usually acts on the recommendation

-13-

of the Regional Board. The Environmental Protection Agency can veto the

State action but in California it usually does not.

There is one element of water quality legislation that assigns

responsibility solely to the Corps. -Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollu-

tion Control Act-gives the Corps permitting authority over the disposal of

dredge and fill.materials into virtually all waters in the State. The Corps

is doing this review parallel with the review of navigational concerns that

occurs under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and still relies on the

State water quality certification for information with respect to the con-

tamination of spoils.

4. multiple Environmental Document Preparation

The Federal Government and all State-and local governments in

California are required by law to evaluate the overall potential environmental

impacts of projects they either propose to undertake themselves or are asked to

regulate. This is in addition to any specific resource protective objectives

of the particular,agency, For project's with.a significant effect on the environ-

ment, this offers an important means for.any State agency to.express their con-

cerns and.to aid the@lead agency (the agency with-broadest authority.over the

proposed project) in identifying and evaluating both the negative and benefi-

.cial impacts. This evaluation takes the form of either an Environmental

Impact Statement.(Fe'deral),or an Environmental Impact Report or 'other

environmental document (State). The substantive requirements of both docu-

ments-are.nearly.1deatical. Dredging projects rarely require the-preparation

of'6 full Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Impact Report,'but

it is possible that one or both could be mandated for a particular project

and hence a slight potential for duplication exists. of twenty applications

for dredging considered under the coordination study, none. have requirea an

Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Impact Report.

5. Recommendations Regarding Duplication of Reviews

Overall duplication of review could be reduced if Federal agencies.

were to.-cooperate with State agencies in developing mutually acceptable regula-

tory policies, such as is done in water quality review. Federal agencies could

also.use either existing legislative authorizations or memoranda of understand-

ing, where permissible, to allow State agencies to carry out Federal review

functions when State policies are at least as stringent as the Federal policies.

Existing authorizations contained in regulations promulgated to carry out

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act include the potential

for Corps "rubber stamping" State decisions where the State's decision-making

process is 'substantially the same as the Corps. As is demonstrated in this

section, in California the State decision-making is nearly identical to the

Corp s

Memoranda of understanding could include agreements between the

Department of Fish and Game, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and.

the National Marine Fisheries Service to consolidate or coordinate their com-

menting and review functions.

If a project requires preparation of'both an Environmental Impact

Statement andan, Environmental'I=act.Report., they could be jointly prepared.,

thereby allowing independent review without duplication of paperwork. Joint

preparation of these documents is allowed to some extent under existing Federal

and State@lav. -Amendments.. to! the. California Environmental Quality Act Guide-

lines proposed by the Resources Agency would encourage joint preparation.

-15-

c. Duplication of Procedural Steps
The third and.final'category of duplicated activities encompasses the

procedural steps in the permitting process itself. The problem is that more

than one agency will.often undertake the same procedural step, resulting in

unnecessary and prolonged work for both agencies and applicants.

.1. Multiple Comment Solicitation

Whilea dredging application is being processed there may be as

many as four independent solicitations for comments on it, coming from the

Corps via their Public Notice, from the BCDC or Coastal Commission., the State

Lands Commission., and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. If environ-

mental documents are required, even more comments will be solicited. By virtue

of the size of*its distribution,the Corps Public Notice is the most comprehen,

sive of the solicitations, going out to all Federal,, State, and local agencies

that might be concerned with a project as well as to a wide range of individuals

and organizations. Agency solicitations also take other1forms. In a manner

similar to the Regional Boards and the State Lands Commission, BCDC solicits

-the.-comments of other regulatory agencies directly concerned--the State Lands

Commission, the Department of Fish and Game, And the Regional Board--on-each

application submitte&to it. BCDC meeting agendas are widely advertised

through direct mailing and press releases. The Regional.Board has the appli-,

cant publish a legal notice-in:newspaper@3,'isedkin'g-commeiats-on-pending actions.

The proliferation@of requests for comments, plusthe realization

that the issua.ace.of. a.Corps permit will.still'be neces-sary even after all State

regulatory agencies have Approved a project., understandably reduces an agency s

incentive to.respond to the earlier State solicitations. Thus'., State agency

input into the State regulatory process is somewhat less than guaranteed.. It

is often completely absent or too late for use. In other oases, some State
17

-16-

agencies are not contacted for comments except by the Corps. Without a'consisitent

and comprehensive exchange of comments at the State level, some agencies must rely

on the Corps rather than the State to protect their interests.

A related problem of application changes causing reconsideration of

virtually the same project, results from, agencies receiving and acting on appli-

cations at widely spaced intervals. This problem. has been alleviated in the Bay

Area by the coordination effort., which has indicated that when the agencies all

consider an application concurrently, interagency discussions are helped by the

details being fresh and by allowing changes in the project without forcing an

agency to amend its action.

These problems could be solved if one joint notice for the solicita-

tion of comments were circulated for each project on behalf of all permit granting

agencies.

2., Independent Processing of Applications

Each of the agencies involved in the processing of dredging 6P.Plica-

tions has, its own procedures, which are unrelated to those of the other involved

agencies except for comment solicitation and the use of.conditional permits.. The

experiment in' permit'coordiiiation discussed in Chapter T11, was an attempt to

simplify the processing. It.wa.s found that this experiment,was helpful to most

agencies but may have caused further delay for some of the applicants because the

various,6tagea..of review proceeded at the same pace. Applicants felt that holding
up the agenqiei@that were ready to proceed while awaiting other agencies' actions

delayed the@qpplication processing. The coordination effort demonstrated the value

of involving each agency in the "pre-appl I cation period.." Early consultation allows,

applicants to provide necessary data in the proper format and.avoid delays caused

byinsufficient information.

-17-

3. 6alication Forms Unique to Each Agency

A standard applica tion form meeting the needs of all the permit

and commenting agencies involved in regulating dredging in San Francisco Bay

was developed. It demonstrated that most of the informational requirements

agencies have with respect to dredging are very similar and easily combined

into a single application packet. All agencies indicated that they needed

a descriptive narrative of the project, acceptable reproducible scale drawings

of the project site, a certified environmental document or statement of cate-

gorical-exemption., and a sediment analysis. All the permitting agencies

indicated that they needed evidence of ownership, evidence of the legal

relationship of the applicant to'the owner, and evidence that the representa-

tive of either party.may bind them. There were some items relating to birth,

citizenship,, and.corpora.te records that only the State Lands Commission

needs.. Thus, it was demonstrated that the application information require-

ments of@the agencies were sufficiently similar to allow one application form

to.satisfy all the, agencies.,

4. Duplication of Public Hearings

Although most actions on dredging applications do not require a

public hearing,,.the,BCDC, the Coastal Commission, the Corps of Engineers., the

Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the State-Lands. Commis sion, and the

Reclamation Board will occasionally hold,a public hearing on dredging

applications within their jurisdiction. Each agency requires its own notice.,

and-the preparation of staff reports,@to present substantially the same infor-

mation. D2 particular, hearings on Bay Area dredging projects may-occur in

close proximity, with some. of the same people sitting on more than one panel,

e.g., the Corps District Engineer and a Regional Water Quality Control Board

member sit on BCDC. This duplicated effort could be alleviated, in paA, if."

Federal and State agencies issued joint meeting notices and held joint hear-

ings. The Corps' interim final regulations for Section 404 of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act encourage joint hearings on appropriate projects.

Ambiguous Requirements

In many situations applicants have difficulty in anticipating the

requirements that will be imposed on their dredging projects. Although
each agency's general concerns and requirements are clear, applicants may

not be able to immediately ascertain-whether or not sediment samples will

be required or whether a State Lands permit, which might take a consider-

able amount of time to obtain,,'will be necessaryi There might be a question,
as to .whether an application*involving a significant activity can be .pro-

cessed administratively. Administrative processing can reduce time require

ments1of notices and hearings. For'example an application may qualify for

a Corps letter of permission,, eliminating the need for water quality certifica-

tionj and for the.preparation of.a Federal environmental document.

Ambiguous requirements obscure the ultimate action on an application.
Even though a final decision often cannot be mad.e until all aspects of an appli-

cation are considered, the regulatory system is slowed down by applications for

which approval is unlikely. This detracts from applications necessitating

greater investment of agency review resources..

a. Length.of Time to,.Process @22!ications

The@principal complai of dredging applicant is the length of*time
nt s

it takes to obtain the necessary approvals. This was the major reason for the
legislation that established this study. As theregulatory process -now sta ds,
n

an applicant cannot estimate how long the processing of an application @vill

take within an accuracy of two to three months. In some cases, all permits

can be secured within six weeks., while in other cases it may take more than

six months. Not knowing the length of time in advance hinders'app.1 -ants

from soliciting contract bids or scheduling construction.

Applications processed under the coordination experiment have usually

required three and one-half months for complete processing by State agencies

and an additional one and one-half months for action by the Corps. .(The

total Corps processing time is approximately five or six months but it

usually runs concurrently with the State processing.) All these.figures,

derived from the coordination experiment., are for Bay Area projects, but a

survey conducted by BCDC of port., marina, and private terminal facilities

throughout California indicates that comparable times exist elsewhere.

Dredging projects, which raise sufficient environmental, economic, or

social issues-so as to require a more extensive analysis may take as long as

one year to complete. This is often caused by the corresponding necessity to

prepare an environmental document.. one exa#le might be a proposal to deepen

existing depths at a*port so. as to allow the berthing of a larger'class of

ship than was previously capable of docking. The Port of Los Angeles is

currently considering requesting approval for 30,000,000 to 50,000,000 cubic

yards of new dredging in-the ne t N -years. This.would be to cut a channel
x ew

for the passage of ships containing liquid natural gas. Surely this type of,

project would raise public policy., environmental,legal, and economic ques-

Uons involving. lengthy reviews..

The time involved on projects. of less significance might suggest-that

extensive., time-consuming reviews of applications are taking place. In fact,

-20-

the actual time spent in reviewing an application for completeness, processing--

or commenting on the project, and preparing a permit document if one is @o be

granted, is very brief. For example,, during the period the coordination experi-

ment has been in operation, the BCDC staff has spent an average of seven hours

in review of each dredging application,,,the Regional.Water Quality Control Board

an average of twelve hours, and the Department of Fish and Game five hours. of

the Federal agencies2 the Environmental Protection Agency spends eight hours,

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries

Service about one hour, and the Corps of Engineers approximately ten hours.

The total hours in this sample is fourty-four. In only one*case was an appli-

cation identified.by an agency as either complex or controversial. Most were

for routine maintenance dredging. The study has identified two principal

reasons for the time-related problems. Subdivision "b" (page 27) discusses

a number of other matters th at indirectly affect processing4

.1. No Sanctions for Delays

Although most of the permit granting agencies involved in the

regulation of dredging have time,limits on their consideration of applications,

most of the time limits are illusory because there are no sanctions imposed to

compel agency performance. Table I summarizes existing-time limits and sanctions

affecting agencies that regulate dredging. The State Lands Commission-and the

Regional Water Quality Control Boards have limits of one hundred and.eighty

days and one hundred and twenty days, respectively. If these are exceeded,

however,'an applicant has no recourse because use of State lands without

approval would constitute a trespass; and disposal of pollutants into the

water is deemed a privilege and not a right, therefore allowing waste- dis-

charge requirements to be imposed at any time, even after the one hundred

-21-

TABLE I

AGEIMY TIM T TS

Time Limits on Action
(days) Sanctions for Delay

ermit Granting Agencies

San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Develoment Commission 90 Permit issued by Law
California Coastal Zone
Conservation C ommission 1.50-1/ None
Cors of Engineers gone None
California Tahoe Regional lanning
Agency None Xone
Deartment of Fish and Gaml-28i
Suction Dredging ermits None None
Streambed Alteration ermits 62W None
Reclamation Board gone None
Regional Water quality Control Can begin discharge subject to
Board 120 risk of subsequent disaroval
State Water Resources Control Board I yearly Loss of Certification Authority
State Lands Commission 180 None
Tahoe Regional lanning:Agency o Aroval issued by law

Commenting Agencies
Environmental rotection Agg4cy Set by Cors Public Notice Comments too late for use
Deartment of Fish and Game E-J Set by Agency requesting comments Comments too late for use
National Marine Fisheries Service Set by Cors Public Notice Comments too late for use
Resources Agency Set by Agency requesting comments Comments too late for use
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service None None

The California Coastal Zone C6nservationCommission has a time limit consisting of a maximum 90 days
within which a hearing must be held and a subsequent maximum of 60 days within which a permit decision
at be made.
The Deartment of Fish and Game has ermitting authority under the Streambed Alteration rovisions of
Sections 160lmI602 of the.Fish and Game Code and under the Suction Dredging rovisions of Section 5653
of the Code. Tn all other cases, the deartment has only commenting authority.
Fish and Game Code Sections 1601 and 1602 have a series of time Limits for each ste in the negotiation
rocedures to an aggregate may, of 65 days.
Section01 of the Federal Water pollution Control Actrovids a waiver of the need for certification
by the State Water Resources1ntr6l, Board if it has failed to act within one-year.

-228-

and twenty day time period has elapsed. Applicants who see the time limit

pass can.undertake the activity without a permit at their own peril. BCDC,

however, has a time limit of ninety days and if the Commission fails to

meet it, the permit,is automatically issued by law. Extensions of this

time constraint can be made only with the applicant's agreement.

Commenting agencies have virtually no time limits. For example.,

State agencies that wish to comment on dredging projects may delay their com-

ment submission until the close of the Corps' PUblic Notice period. Comm nt

requests by BCDC, the State Lands Commission, or other State decision-making

bodies need not be answered to protect the commenting agency's interests.

During the coordination effort written comments by the Department of Fish

and Game were generally submitted after ECDC action.

Thus, State agencies can introduce objections late in the

processing stage that they have not made available to the State p ermitting

agencies earlier. The San Francisco District staff of the Corps of Engineers

has stated that waiting for comments from State agencies in response to Public

Notices takes considerable time, and causes substantial delays. They have

stated that the Corps must wait an average of fifty@seven days for.State

comments, about tventy-seven days beyond the Public Notice date. In the

last few mofiths the Resources Agency, the agency responsible for coordinating

State:agency comments on Federal public.nctices, has adopted strong measures

to assure notice deadlines are met.. In fact, the Resources Agency staff

reports that.during October, every deadline was met.. A joint notice, as

recommended in thia report, would allow the.collecting of corm nts while

the State agencies are consideringan application rather than after, as is

usually the case without formal State-Federal coordination.

-23-

As is discussed elsewhere in this report, the Department of

Fish and Game's comments enjoy special status since the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act requires the Corps to seek comments from the "head of the

agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the partic-

ular State ... where the project is located." As a general rule, the Corps

will wait well beyond the close of the Public Notice period for comments by

important State agencies such as- the Department of Fish and Game.

Under the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the

L
corresponding me=randum. of understanding entered into between the Secretary

of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior, the District Engineer cannot

finally process an application until comments from the appropriate United

States Fish and Wildlife Service officials are received. Under the coordina-

tion experimeat3 the response time for comments by the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service, however, have generally been well within the sixty day time

period allowed for comments.

A number of steps should be taken to allev-iate these time-related

problems. It should be State policy that all State permitting or commenting

agencies are to act as quickly as possible@on dredging applications without

Aeopardizing.natural resources or environmental controls, and that all State

agencies are to abide by established time limits. The time limits should be

similar f or all permitting:agencies and should i,#clude@:--the.'-following features:

(a) if the deadline isn't met, the permit to dredge'.is automatically granted;
(b), extensions.will be available only with the appli6ant's agreement; and (c)

shorter, timli'Limits' will be provided for simpler dredging projects than for

more complex and controversialones. Comments that do notmeet.the time

limits should be barred.

-24-

Unless permit processing at the Federal level is modified

in a similar manner, any time savings at the Sta te level will be of little

value to applicants. It is, therefore, recommended that time constraints'

and sanctions be adopted by Federal agencies with respect to issuing permits

or comments on dredging applications.

It is recommended that the time limit for permit.granting

agencies be ninety days from the date the,application is found to contain

sufficient information (including certified environmental documents) for

the agency to make its decision.. Ninety days was selected for various

reasons. As the existing time limit affecting BCDC, it has proven to

provide enough time for projects which raise time consuming issues, or

require more than one hearing, and for administering variations in the

workload, vacation schedules, and so forth. over eightypercent of those

responding to the questionnaire, discussed in Appendix J, indicated that

applications for routine dredging should be acted on in less. than sixty

'view of BCDC records for administrative permits issued during 1975,
days. Re

indicates that ninety percent were issued in sixty- days or less. Fifty-six.
percent of the permits requiring public hearings were issued in sixty days

or less. Experience from the coordination experiment also indicates that

this time limit can be met by all agencies although it will still require

close attention and some administrative improvements. A time limit of

ninety days will also provide applicants with a reasonable prediction of

when agency action will be taken. It is recommended that the State Lands

Commission should abide by the same time. constraints, but it is recognized

that its role., as a property owner, makes the sanction of automatic approval

inappropriate.

-25-

It is recommended that the deadline for comments should be

thirty days from the date the request for comments is issued. It is

considered a reasonable length of time even for complex projects, and is

already in use. Thirty days is the usual Corps Public Notice period. The

Regional Water Quality Control Boards-and the State Water Resources Control

Board advertise notices of proposed waste discharge requirements and certi-
fication, for thirty day periods. BCDC has a twenty-eight day mandatory

'period to allow for comments between filing of an application and holding

the public hearing. Comments on most applications should be submitted well

before the thirty day deadline. occasionally an agency will need more than

thirty days to prepare comments. In these cases,.time extensions should be

available if requested before expiration of the.original deadline by the

director of the agency staff. If the proposed project is not of enough

significance to warrant an extension request by the director, then the

agency should be prevented from acting subsequently and the application

should be processed to completion.

2. Workload and Backlogs

Some of the agencies have indicated that substaintial@workloads

coupled with understaffing have not allowed them to comply within established

time limits. The Department of Fish and Game has been particularly concerned

about insufficient personneland budget. The need formorie funding may be a

major cause of the personnel shortage that makes it difficult for the agency

to meet its responsibilities within reasonable time limits.

The commendati ns in this report should reduce agency workloads,
re 0

especially once regulations-and policy statements are adopted. However, none

of these recommendations can be carried out unless there are an adequate number

-26-

of personnel and reasonable workloads. It is recommended that each agency

should reassess its allocation of existing staff to assure that the recom-

mended.time limits will be met.

b. Guidance and Consistencl of Agency Evaluations

Another central difficulty identified in the course of this study

is that agencies need policies, standards, guidelines and procedures with

which to guide their decisions.

A meeting.between BCDC staff meinbers and the permit staff of one

regulatory agency exhibited the consequences of this problem. An effort to

develop a "flow chart" for that agency's procedural system resulted in each

of the permit staff members present having a'different idea as to what was

to be done with the application at each step. They must make decisions on

a case-by-pase basis having to justify their actions only within general

policies or specify the criteria for their decisions. Applicants complain

that agencies are "unaccountable" for their actions unless there are specific

policy and procedural guidelines.

The problems discussed in this section are among the most crucial in

the report.' Their elimination will prevent a number of unapp.rovable projects

from, even entering,the.regulatory.system and consuming review time and effort.,

and they will make decision-making easier and quicker.

li., Formal-Policies, Plans, and Decision-Making Criteria

Both the State and Federal agencies need up-to-date guidelines for

the substantive reviews they are obligated-by law.to undertake. In many cases,

the sole agency idance is found in the organic law that established the agency
gu

and describes legislativeintent. Table. II summarizes the existence of formal

policies..

-27-

TABLE II

EXISTENCE OF FORMAL POLICIES
TO GUIDE DECISIONS Off PERMIT APPLICATIONS

Policies on Dredging Document

Permit Granting Agencies

San Francisco Bay Conservation San Francisco Bay Plan and
and Development Commission Yes Administrative Regulations
California Coastal Zone Conservation Coastal Plan and Administrative
Commission Yes Regulations
Corps of Engineers None
California Tahoe Regional Planning Land Use ordinance and California
Agency tea Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Regional Plan
Department of Fish and GamJ2 Yes/Nol/
Suction Dredging Permits Yes Administrative Regulations
Streambed Alteration Ito None
Reclamation Board Yes Standards for Encroachment
Regional Water quality Control Board
(San Francisco Region) Yes Basin V-an and Dredging PolicyV
State Water Resources Control Board None
State Lands Commission To-/. None
Tahoe.Regional Planning Agency Yes Tahoe Regional Plan and Land.Use
Ordinance

Comm ating Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency Yes Administrative Regulations and
Regional Criteria
National Marine Fisheries Service NO None
Resources Agency ITO None
United States Fish and Wildli e Service YQ7/ Administrative Regulations
Demartment of Fishand G Y2 None

Although administrative regulations establish a broad range of factors to be considered in evaluating a
dredging project, there is no specification as to how these factors are to be weighed or'considered, other
than to require a fine"r, that the application is in the public interest.. -
The Departmint of Fish.and Game has permitting authority under the Streambed Alteration provisions of
Sections 1601-1602 of the Fish and Game Code and under the Suction Dredging provisions of Section 5653
of the Code. In all other cases, the department has only commentingauthority.
Suction dredging permits under Section 5653 of the Fish and Game Code are given on the basis of a pre-
determined acceptability of such activities in various waters of the State. The -department's Fish-and
Wildlife Plan, written in 1966 has not been subsequently amended and sers no particular dredging policies
to guide department comments or-actibns on permits.
The Regional Water quality Control Board,, San Francisco Region, has,.a.. policy r@soLutionon dredging which
is to.be revised. :It follows the Envir -ntal.Protection Agency in-house guidelines which also are to be
revised. None of the other Regional Boards have specific dredging policies._
No specific dredging policies. Generally follow the. Regional Water quality.Control Board's recommendation
on whether to issue a certificate of conformance.
only policy guidance is through public trust considerations and mineral survey.
This agency has broad statutory objectives relating to the,protection,of,fis h and wildlife resources and
generally follows in-house Environmental Protection Agency, Region. IX.,guidelines in evaluating specific
projects.. Policy criteria were formalized on December 1. 1975,.40 Federal Register, 55810 at seq.,

-28--

Because of their mandates, some agencies, such as the BCDC and

the Coastal Commission, do have comprehensive planning documents combined

with an on-going review process that helps guide the regulatory procedures,

including specific guidance on dredging.

Guidance is less complete in other agencies. The State Lands

Commission maintains no planning guidance other than a survey of mineral

deposits and a mandate to protect the public trust and interests in the

land and water resources under its jurisdiction. All the Regional Water

Quality Control Boards have submitted basin plans for their regions, but

only the San Francisco Board has a specific policy on dredging. The basin

plans are still going through the procedures necessary to obtain final

approval. The State Department of Fish and Game has a fish and wildlife

plan that was adopted in 1966, arid has not been updated since. This plan,

therefore, pre-dates much of the environmental legislation that now controls

the policies of the Department of Fish and Game as well as the other regula-

tory agencies.

The Corps of Engineers has no plan in the traditional sense

i.e., indicating that particular types of projects are@to be permitted in

what particular areas or circimstances. They do have regulations that man-

date the consideration of a wide range of factors on which their decisions

b es ish as broad a scope of
are to.-e based, and these factors probably tabl*

project review as undertaken by any agency. The means of interrelating

these. factors, however, is given little guidance, other than to make an

effort to arrive at a decision that will ref lec.t the "public interest."

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service previously had

no formal written planning framework other than the limited guidelines

-29-

that existed in their own organic legislation,, in the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act, the Navigable Waters.Handbook., or other legislative

policy expressions. They also used the Environmental Protection Agency

disposal criteria as their major guidelines on dredging projects. Recently

prorm, ated guidelines.published in the Federal Register on December 11 197.53

appear to now clarify the United States Fish and Wildlife Service policies

he
on all projectsin navigable waters. The National Marine Fis ries Service

still does not have formal policies.

Adoption of formal regulatory policies, especially regarding

the effects of dredging and disposal on water quality and aquatic organisms,

has been hindered by'a dearth of information regarding these effects. Serious

concerns about the effect of heavy metals (mercury, for example), pesticides,

or oxygen using compounds associated with spoils has prompted a cautions

approach by many agencies. Recognizing the need for more information, the

Corps of Engineers is currently conducting research costing more than thirty

million dollars to identify andquantify these effects. In the Bay Area

alone, the San Francisco District's Dredge Disposal Study will cost about

tvo and one-half million dollars.. It is expected that the results of this

study, which will be-complete in the,.early part of 1976., will allow agencies

to adopt clear decision-making criteria.

..The-absence of-formal.policy guidance has two'-effects. First,

applicants have.difficulty ascertaining what is expected of.them in terms of

-project requirements.. Applicants-vho have been through the.process more than

onc.e may have some generalnotions., based.on previous experience, as to what

is or is not acceptable. However, particular agencies, such as the Department

of Fish and Game, have indicated that a change in.personnel may result in a

_30-

change in informal policies--often the only policies that the agencies have

to go on-so the experienced applicant has no necessary advantage. This void

in clear policy guidance creates a situation that is difficult for the appli-

cants and unnecessarily time consuming to agencies.

Applicants who want to undertake a project are required to submit

their application., let the agencies undertake their review and make whatever

comments they have, redesign their project to conform to any objections that

may be raised, and submit it for further review. If the project is such that

the objections cannot be satisfied, then the application will be either with-

drawn or denied. In either case, a considerable amount of regulatory effort

will have been expended that could easily have been avoided. If applicants

could know in advance thata certain project design will be unacceptable.,

non-conforming applications might never be submitted, or at the very least

would be identified as unacceptable within a short time after submission.

Second@ the lack of such guidance or policies makes agency

review and decision-making difficult. Decisions are based on a case-by-

case.reviev without any direction that ensures a consistent approach.

Considerable effort is expended making many decisions that could be

considered routine.

Governm nt should attempt to base its decision on clear

policies vhichspecify.its@objectives in carrying 6ut,a mandate to pro-

tect the public interest. Without such policies, action on an application

can become uncertain or inconsistent*. Formal policies, therefore, allow

applicants to anticipate requirements, as well as lead support to the

agency's action.

Much.could be done to alleviate these conditions if all agencies

would formally adopt plans., policies2 and guidelines on dredging that would

describe each agency's concerns, specify the factors to be considered, and

tell how decisions are to be made. These guidelines would be periodically

updated. In addition, all agency actions with respect to permit approvals

or denial, comment preparation, or other actions,, should be explained and

referenced to the agency's official policies.

2. Administrative Regulations

Several State regulatory agencies do not have fully defined

administrative regulations to direct the procedural operations of the agency

in a logical, expeditious, and legally adequate manner. This problem seems

to be most crucial with respect to the Regional'Water Quality Control Boards

which rely on regulations promulgated by the State Water Resources Control

Board. Table III summarizes the existence of regulations.

The same requirement of fairness that obligates agencies to

have formal regulatory policies'applies to administrative regulations.

Policies and administrative regulations for some agencies may be f rmally
0

implemented in the same' way, i.e..'by publication in the California Adminis-

Code for [email protected] in the Code of Federal Regulations and

Federal Register for Federal agencies. BCDC,. f=example, utilizes its

administrative regulations to both@[email protected] formalities and to

give some@specifiq criteria to procedural policies not specified in the Bay

Plan.

rul *s by which the agenc
The e ies :process applications and-reach

decisions.should be express and, consistent so that.applicants-understand

-what is to be expected of them as,well as what they are to expect of agencies.

-32-

TABLE III

EXISTENCE OF ADMINISTRAT IVE REGULATIONS FOR DREDGING

Authority to Promulgate Regulations Promulgated

Permit GrantingAgencies-
San Francisco Bay,Conse;vation
and Development Commission Yes Yes
Reclamation Board Yes Yes
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission Yes Yes
Corps 6f,Engineers Yes Yes
California Tahoe Regional Plqnning Agency Yes
Department of.Fish and 'Game_2/
Suction Dredging Permits Yes Yes
Streambed'Alteration Permits Yes NO
Regional Water Quality Control Board Yes ;@3/
State Water Resources Control Board Yes Yes
State Lands Commission Yes Yes
Tahoe, Regionol Planning Agency Yes QJ

Commenting Agencies.
Environmental Protection Agjecy Yes Yes
2
Department of Fish and Gai 2 Yes No
National Marine Fisheries Service No No
Resources Agency Yes
United States Fish and'Wildlife Service Yes Yes

.L/ The California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency regulations to guide pro-
cessingare contained in these agencies ordinances rather than the Administrative Code.
The Department of Fish and Game has permitting authority under the Streambed Alteration provisions of
Sections 1601-1602 of the Fish 'and Game Code and under the Suction Dredging provisions of Section 5653
of the Code. In all other cases, the department has only commenting authority.
General procedures for the Regional Water Quality Control Board handling Waste Discharge Requirements are
contained in the State Water'Resources Control Board Regulations,, 23 Cal. Ad. C. Section 2340, et seq.
Regulations exist for implementing the Ca lifornia Environmental Quality Act but not for processing State
agency comments.'

Such rules will enable an agency to-process applications without spending

significant effort deciding the most basic procedural questions each time.

Regulations must be comprehensive, explaining and incorporating both formal

and informal agency procedures and setting forth standards of review and

guidelines used in the evaluation of a project, and describing where the

agency's formal policies can be found. Such regulations will provide

indispensible guidance for the applicants' and also"a standard to which

.an agency can be held if it improperly processes.an application..

3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

Observations made during this study, and the review of previous

application files., indicate that CEQA has not caused problems for dredging

applications. Environmental.impact reports are not even required for most

dredging,projects since these are either considered categorically exempt or

amenable to a negative declaration. In other cases, in particular large,

new dredging projects, environmental impact reports are required. There

have been no environmental impact reports prepared for projects coordinated

under Senate Bill,2418..

The problem that arises is one of applicant or agency apprehension.

caused by the uncertainty as to whether or not an environmental impact report

or negative declaration is required, or if the project is categorically exemp .t.
.:The@apprehension and uncertainty leads to delays.. The current CEQA.Guidelines...@
not specifying how dredging is to be considered, leaves the decision.to the, lead

agency... Some-regulatory agencies, such as BCDC, have d6termined.that.categoric.al
exemptions Are appropriate for certain dredging projects in the promulgation of-

their.own regulations for carrying out CEQA.

TheiCEQA Guidelines should be amended to clarify how dredging is
to be handled. The Resources Agency has proposed a categorical exemption which
-34-

would exempt maintenance dredging of 10,000 cubic yards or less if not

polluted.. In order,to establish a categorical exemption for a class of

activities, CEQk requires the Secretary for Resources to find that the

exempted activities will not cause a significant impact on the.environ-

ment. Testimony on this proposed categorical exemption and other proposed

amendments to the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines will be
taken at a public hearing to be held in the; early spring. Many projects

which do not come under this exemption may nonetheless be found, on a

case-by-case basis, to have no significant effect on the environment.

Such projects would receive a negative declaration.

Unnecessarily Repetitive or Detailed.Regulation

Dredging differs from many other regulated activities in that most

projects require periodic maintenance. Since 1970, about sixty percent
of all dredging applications considered by BCDC were for'recurring main-

temance activities. About half'of the applications for both new and

maintenance dredging were for,projects of less than 10,000 cubic yards.

In the Bay Area., a projectlof that size or smaller is usually considered

small. The extent to which projects of-this nature warrant detailed,

case-by-case review by each of the involved agencies is worth consider-

ing. Appendix B contains additional information on the nature and size

of Bay Area drL-dging projects. Table,.IV summarizes the existence of

simplified procedures for each agency.

a.. Minor Projects

A large number of dredging projects are relatively insignificant in

an environmental and even in a land use sense. For example, one application

-35-

TABLE V

EXISTENCE CF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDL)RES FOR PROCESSnZ

Simplified Procedures- Dredging Projects Covered

Permit Granting Agencies

San Francisco Bay Conservation Less than.100,000 cubic yards
and Development Commission Yes new and all.maintenance
Reclamation Board WO-1/ None
California Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission Yes All maintenance
Corps of Engineers Yes Less then 10,000 cubic yards
with Land disposal & all maintenance
California Tahoe Regional P aning Agency N021 None
Department of Fish and GaZ33'.
Suction Dredging Permits Yes Suction Dredge with less than a
12 Inch intake pipe
Streambed Alteration Permits ITO None
Regional Water Quality Control Board
(San Francisco Region) Yes Unpolluted Spoils
State Water Resources Control Board Q/ None
State Lands Commission NO None
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency NO None
Commenting Agencies.!/

Environmental Protection Age cy NO None
Department of Fish and Gm 3 NO None
National Marine*Fisheries Service no None
Resources Agency ITO None
United States Fish and Wildlife Service NO None

Although 411 projects are treated the same, very small project&and some maintenance projects may not
even be subjected to regulation... Also provision exists for the issuance of emergency permits by the
Board General Manager.
The California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency policy is to administratively approve all projects conforming
to their Regional Plan and refer all non-conf6rming projects to their governing board. Dredging is currently
so controversial that all projects are being referred to the board.
The Department of.Fish and Game has permitting authority under the Streambed Alteration prov-1sions of
Sections 1601-1602 of the Fish and Game Code and under the Suction Dredging provisions of Section 5653 of
the Code. In all other cases, the department has-only commenting authority. -
The State Board procedures are the same for all projects submitted to it. -The State Board relies on the
Regional Boards to hold public hearings and make recommendations for most routine dredging projects. When
this procedure is followed the State Board review is quite rapid.
Allcommenting.agencies treat all projects in the same manner administratively although review efforts may
very considerably.

-36-

submitted to BCDC during the dredging coordination experiment involved the

dredging of less than 200 cubic yards of material which would be transported

away for dry land disposal. This applicant was informed that even if all

agencies used every procedural shortcut and expediting device at their

disposal,,, the regulatory process would still require review by at least

nine agencies@ take at least one month, and cost at least a few hundred

dollars for filing fees.

Conversely some projects, even though they consist of a small

quantity of dredging, can significantly affect important resources and

therefore deserve close scrutiny. The distinction-between significant and

insignificant matters may at times be difficult, but some parameters can be

described in advance-which will make the decision easier.

Most agencies submit every project proposed to exactly the same

review. The State Lands Commission has no procedure for processing a simple

project without going to the full Commission for review. A form of staff

review is.currently being considered for such projects. BCDC has an admin-

istrative review for certain dredging projects, specified as any maintenance

dredging or new dredging of less than 100,000 cubic yards in any twelve month

period. Below this figure, however, all minor projectsare treated the same.

The San Francisco Regional Water quality Control Board.has an

administrative provision for determining which applications need waste

discharge requirements. When-requirements are necessary., however,.the

item must be considered by the Board even though it may clearly comply

with th4.Board's.policies...,

The.Corps of Engineers has two procedures available which speed

application processing. By issuing a "Letter of Permis.sion'll the San

-37-

Francisco District can allow dredging of 10,000 cubic yards or less without

the need for public notice or hearing if there is disposal on dry land and

no return flow. This particular procedure is used only by the San Francisco

District, although all Corps District Engineers are authorized to use it.

The regulatory process could be simplified if the "Letter of Permission"

were more widely used by the Corps.Districts for projects that are either

already subject to extensive State reg ulatory review or have Ao significant

impact. The second procedure was provided for'in the interim final regula-

tions published on July 25, 1975, for Section 404 of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act. District Engineers can adopt "general permits" under

Section 404. A general permit consists of an authorization for a certain

type of activity which is conducted in a specified manner in a given loca-'

tion. In the Bay Area., and other areas where appropriate, the Corps should

consider issuing a general permit for maintenance and small new dredging.

It appears, then., applicants face the same steps in each agency

regardless of the significance of their project. Insignificant projects

are delayed while agencies undertake formal notice procedures, prepare staff

@reports and recommendations for Board or Commission consideration, and observe

various waiting periods.-., whether theii project is very-large or small. Consida..-

erable time could be saved for applicants, if each State agency adopted regulations

@providing@tor staff-rather than.Board or@Commission:action on insignificant or

emergency projects and identified.these.matters in advance. Similar proposals

have been opposed'by 6pplicants-who, fear'staff exe.rcising.too-much power. These'
@ng staf rove an app,
concerns could be mitigated.by giv f-authority only.-to app li-

cation vhile.retainingthe authority to deny-at Board:,or Commission level.

b. Maintenance Dredging

Dredging for navigational or berthing purposes is unique among

development projects because a.need for subsequent, periodic redredging to

maintain the previously set channel depths is usually inherent in the original

project design. In some cases, channels and harbors can be located in a way to

reduce the required volume of dredging-

Since s,ixty percent of all the projects involving dredging that have

been reviewed by BCDC over the past several years were for maintenance activi-

tie.s, the majority of dredging reviews are for projects on which the basic land

use, disposal, ownership, navigational, and environmental questions have been

addressed. It would seem that the only issues of interest on a recurring basis

would be those related to water quality and impacts on marine life. A number of

agencies have already made efforts to deal with the problem of the periodic

review of maintenance dredging, but difficulties still exist..

Three regulatory agencies--BCDC, State1ands Commission, and the

Corps-allov long-term authorization of maintenance activities,. generally

subject to periodic review. The recently promulgated "interim final" regula-
:tions by the Corps under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(and specified as also applicable to activities under Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors-Act of 1899) indicate that in the future an approval of a new dredg-

ing project that will entail subsequent periodic maintenance dredging is to be

deemed an approval of the maintenance dredging as well, subject to certain require-

ments of notification and occasional review.. The State Lands Commission often

will give a-lease of property where maintenance dredging will be required and

specify that no independent approvals need be obtained for subsequent maintenace
dredging. BCDC is also able to give maintenance permits for a fixed, period of

-39-

time., usually conditioned on meeting requirements imposed by other regulatory

agencies, principally the-Regional Board.

It seems inappropriate to review a maintenance project each time

it recurs'in the same depth as was appropriate when the project was first

proposed. Because maintenance activity and its effects can be anticipated,

theyshould be considered when the initial authorization1s given. The

initial authorization or the next maintenance authorization for proj-

ects already in existence) should restrict the work to a specific area and

depth, it should specify the disposal site, and require that the dredging

and disposal be carried out in accord with the criteria in effect when the

work is done. Addressing maintenance in this way would eventually remove

more than half of'the dredging applications from the extensive review

they now receive.

-4o-

CHAPTER 3:11. . COORDMATION EXPERndENT EVALUATION

In addition to preparing an investigatory report, Senate Bill 2418

directed the Resources Agency to establish temporary procedures for centra--!

lized processing of permit applications for -specified dredging projects

within the jurisdiction of BCDC. It was believed that this experiment in

ftone stop shopping" would bring some order to the somewhat complex process

in existeace and speed it up. The merits of such an approach have been

widely discussed, and a number of states, including Washington and Oregon,

have a statewide coordination system. This experiment, however, was not an

effort to establish a per=anent regulatory overhaul, but rather to try out a

number of ideas and processes and decide whether permanent reform of some

type was In order. The projects to be coordinated were limited exclusively

to maintenance dredging or new dredging of 100,000 cubic yards or less within

a twelve month period.

Operations of the.Coordination Experiment

Because observations made of the various agencies' activities are a

major source of information for this re port, a d escription of the experiment

should prove helpful. The following key elements were established:

1. A central office through which applicants and agencies

could direct their inquiries., document6.,.and decisions.

2. A simplified application process that.required only one

standard-application-form.

A staff whose role was, Limited to DroIviding assistance

rather-than making substantive decisions.

4. Time limits for agency actions.

5. Screening of applications for completion before transmittal

to the agencies.

6. Each agency's internal procedures remained unchanged.

7. A brochure describing how to prepare,the standard

application and pursue it to completion.

Administrative regulations detailing operations adopted

into the California Administrative Code to guide the

coordination process.

Technical details of the coordination process can best be understood by

reading the administrative regulations, information brochure, and application

form. These. documents are to be-found in Appendices E., F,, and G. Appendix H

contains elapsed time records for the processing of all applications:received

by the Coordinator-

The "Permit Coordinator, a central receiving and distribution center for

application and,permit materials,. is made up of certain BCDC staff members

specifically employed to carry.out these functions. The Coordinator's first

formal function is to review applications for completeness. Incomplete appli-

cations must be returned to the applicant for additions or correct-ions. only

fifteen per cent of the-appli cations have been complete when initially submitted.-

..It has'tak,en applicants an averaIge ofthirty-@i:iiee days to'-supply the materials

necessary for the Coordinator,to'deem the application complete and transmit it

to.the permitting and,commenting agencies.for further reviev,

:Delays in this :screening:ste'p, due to minor deficiencies in applications,

sometimes occur because the-Coordinator has no authority to.waive requirements

-ina given case unless anagency has previously indicated that information

-42-

usually required is unnecessary for a particular application. For example,

the Coordinator has no way of knowing during the initial screening if an

agency already has any applicable information on file. Some agencies and

applicants complained that holding applications until they are entirely

complete for all agencies delays those agencies for whom adequate informa-

tion already exists.

Applicants and agencies have had differing opinions as'to whether or

not the initial screening of applications has speeded up the process. Experi-

enced applicants reacted somewhat negatively because preliminary agency contacts

are still required.., and all information previously required is still necessary.

In effectl a new layer is added to the regulatory system. Even these applicants,

however, often submitted.incomplete or inadequate applications. Inexperienced

applicants found that a great deal.of time and effort was savedbecause it

could be determined in advance with which agencies preliminary contact is'

necessary, what types of information are required, and how applications are

to be filled out. Application screening and the transmittal of complete

.application materials in a standard format to all agencies has reduced the

.agencies' need.to@contact applicants and each other for information.

After receiving an application package from the Coordinator, each agency

has fourteen days to make an independent determination of completeness of the

submitted materials. If the package is complete, the Coordinator is so

nptified. Incompleteness At this,stage is usually the result of a substantive

problem with the application materials.. Thirty percent of the applications

forwarded by,the Coordinator were found incomplete by the agencies. Although

the coordination staff was familiar witheach agency's requirements.,itwas

found that contact between the applicant and the agency was still necessary

-43-

to determine specific requirements. It was also found that each agency's

substantive review of application materials was not replaced by the Coor-

dinator's review. Applicants who discussed their projects with both permit-

ting and commenting agencies before@ submitting any materials,, generally

submitted better applications, which moved through the initial review steps

more quickly.

Thus far., no agency has consistently notified the Coordinator of its

determination of. completeness within the fourteen day time limit. The

Coordinator has spent a significant amount of time and energy remind ng

agencies of time limits on specific applications.

When an agency reports that an application is incomplete, the Coordinator,

not the agency, requests the additional information. This procedureensures

that all agencies have identical information, but it can sometimes be an

impediment because a direct request from the agency to the applicant might

be quicker (Table V provides a summary of response time).

When--and if--an application is determined to be complete by the

agencies or after fourteen,days, whichever happens first,,.the application

is deemed filed and all permitting and.commenting agencies begin processing.

Under Senate Bill 2418, commenting agencies are given sixty days from the

date of filing to submit comments for consideration by the permit granting

agencies.' ,Permit granting agencies retain the2x previous time limits but

must report on an application's status within the same sixty days.

Notice of' alL decis ions status reports, or comments are given. to the

Coordinator. Agenciesl,' adherence to specified.time limits has been erratic.

.,In additionl.d3*@fficulties,.principaLl@,.due-.to staff inexperience with the

procedures or confusion over which projedts are coordinated, have sometimes

short-circuited well intended efforts.
-44-

TABLE V

AVERJ4GE PROCESSING TIMES
(Figures are the average number of days for all applications
completing each step to date. Figures in parenthesis indi-
cate the number of applications on which the data is based.)

Determination of
Application, r A,l+h rization
Completeness Preparation or Denial Total
14 days allowed) (6 days allowed) (60 days allowed (ll Time
Days Day., Days Days
Agency Hours1/ Elapsed2/ Hours1/ Elapsed/2 Elapsed.?/i _21al3sed

STATE

San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission 1(10) 7(21) --- 6(10) 30(15) 7 3
Regional Water quality Control
Board 3(9) 1.5(19) --- --- 9(9) 5080-1) 12 65
State Lands Commission 2(10) 13(20) ---
Commenting roll --- --- 3(3) 23(10) 4 36
Permittingro" 44(l) 163(l) 49 176
Department of Fish and Game 2(10) 17(18) 3(9) 49(15) --- --- 5 66
Resources Age acy - 43(13) 43

FEDERAL

United States Fish and
Wildlife Service 1(10) 10649) 1(10) 17(16) --- --- 1 27
National Marine Fisheries
Service 1(10) 6V21) 1(10) 25(15) 1 32
Environmental Protection
Agency 2(10) 12(17 6(10 46(12) 8 58
Corps of Engineers 2(8)8y 14(20 - - 8(8) 94(13.).Z/ .10 108
Eqaurs-figure calculated an average of hourly time specified for each project by the agency at the c=_
elusion of processing the application. This data Is only available for applications an which all processing
is completed and for which agency questionnaires have been returned.
Days Elapsed -average of calendar days1ppsed.as recorded by the Permit Coordinator... This data is availm
able for every application that has the various steps completed.
Corps of E easing occurs partly out-
the cineers data has been calculated in a different manner since this proc
aide oordination system. It represents the average of elapsed days between the Coordinator notifying
all agencies of an.application being deemed filed and the issuance of the Corpsl.permit.

-45-

The existence of special procedures for a limited number of applications

creates.some c onfusion among the agencies. They have difficulty keeping track

of which applications are being coordinated and which are,not.

Agency personnel have said that certain aspects of the coordination effort

have been especially valuable., even though calendar days for processing have

not been.reduced.. In addition to the appUcation screening,, agencies indicated

the monthly status sheet-prepared by the Coordinator and phone calls from the

Coordinator to remind. them of impending deadlines were helpful in scheduling

their regulation activities.

Evaluation of the Coordination Experiment

To date, twenty-two applications have used'the coordination procedures@

and eleven have been completed. This small number of applications, occurring
in the early stages of an experiment,, may not allow the collected data to

fully reflect the capabilities of this type of system.

Any analysis of centralized processing must be.tempered by the limited

nature of the projects coordinated. during this experiment. It is limited to

small.nev dredging and all maint.enance dredging, and excluded all projects

.,that were not exclusively.dredging. The.coordinated projects are basically

those undertaken,by-large operators seeking periodic maintenance permits.

n-
Most one-time, Iler projects... such as. [email protected] who -..wishes to: put i a-
-sma3

small boat dock or dredge at asmall marina while replacingsome pilingS,

or.dredging which i a. part of a larger.project,. are.not comingto the._.,.

:Coordinator..

0 -be tion
Adefinitive. evaluation..'f the nefits of the perm coordina

experiment is difficult. It is not-possible to estimatewhether total

processing times are significantly reduced, nor,is it possible to estimate
-46-

if some applications would have taken longer without coordination,

particularly because pre-coordination data is not comparable. There

was also an initial period of confusion and uncertainty whi:le procedures

were being formalized and while all the participants were attempting to

understand and adjust to the new system. Finally, since this was above

all an experiment., the Coordinator strictly followed all processing

reqttirements in order to establish some 11control" basis. During the

period of coordination activity many agency improvements were made, some

probably as a result of the spotlight that the study put on the agencies.

Personnel became more adept at their own procedures as well as those of

other agencies.

Table V shows the average number of calendar days it has taken for

all applications to date,to go through various stages of the permit process.

The data is taken.from, the Coordinator's records of transmittal and receibt

dates for the documents circulated. (Appendix H breaks down this data for

each application filed.) It also shows the number of person hours expended

in actual review. This data istaken.from, questionnaires returned by

each agency's staff at the, conclusion of the processing of each application.
Relatively few hours of working time were required to process these

applications, but several days were expended in moving applications.from

one step to. another. Some of this time was clerical time,-transmittal time,

either internally or through the mails, notice periods, or other unavoidable

delays. It appears that in,many cases decisions could be made-quicker and

delays reduced. if there were clear agency policy statements andadministrative

regulations. We recommend that this guidance should be provided by all

.agencies.
-47-

A problem that occurs during the final review stage of the coordination

process is the timing of agencies,with respect to each other's processing.

Ideally, commenting agencies should submit their-comments early enough to be

helpful to the permitting agencies in reaching their decisions--this has not

always been done. Fish and Game, the only State commenting agency involved in

this experiment, has generally submitted its written comments after BCDC and

the Regional Water Quality Control Board have completed their permit reviews.

Other State agencies that respond to the Corps' Public Notices are also too

late. The Corps.Notice usually has a comment period of thirty days. Notices

are published only after an application has been submitted to the Corps and

certain preliminary reviews completed. Because applications are not always

submitted simultaneously to the Corps and State permitting agencies, and

because of the length of the Corps preliminary reviews, Public Notices are

generally issued'after State. permit agencies have completed their review. At

this stage, the comments are useful only to the sole Federal permitter, the

Corps. Improved timing, which would allow State permit agencies time to

consider other State and Federal agencies' comme*nts,*could be accomplished

by a joint (Corps-State) PublicNotice issued as soon.as applications are received.

-Latecomments arealso a.source of delay. According to the Corps staff,
the composite State comments. submitted through the Resources Agency averaged

four weeks late during.the first six months of 1975. State-.comments on dredg-

ing applications coordinated in this experiment averaged forty-three daysi
thirteen days longer than the Public Notice comment period. Agency comments

during the coordination experiment were to be submitted to the Coordinator

within sixty days.. Review of the records in Appendix H reveals that in spite of

the.specia.1 efforts ofthis experiment there were ten late comments affecting

-48-

seven of fifteen applications. Because of this experience., it is recommended

that not only should there-be clear time limits, but that there should also be

sanctions that will assure compliance..

The nature of the applicant affects-an evaluation of benefits of the

.experiment. Of the twenty-two applications submitted to the Coordinator, all

but four were for what might be termed "experienced." applicants. These include

the government (City of Richmond and the State of California), major ports

(Oakland and San Francisco)., major corporations (Standard Oil, Construction

Aggregates Corporation, Levin Metals, Smith-Rice, Basalt Rock, Shellmaker,

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Benicia Port Terminal Company, and Moe.

Sand Company), or parties represented by knowledgeable consultants (Merritt

Ship Repair and Marina Vista). For these applicants, few significant benefits

resulted from the coor dination effort other than perhaps the imposition of time

limits on the agencies. These applicants are all capable of dealing with the

various agencies and understanding the requirements for obtaining permits.

Some evaluation of the coordination system can be made on the basis of

cost-benefit considerations. The cost of maintaining a Coordinator (including'

clerical support and opera ting expenses) for all dredging.applic.ations is about

20,000.00 per year. For those few applicants (perhaps four so far) who seem

to benefit greatly, this expense may be unwarranted. Agencies, however, also

benefit; the staffs of some. agencies haveindicated that dealing with coor-

dinated applications saved a great deal of effort for them. Presumably., then,

the Coordinator is increasing the work capacities of those,agencies.

Applicants generally felt that the Coordinator should have greater authority

to be effective. Such authority might include-the actual, power to issue.per-nits

on behalf of State agencies and to enforce time limits, perhaps by barring sub-

sequent agency actions.
_49-

A Coordinator might prove more useful and beneficial if the range of

projects coordinated and the Coordinator's authority were substantially

increased. These powers are not recommended in this report. Such authority

would require major restructuring of enabling legislation and it would require

a new agency-or at least a much greater staff of specialists at an existing

agency. Making these changes for the limited number of dredging applications

is.not wise.

The belief of many observers and participants in the regulatory system

that a rigid, formal coordination s-kstem is the answer to time delays is

probably a mistaken one. At least the experiment does not bear out this

belief. A principal observation made during the coordination experiment is

that the major delays in the processing of permits are from the internal

operating procedures of the individual'agencies and the cluttering of the

process with projects that shou Id not be so extensively reviewed. The major

delays are not from conflicts or difficulties between agencies and applicants

or among agencies which.might be solved by better coordination.

Other forms of coordination activity, such as joint public notices,

unified hearings, a standard application form and the information,service,
are beneficial. These features can be retained without the personnel and

operations necessary to run the coordination system. Therefore, although

the coordination experiment@has been beneficial-to.the study and.ha's

encouraged improved application processing, it does not appear to be

justified to be.continued ona permanent basis. Because some' systematic,

.cooperation among agencies,would result in a.saving of time and effort for

agencies and applicants, and in better use of co=ents, some coordination is

warranted. Creation of a new bureaucracy is not the solution. Experience

-50-

with the State of Washington's statewide "permit coordination" has resulted

in adding more time and one more agency to the application process. (See

Appendix I for a detailed discussion of the coordination efforts of other

states.)

The solution should be capable of being applied statewide. Agency-

staffs from the regional offices of State agencies indicate there are

similar problems, but that these problems and their solutions have regional

variations. For example, the number.of agencies, the resource concerns,

and the decision-making criteria vary from region to region. It is there-

fore recommended that the proper approach should have regional tailoring

coupled with statewide consistency.

We recommend that a statewide agency be designated to.establish statewide

consistency for improved application processing. This "supervising agency"

would designate the "principal agencies" at the regional level, provide them

with advice and assistance, and oversee the implementation of all recommenda-

tions assigned to it. Two existing State agencies.are -well suited to perform

these supervisory functions. These are the Resources Agency and the Governor's

Office of Planning and Research. Although both have many attributes, we

recommend the.Resources Agency, since it already has most of the agencies

concerned with dredging within its administration.

The "principal agency should be an existing regional regulatory agency
'with broad concerns and, if possible, with landuse concerns. Where such
exists, an agency approved under the Federal- Coastal Zone.M-ana
gement Act should
be given prime consideration, because these
agencies can compel Federal compli-
ance with their plan and permit decisions.

-51-

It would be the responsibility of this agency to develop common application

materials, to assist applicants in understanding application materials and pro-

cedures, to develop joint processing procedures, to circulate joint comment

requests among State and Federal agencies, to collect State agency comments,

add provide a unified response to the Corps of Engineers (except for comments

made under the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or vhen there are

statewide concerns), and to enforce established State agency time limits.

Imposing these functions on an existing agency should require minimal

additional personnel.

-52-

CHAPTER IV. RECOMMATION LMPLENENTATION

The preceding chapters of this report analyzed the regulatory procedures

undertaken in reviewing dredging projects in the State of California, with an

emphasis on the Bay Area. In general, agencies.successfully regulate dredging

activities in the Bay Area in keeping with their legal mandates. A few prob-

lems have been noted, the causes of them have been discussed, and general

recommendations for remedying the specific problems have been made. These

remedies can be applied statewide (with regional variations in specific

criteria) and, for the most part, can be enacted administratively. *This

chapter develops the recommendations in greater detail.

The recommendations are based on the belief that the government must

continue to regulate dredging in a comprehensive and cautious manner in order

to protect vital resources and provide a healthy environment. This belief,

however, incl udes the strong feeling that government has a related responsi-

bility to respond to dredging applicants in a timely, consistent, and reasonable

manner.. Delay and caution are not synonymous.

'The implementation structure is directed at those agencies and laws involved

in theregulation of dredging: The BCDC, the State Lands Commission, the State

Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the

State Department-of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Com-

mission and its successor agency, the Reclamation Board, the California Tahoe

Regional Planning Agency, the State Resources Agency, and any other State

agen
cies commenting on dredging.applications., the United States'Army Corps

of Engineers, the-United States Fish.and Wildlife Service, the National Marine

Fisheries Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the organic laws under

-53-

which they exercise their authority, and the National Environmental Protection

Act, the California Environmental (;@uality Act, and the Coastal Zone Management

Act of 1972.

M6st of these recommendations, which are summarized in Table VI, can be

carried out by the agencies themselves;,the few which require legislative

action are adoption of a policy res'olution concerning application processing,

adoption of a resolution calling for cooperation among Federal ag@ncies, adop-

tion of compulsory time limits, and finally, the holding of oversight hearings

to determine the effectiveness of these recommendations. These recommendations

should be understood to apply to those agencies' permitting and commenting

actions involving dredging only. Approximately thirty such applications were

submitted during 1975 in the Bay Area. They are not intended to apply to a

project.which involves activities other than dredging.

Formalization of Policies and Procedure-s

I. Each agency regulating dredging should adopt regulations into

the California Administrative Code to formalize the procedures

used in the processing of applications or comments on applica-

tions. These regulations should.include all administrative

policies capable of being made into general rules other than

those specifically designated for discretionary determination.

They should include at least the following:

A. The criteria to be applied in differentiating between

matters to be handled administratively and those requir-

ing submission to the agency's policy-making body (if

Such a body exists).

-54-'

TABLE VI

SMMRY OF RECOMbXNDATIONS

Page Number of Page Number of
Recommendation Implementation Body Recommendation Support Text

I. Adopt Administrative Regulations to
guide procedures Agencies 54 27, 32, 34-38, 47, 50
3:1. Adopt policies to guide decision-making Agencies 56 27-32, 47, 50
111. Impose time limits to compel timely
processing 56 19-26
A. & C. Permitting Agencies Resources Agency & Agencies 57 21-26
B. - Regional Water Quality Control
Board Legislature 58 21
D. Commenting Agencies Resources Agency & Agencies 59 16-17, 22-24, 26, 48-49
IV. Clarify California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines regarding maintenance
and small new dredging Resources Agency 60 34-35
V. Authorize long-term approvals for
maintenance dredging Agencies 61. 39-40, 50
VI. Interagency Relations 61 50-52
A. Designate "Supervising Agency" Governor 62 51
1. Designate Principal agencies Supervising Agency 51
2. Provide statevide guidance Supervising Agency 51
3. Annual progress report to
Governor and Legislature Supervising Agency
B. "Principal Agency" 62 52
1. Provide information Principal Agency 43-44, 52
2. Prefiling discussions Principal Agency 17, 43-44, 52
3. Receive applications Principal Agency 42-43, 52
4. Issue joint public notice Principal. Agency & Corps A-17, 48, 52
5. Hold joint hearings. Agencies & Corps 18-19, 52
6. Prepare standard application
forms Agencies & Corps- 18-52
7. Define terms Agencies
8. Coordinate appropriate-
Principal Agency
applications.
9. Enforce time limits Principal Agency 52
@10. State position on permits Governor 52
VII. Declaration of State policy Governor & Legislature 64 24
VIII. Review budget and staff requirements 65 126-a7, 49
A. Staff changes Resources Agency & Agencies 26-27
B. Additional personnel for Fish and
and Game Resources Agency & Legislature 26-27
Alter notice requirements for State Water Resources Control Board
waste discharge require- & Regional Water quality Control
ments. Board 65 16
X. oversight hearings Legislature 66
XI. Federal Agency Action Governor & Legislature 66 2.1-15P 25,27-32

-55-

B. Provisions for handling insignificant or emergency

matters.

C. Time limits for the performance of specific functions.

D. Requirements for completing, tiling, and processing an

application.

E. Procedures for the solicitation of comm nts, circulation

of notices, conduction of hearings, and issuance of permit

dociim nts.

F. Appeal mechanisms and procedures.

Each of the regulatory agencies now has the authority to promulgate

regulations and should do so by December 31, 1976.

II. Each of these agencies should similarly formally adopt substantive

policies and standards to establish *the criteria for decision-

making. They should be.referred to in rendering permit decisions

or in preparing comments on a project in order to clarify the

basis for the decision. These policies should include a clear

description of the agency's concerns, the relevant factors to

be considered in evaluating a project,-and the manner in which
those factors are@to be applied in the evaluation. They should

be adopted only afterthe opportunity for public hearing and

comment. Policies should be in enough detail to guide day-to-

day decision-making. In particular, key phrases such as-

ff
significant water quality effect:s,."'"significant concentrations,

and the like should be defined. Fish and wildlife policies on

environmental impact, mitigation, anddisposal criteria should

describe the nature and scope of these policies and how they

-56-

are to be carried out. Resource policies of statewide

importance should be developed in conjunction with the

State Resources Agency. These policies should be estab-

lished by December 31, 1976.

TTI. Time limits should be imposed on all permitting and commenting

agencies to require the processing of applications and sub-

mission of comments within a reasonable period of time. If the

time limit is not met, the application should be granted or the

opportunity for commenting should be lost. BCDC currently has

a ninety day time limit that compels action or automatically

issues permits and has proven very workable for both applicants

and the agency. Recommendations now before the Legislature for

a permanent Coastal Commission recommend such time limits.

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.has experienced some

difficulty with its time limit and provision for automatic

approval. The bi-state compact under which the, agency acts

requires a dual majority,'i.e., a majority vote from both

the California and Nevada representatives. Courts have held

that in lacking a dual majority the Agency has failed to-act,

neither approving nor disapproving the application. A failure

to act within sixty days, such as by failing to reach a dual

majority, results in automatic approval of applications. This

procedural difficulty is unique to the Tahoe Regional Planning

Agency and should not affect the other agencies.

-57-

Time limits on co=ents generally are established by the

permitting agencies, but these time limits are not con-

cu.rrent and there-are no sanctions to encourage a speedy

response.

A. The Resources Agency, within the limits of its

authority, should adopt time Limits for all

permitting activities relating to dredging

carried out by the Department of Fish and Game@

the Board of Reclamation, the California Tahoe

Regional Planning Agency, the BCDC,the State

Lands Commission, and for certification activities

of the State Water Resources Control Board. These

time limits should adhere to the standards listed

in paragraph "C."

B. The Legislature should amend Section i3264(a) of the

Porter-Cologne Act to reduce the existing time. limit

for applications for waste discharge requirements for

dredging projects from one hundred.and twenty days to

ninety days and.to.adhere to the standards listed in

paragraph "C.11 (This time -limit is,made solely to

expedite action on dredging applications. It is

recognized, however, that special time limits apply-

ing only to dredging applications may not be-appropriate

since the agencies.regulate numerous. other activities.)

C. For State P rmitting.Agen
e cies:

Final action shall not be taken until the deadline

for comment receipt is passed but shal I occur within
-58-

ninety days from date of filing complete application

materials. The determination that an application is

complete should be made by each permitting agency. An

agency may consider an application incomplete because of

pending litigation concerning the project, or the need-

to prepare an environmental document.

2. Failure to act within that time should result in that

agency's permit being automatically issued. (The State

Lands Commission, as a property owner, should be exempt

from the sanction-of automatic approval.)

3. Extensions of time limits should be available only when

the applicant agrees.
4. In most cases, agencies s@ould be able to act well

before the deadline. State agencies should establish

criteria. for minor projects for which review should be

completed as a.general rule in.specified periods of

less than ninety days. Emergency applications should

be processed immediately. These refinements should be

prepared by affected agencies and approved*by the

Resources Agency.

D. The Resources Agency should adopt time limitstor all State

agencies commenting on.dredging applications eitherto other

State agencies or to Federal agencies. These limits should

adhere to the following standards:

1. Comments on applications should be submitted within

thirty days from the date the request for comments

is issued.

-59-

2. Failure to co=ent within that time should constitute

a statement of "no comment" and prevent the agency

from co=enting at a later date unless:

a. -A time extension was granted prior to the

expiration of the deadline by the principal

agency (explained below) based on acceptable

reasons; or

b. If the time limit is exceeded, the commenting

agencyls director.determines that more time

is needed or that subsequent.comments are

necessary because of a significant change

in the project, the receipt of new informa-

tion, or.a.clear oversight., The director must

state why additional time is necessary. The

-principal agency shouid not grant an extension

unless the allotted time was demonstrably inadequate.

3. MultiPle comment&-by any State agency.on a given project

application should, so far as is practical, be consistent,

and the submission of inconsistent comments should require

the agency's director to specify why there are discrepancies..

IV. Although environmental documents are usually not a significant problem

with respect to-dredging because: of their infreque nt preparation, clari-

fication of some aspects of the California Environmental Quality Act

Guidelines concerning.dredging-would eliminate some uncertainty

regarding categorical exemptions.. The Resources Agency is currently

revising the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and.

-60-

should specify ne v dredging of 10,000 cubic yards or less within

a twelve month period and maintenance dredging as an example of

an existing class of categorical exemption. This exemption would

allow the revocation of the exemption for projects requested for

specific locations or where cumulative impacts of related projects

may cause a significant impact on the environment.

V. All aspects of an agency's concerns, including anticipated

maintenance dredging, should be considered in the initial

evaluation of a.project. "This should include long-term

authorizations for maintenance or other periodically

recurring activities (not to be construed to imply a

vested right to continue a project indefinitely) subject

to conformance with any subsequently-adopted policies.

Authorizations should be subject to necessary condition

such as periodic reevaluation, consistency with existing

disposal policies, and submittal of long-term disposal

plans by the applicant. Expeditious staff review of

maintenance projects and sediment contamination levels

could be made without repeating lengthy notice periods,

holding public hearings, or undertaking other procedures.

appropriate to new activities.

Interagency Relations

Chapter III of this report evaluate..s the dred.ging,application coordination

experiment that was conducted by BCDC. The experiment suggests,that full formal

coordination of dredging applications is not advisable, but that some form of

cooperative effort is necessary.

VI. It is recommended that the responsibilities for ensuring

statewide consistency and cooperative efforts at the

regional level be carried out within the'frame-work of

existing State agencies.

A. A "supervising agency" having statewide jurisdiction

over agencies that regulate dredging should be-designated

by the Governor. It is recommended that the Resources

Agency be so designated., 'although other agencies may be

considered as well.

The responsibilities of this-agency with respect to

dredging would be to:

1. Designate "principal agencies" in appropriate regions,

when in the judgment of the supervising agency, a

principal agency is needed to carry out, and manage

their assigned responsibilities.

2. Provide guidance and information to all affected

agencies in order to assist them in carrying out

the recom=nd&tivns of th;Ls, istudy,,- including. the

establishment of administrative procedures, policies,

and time limits by December 31, 1976.

3.- Annually report to the Governor and the.Legislature

for a period of three years on the progress in carry-

ing out these recommendations.

B. A series afregional agencies--"principal agencies"--should

be.designated by the supervising agency, where appropriateP

to serve as the focal point of State and Federal dredging

permit activities undertaken within the region. The agency

designated should be an existing permit granting agency with

broad concerns. An approved Coastal Zone Management Agency

would be preferable because Section 306 of the Coastal Zone

Management Act provides that Federal actions must be con-

sistent with the management agency's plan. In the Bay

Area we believe BCDC should be designated as the "principal

agency."

The responsibilities for the "principal agency," as

determined by the "supervising agency," should include

the following:

1. Provide applicants with information on all required

State and Federal authorizations and copies of the

necessary forms.

2. Encourage applicants to speak with-or write to each

involved agency prior to submitting an application.

3. Receive applications prior to their submission to

any other agency.

4. Participate in the issuance of a Public Notice jointly

with the Corps of Engineers to solicit agency and public

comments.on behalf of all State and Federal agencies.

5. Coordinate joint public hearings with the Corps and

among the State agencies when necessary and appropriate..

@6. Draft.and adoptan application form or forms acceptable

to all State agencies.

-63-

7. Particip ate with other State agencies in defining

through regulation the terms "major," "minor,"
@'insignificant," and "emergency" projects.

8. Inform the "supervising agency" of instances.where

it determines it should not be the "principal agency"

so that an alternative designation can be made.

9. Enforce time limits and extend commenting time limits

for cause.

10. Serve as the agency responsible for "a single State

position" for all dredging activities requiring a

Department of the Army permit under Section 404 of

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Section

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This

responsibility would require collecting comments,

attempting to resolve conflicting State comments,

and submitting to the Resources Agency unresolvable

conflicts in-comments. Department of Fish and Game

comments submitted under the.Fish-and Wildlife

Coordination.Act should continue.to,be transmitted

to the Corps of Engineers in their entirety.

Residual:Implementation Elements

A number of other steps should be taken to ensure the proper implementation,

of the-recommendations'at -the, State and local level.

VII. It is recommended that State policy make it clear that-all State

@.agencies are to process dredging permit applications%and comment

requests as expeditiously as possible without jeopardizing natural

-64-

resources or environmental controls, that all State agencies

are to abide by establis hed time limits, that the time limits

are to be considered maximum limits rather than a normal

operating goal and that, whenever possible, State agencies

shall consider project applications concurrently. This policy

could be expressed in the form of a directive from the Governor

and/or a Legislative resolution.

VIII. Adequate funds and personnel must be provided so that time limits

for processing can be met and the recommended regulations, policies,

and procedural changes called for can be adopted and implemented

by December 31, 1976.

A. Staff changes that might be necessary to implement

these recommendations, if any, should be minor

because many of the rec'6mmendations are.anticipated

to reduce agency workloads.

B. The Department of Fish.and Game regional staffs, in

particular, should be provided with sufficient personnel

to respond to comment requests within the recommended

time limits.

IX.. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the-.State Water

Resources Control Board are required to publish notices of,

proposed waste discharge requirements and certifications of

conformance in a newspaper. It is therefore recommended that

this.reouirement be revised to allow all the Boards the

flexibility of-participating in joint notices with the

-65-

Corps of-Engineers without having to duplicate the notice

in a newspaper.

X. It is recommended that the Legislature review progress in

improving the processing.of dredging applications byholding

oversight hearings during early 1977. These hearings could

assess the status and effect of the recommendations in this

,report, and explore the need for any additional legislation.

Federal Agency Action

A major portion of the regulatory activity that surrounds dredging

involves Federal agencies, principally the Corps of Engineers, the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service,, the National Marine Fisheries Service,

and the Environmental Protection Agency.. Many of the problems that State

agencies have also occur,for Federal agencies.

XI. It is recommended that the Legislature ado@t a joint

resolution-endorsing Federal-State cooperation in the

regulation of dredging and urging the Federal Gover=ent

to.take certain steps -with respect to Federal agencies

that are:similar to those recommended for State agencies.

This resolution could request:

A. A declaration of Federal poliqk that all Federal

agencies involved in the regulation of.dredging

are to act as expeditiously as possible without

jeopardizing natural.resources or. environmental

controls.

-66-

B. Imposition of time limits for application processing

and comment preparation. (This is particularly crucial

for submission of comments and resolution of conflicts

under.the Fish and Wildlife-Coordination Act.)

C. Cooperation by Federal agencies with appropriate State

agencies in developing mutually acceptable regulatory

policies.including procedures and standards for evaluating

dredging and disposal plans.

D. Participation in joint public notices and public hearings,

and standard application fo=s.

E. Federal agencies to Advise State permit granting agencies

of any,"overriding national factors of the public interest"

or other Federal concerns that should be considered in making

State level decisions.

F. Authorization for State agencies to carry out Federal review
functions'with respect to dredgingwhen State policies and

procedures are at least as stringent as the corresponding

Federal policies and procedures.

G. Expansion.of the use of the "Letter of Permission" form.

of approval by the Corps of Engineers for projects that

are insignificant or where no issues of special signifi-

cance to the Federal Government exist and the projects

have been subject.to an extensive State regulatory program.

H.. Development by the Corps of Engineers of a "General Permit".

under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act for all.maintenance dredging.

-67-

Conclusion

These are the recommendations that the BCDC as the study agency proposes.

Some require State legislative action. Most can be implemented immediately

by the regulatory agencies themselves without legislative action. Change is

always difficult, but the pressures today are strong for a change in exces-

sive and unnecessary regulations. If the changes are made haphazardly, the

results will be unpredictable and possibly harmful to the environment we all

want to protect. The approach proposed here,will simplify the regulatory
maze and speed application processing without undue disruption of the affected
agencies' other activities*or jeopardizing the critical protection of natural

resources.

-68-

APPENDIX A

SENATE BILL NO. 2418, CHAPTER 1274,

AND

INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT

2q0

Senate Bill No.2416

CHAPTER 1274

an act to add Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 160) to Division
1.5 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, relating to dredging, and
making an appropriation therefor.

[Approved by Governor September 23, 1974. Filed with
Secretary of State September 23, 1974]

The people of the State of Clifornia do enact as follows:

Section 1. Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 160) is added
to Division 1.5 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, to read:

Chapter 5. Dredging

160. The Legislature recognizes that the orderly and efficient processing of dredging permits is essential to the movement
of the waterway commerce of the state, as well as the use of our recreational waterways and marinas, and that the present procedures
often include frequent long delays in processing such pennits. It is the intent of the Legislature to coordinate and expedite processing
of dredging permit applications through state agencies and to encourage cooperation with federal agencies, to the extent permitted
by law. It is also the intent of the Legislature to study and establish an interim procedure for processin applications
in that area described in Government code Section 66610 for maintenance dredging of any amount or new dredging of 100,00
cubic yards or less within a 12-month period. It is also the intent of the Legislature that the Resources Agency shall coordinate
the permitting procedures of any state agency required or permitted by law to review such applications, shall assure that
such agencies respond within a reasonable time on a particular application, shall cooperate with federal review agencies in
expediting applications through such agencies, and shall report to the Legislature concerning the future processing of dredging
permits through state agencies, the manpower needs of such agencies relative to the efficient processing of permits, the
establishment of administrative procedures and regulations necessary for the orderly processing of permits, and the
future relationship between state and federal agencies relative to the review of such permits.
161. The Resources Agency shall be the state coordinating agency for all applications for permission to conduct maintenance
dredging in the area described in Government Code Section 66610 of any amount or new dredging of 100,000 cubic yards or less
within a 12-month period made to any state agency required or permitted by law to review such applications. Applicants for
such permission shall apply pursuant to the procedures established by the Resources Agency and in accordance with the provisions
of this chapter and shall not apply to other state agencies.
162. The Resources Agency shall adopt a standard application form containing requests for all information needed by
state or local agencies required or permitted to review the application. The agency may revise or amend the form when necessary
and may adopt any administrative rules, regulations, or time constraints it deems necessary for administration of the provisions
of this chapter.
163. The Resources Agency in cooperation with all other state and local agencies shall publish, within 90 days of the
effective date of this chapter, a procedural guide for dredging permit applications, including the standard application
form, instructions, and rules and regulations concerning the processing of such permits.
164. Applicants shall apply to the Resources Agency for permission to dredge, as defined in this chapter. Within
10 days of the receipt of the application, including evidence of procurement of approval from any person or agency having
real estate interst, including the right to extract minerals, and including filing fees equivalent to the filing fee established
by each agency, the Resources Agency shall forward copies of the application and other necessary materials to all state agencies
having permit jurisdiction or review responsibilities. The Resources Agency shall at such time notify the applicant that
his application has been received and forwarded to the portinent state agencies.
165. Upon receipt of the copy of the application and other necessary materials, each affected agency shall within a
reasonable time, as established by the Resources Agency, advise the coordinating agency if the application as received is
complete. If each affected agency advises the Resources Agency that the application is complete, the Resources Agency shall
so notify the applican in writing. If any such state agency advises that the application is incomplete, the Resources Agency
shall notify the applicant as to what additional information is needed, and require the applicant to take such action as
may be necessary to make the application complete within a reaonable time.
166. Upon receipt of the copy of the complete application and other necessary materials, each affected state agency having
no time limit for reporting its decision shall review it pursuant to its established procedures, except that it shall report
its decision, findings, or recommendations to the Resources Agency not later than 60 days following receipt of the complete
application. If the affected agency has a period within which to report, the agency shall report the current status of the
application within the agency not later than 60 days following receipt of the complete application. The Resources Agency shall
at such time notify the applicant of any decision, findings, or recommendations, or the status or the permit.
167. If an affected agency does not respond within the 60 days, or within the time specifed by law, it shall be deemed
to have no comment on the application. If it does respond and if it has make a decision regarding the applicaiton, it shall
submit a statement setting forth reasons for the decision.
168. The Resources Agency shall compile the decisions, reports, and findings of the affected state and local agencies
from which such material has been received. If any agency having legal authority to deny the permit has properly denied
the permit, the permit shall be declared denied. if the permit is properly granted or denied, the Resources Agency shall
within 10 days forward its report containing all comments received and a summary to the applicant and to the Corps of Engineers.
169. The Resources Agency shall report to the Legislature its evaluation of the permit procedures authorized by this
chapter on or before February 1, 1976. This report shall identify problems in permitting procedures, make recommendations
concerning ways to expedite the process, and advise the Legislature on the feasibility of a statewide application of the new
procedures.
170. This chapter shall not be operative after July 1, 1976.
Sec.2. The sum of twenty-seven thousand dollars ($27,000)is hereby appropriated from the General Fund to the Resources
Agency for the costs of administering this act.

A-1

INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT NUMBER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 30-026
STO. 13 (REV. 3-71)

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into ths 1st day of November, 1974 Distribution:
by and between the undersigned State Agencies:
(Set forth services,materials, or equipment to be furnished, or work to Agency providing services
performed, and by whom, time for performance including the terms, date of Agency receiving services
completion, and provision for payment per 1280 and 8760-9760.2 SAM.) Department or General Services
(unless exempt from DGS approval)
Controller

Scope of Agreement

The SAn Francisco Bay conservation and Development Commission agrees to perform the
mandated by passage of Senate Bill 2418 on behalf of the Rsources Agency. This mandate includes
the establishment of a temporary coordination procedure for the processing of applications for
permission from State agencies for certain dredging activities within BCDC's jurisdiction, and
the preparation of a report evaluating the permit processing procedures with the specific purpose
of recommending measures applicable statewide which will expedite the processing of applications and
make the regulations and procedures more efficient.

The attached syllabus, entitled Attachment A, Implementation of Senate Bill 2418 (to be
conducted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission for the State Resources Agency), describing the backgroud,
funding, scope, and time schedule for this study is hereby incorporated into and made an integral part of this Agreement.

All work performed by BCDC under this Agreement Shall take place in the City and County of
San Francisco and in such other counties in California as may be necessary.

The term of this Agreement is from the date of its approval by the Department of General Services to June 30, 1976.

(cont'd on page 2)

_________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________
NAME OF STATE AGENCY NAME OF STATE AGENCY

Resources Agency San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
_________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________
CALLED ABOVE (Short Name) CALLED ABOVE (Short Name)

Resources BCDC
_________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

_________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
TITLE TITLE

Deputy Secretary for Resources CHARLES R. ROBERTS Executive Director
_________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________

(Continued on 2 sheets which are hereby attached and made FUND General
a part hereof)
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES APPROVAL AMOUNT OF THIS ESTIMATE APPROPRIATION
$27,000 (30-5 81800 30.00)
UNENCUMBERED BALANCE ITEM CHAPTER STATUTES FISCAL YEAR
None 1274 1974 74/75
ADJ INCREASING ECUMBERANCE FUNCTION
San Francisco Bay Conservaton and
Development Commission Dredging Permit
ADJ DECREASING ECUMBERANCE LINE ITEM ALLOTMENT
Contract--San Francisco Bay
Conservation & Development Commission
I hereby certify uponmy own personal knowledge that budgeted funds TBA NUMBER BR NUMBER
are available for this ecumberance.

SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER DATE

I hereby certify that all renditions for exemption set forth in State Administrative Manual Section have
been complied with and this document is exempt is not exempt from review by the Department of Finance.

SIGNATURE OFFICER SIGNING ON BEHALG OF AGENCY DATE

San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2011
San Francisco, California 94102
Page 2

(Cont'd from page 1)

BCDC shall take the steps necessary to be adequately prepared for the commencement of
the coordinating function required by this act, including hiring of personnel, and securing

office space and equipment. The expenditure of BCDC's funds for preparation shall be included
in the total expenditure for services provided under this Agreement, but shall not exceed the
payments listed below.

Reimbursement

The total amount payable under this Agreement shall not exceed EIGHT-ONE THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($81,000) and shall be payable to BCDC in advance according to the following
schedule:

Amount Date Event
$27,000 January 1, 1975 Effective date of the Act
$54,000 July 1, 1975 Commencement of FY 1975-1976

The amount payable to BCDC on July 1, 1975, is contingent on appropriations in the
FY 1975-1976 Resources budget. BCDC shall provide full justification for the necessary
funds.

The Resources Agency agrees to pay to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission the amount outlined in the above schedule, upon submission of invoices, in tripli-
cate, for each payment. Each invoice shall include BCDC's complete name and address, the
Agreement number, the amount of the invoice, a brief statement as to the nature of the
invoice, and the original signature of a BCDC official or officer on each of the three
copies of the invoice.

Delegation

The attached letter, Attachment B, dated October 11, 1974, from Norman B. Livermore,
Secretary for Resources, to BCDC Chairman William D. Evers delegating the work mandated by
passage of Senate Bill 2418 to BCDC is also hereby incorporated into and made an integral
part of this Agreement.

Resolution

The attached extract and certfied copy of minutes of the October 17, 1974, San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission meeting, Attachment C, authorizing the execution
of this Agreement by the Executive Director on behalf of the Commission is also hereby incor-
porated into and made an integral part of this Agreement.

Approvals

This Agreement is subject to the approvals of the Departments of Finance, and General
Services.

(Cont'd on page 3)
A-3

San Francisco Bay Conservationn
and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2011
San Francisco, California 94102
Page 3

(Cont'd from page 2)

The Resources Agency agrees to pay the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission the cost of performance hereunder and to pay in advance $27,000.00 on January 1,
1975 and $54,000.00 (or the amount appropriated in the Resources Agency Budget for this
work) on July 1, 1975. It is agreed between the parties hereto that upon completicn of the
services hereunder, the actual cost of rendering said services shall be computed in accordance
with the provisions of Section 8760 of the State Administrative Manual and said payment
adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Article 1, Chapter 3, Part 1, Division 3,
Title 2, Government Code.

A-4

STATE OF CALIFORNIA RONALD REAGAN, Governm
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
VAN NESS AVENUE
FRANCISCO, CAUFORNIA 94102
IWONE: 50-3686
MELVIN L LANE ATTACHMENT A
ChWnnan
WILLIAM D. EVW IMPIEKEMTION OF SENATE BtLL 2418
to be Conducted by the
JOSEPH L UMVITZ SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND D EVE LopmENT CO M SSION
Evocuff" Off% for the
STATE RESOURCES A(ENCY

Background

Senate Bill 2418 passed by the California Legislature and signed into law
by the Governor requires that the Resources Agency (a) establish a temporary
procedure which will coordinate and expedite all applications.to State agencies
for permission to conduct certain dredging activities within the area of the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission's jurisdiction, and,
to the extent permitted by law, to@encourage the cooperation of Federal agencies
in these matters; and (b) report to the Legislature on or before February 1,
1976, on the future processing-of dredging permits by State agencies. This
report should (1) identify problems in permitting procedures; (2) make recom-
mendations concerning efficient ways to expedite the process; (3) describe the
manpower needs for the efficient processing of permit applications; (4) propose
administrative procedures and regulations to I lement the recommendations;
IMP
(5) discuss the future relationship between 'State and Federal agencies relative
to the review of such permit applications;. and (6) advise the Legislature on
the feasibility of applying the new procedures statewide.

Funding

@enate Bill 2418 appropriated 07,000.00 to the Resources Agency for the
cost of.administering the act during the remainder of FY 1974-1975. An additional
$54,000-00 is to be included in the Resources Agency Budget for FY.1975-1976.
The Resources Agency will provide the entire $81,000.00 to BCDC.for the
lementation of the Act. Justification for the cost of admini.stering the Act
is attached to this syllabus.

Scope of Work

The purpose of the interim coordination procedure and report is to test and
evaluate the concept of a lead agency or clearing house approach to the process-
ing of a common application for dredging permits from involved State agenci Ies.
The report is to be on permit processing procedures with the specific purpose
of recomm nding measures which will. expedite the, processing:,of permit applications
and make the, regulation procedures more efficient. BCDC will be responsible for
taking.the necessary steps to ensure the intent of the Act.is fully implemented
within a reasonable time after the Act becomes effective.

A-5

ATTACHMENT A
DeLEMMTION OF S]MTE BILL 2418
Page 2

Time Schedule

Preparatory work should begin as soon as possible after the Interagency
Agreement between the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
and the State Resources Agency is approved so the necessary procedures and regu-
lations can be drafted, the required personnel can be recruited, and a common
application form can be prepared so that the coordination activities can com-
mence as soon as reasonable after January 1., 1975. The report shall be presented'
to the Legislature by February 1, 1976., and efforts necessary to the implementa-
tion of its recommendations be provided until Jul;y:l, 1976, the date the pro-
visions.of Senate.Bill 2418 are no longer operative.

A-6
October 18, i974

ATTACMENT A
IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 2418
page 3

BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF
SENATE BILL 2418 (SENATOR MARKS)

PERSONNEL SERVICES 18 Month Cost

I Associate, Technical (15,048 x 1-5) $ 22,572

1 Assistant, Technical (12,372 x 1.5) 18,558
1 Intermediate Clerk (6,456 x 1.5) 9,1684

Total Salaries $ 50,814

Benefits- (13%) 6,606

Total Salaries $57,420

OPERATING EXPENSES AND EQUIPMENT

General Expense (equipment rental,
paper and envelopes, miscellaneous
office supplies, reproduction,
books and publications, legal
advertizing, etc.) $5,500

Communications (postage and
telephone) 3,500

Travel-in-State (car pool, travel
expenses, etc.) 1,000

Facilities operation (rent) 2,500

Consultant and Professional Services
(personnel services, accounting
services, business services,
biological consultant, engineer-
ing consultant). 6,500
Printing Final Report 4,000

Total operating Expenses $ 23,000

Grand Total $ 80,420

A-7

NORMAN B. LIVERMORE, JR RONALD REAGAN OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY
SECRETARY GOVERNOR OF RESOURCES BUILDING
CALIFORNIA 1416 NINTH STREET
95814

Department of Conservation Air Resources Board
Department of Fish and Game Colorado River Board
Department of Navigation and San Francisco Bav Conservation and
on Development Development Commission
Department of Parks and Recreation Solid Waste Management /Board
Department of Water Resources State Lands Commission
State Reclamation Board
State Water Resources Control Board
Regional Water Quality Control Boards
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CAL1FORNIA
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
OCT 11,1974

Mr. William D. Evers, Chairman
Bay Conservation and Development
Commission
Transamerica Building
600 Montgomery Street, 21st Floor
San Francisco, California 94111

Dear Mr. Evers:

On September 23, 1974, Governor Reagan signed into law Senate
Bill 2418 requiring the Resources Agency (a) to establish an
interim procedure which will coordinate and expedite all appli-
cations to State agencies for permission to conduct certain
dredging activities within the area of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission's jurisdiction, and, to
the extent permitted by law, to encourage the cooperation of
federal agencies in these matters; and (b) to report to the
Legislature on or before February 1, 1976, on the future processing
of dredging permits by State agencies. This report should (1)
identify problems in permitting procedures; (2) make recommen-
dations concerning efficient ways to expedite the process; (3)
describe the manpower needs for the efficient processing of permit
applications; (4) propose administrative procedures and regula-
tions to implement the recommendations; (5) propose the future
relation between State and Federal agencies relative to the
review of such permit applications; and (6) advise the Legislature
on the feasibility of applying the new procedures statewide.

I hereby delegate BCDC to carry out the provisions of this law
on behalf of the Resources Agency. Please prepare an intra-agency
agreement for this work for the budgeted amount of $81,000. An
appropriation of $27,000 is provided in the bill as an augmenta-
tion to BDCD's current budget. The additional $54,000 required
to complete the study will be included in the Resources Agency's
budget for FY 1975-76. BCDC will be expected to provide the
justification for these funds.

sincerely yours,

N. B. Livermore, Jr.
cc: See attached sheet

A-8

OCT f 1974
Mr. Will.6am D. Evers 2

cc: Verne Orr, Director, Department of Finance
Attn: Richard Bayquen
State lands Commission
Attn: Edward N. Gladish
G.Ray Arnett, Director, Department of.Fish and Game
Attn:- Jack Fraser, Region III
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Col. Henry A. Flertzheim,, Jr.
John R. Teerink, Director, Department of Water Resources
Senator Milton Marks
Anthony J. Taormina, Senate Select Committee on the
Maritime Industry

A-9

STATE OF CALIFORNIA RONALD REAGAN, Governor
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
30 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
PHONE: 557-3686

ATTACHMENT C

EXTRACT COPY OF MINUTES OF SAN
FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING
OF OCTOBER 17, 1974

12. New Business. Chairman Evers said Senate Bill 2418 (Marks),
designating BCDC as the lead agency in coordinating permit applications
for certain dredging projects, has been passed by the Legislature and
signed by the Governor. He said L. Thomas Tobin, BCDC Staff Engineer,
is here today to request the Commission to approve a resolution authoriz-
ing the Executive Director to enter into an Interagency Agreement With the
Resources Agency on behalf of the Commission in this regard.

Mr. Tobin said as previously announced, Senate Bill 2418 was passed
by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. He indicated that
the bill directs the Resources Agency to establish a lead agency to coordinate
the processing of certain dredging applications, in addition to preparing a
report on future administrative procedures which will expedite permit pro-
cessing on a permanent basis.

He said Secretary Livermore has delegated this work to BCDC and has
requested that an Interagency Agreement be drawn. He said the staff requests
that the Commission adopt a resolution authorizing the Executive Director on
behalf of the Commission to enter into such an agreement.

MOTION: Commissioner McCorquodale moved that the Commission, acting
through its Executive Director, be authorized to enter into an Interagency
Agreement with the State Resources Agency to perform, on behalf of the State
Resources Agency, the work mandated by passage of Senate Bill 2418 and that
the term of this agreement will commence on the date all approvals are
obtained until June 30, 1976, and shall provide approximately $81,000 to
BCDC for compensation, seconded by Commissioner Cuneo. The motion was
unanimously approved.

C E R T I F I C A T E

I hereby certify that the above is a true extract copy of the pertinent
section of this Commission's minutes of October 17, 1974.

CHARLES R ROBERTS

A-10 Executive Director

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPNENT COMMISSION
30 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco.94102 557 - 3686

January 24, 1975

TO: 'All Commissioners and Alternates
FROM: Charles R. Roberts., Executive Director

SUBJECT: APPROACH TO IMPLEMETATION OF SENATE BILL 2418 (MARKS)
(For Commission-consideration on February 6, 1975)

The regulation of dredging is typical of many kinds of governmental regulation
in the Bay. Autonomous Federal and State agencies, created to regulate activities
that are sometimes independent and sometimes overlapping under often unrelated legis-
lation, have created a complex system characterized by lengthy and often complicated
procedures requiring considerable effort on the part of both agencies and applinants.
In an effort to simplify some of these procedures without sacrificing essentia.L
environmental safeguards, the Legislature last year passed Senate Bill 2418, the
Marks 'dredging bill. This legislation calls on the Resources Agency to establish
temporary procedures for coordinating and expediting applications to State agencies
for certain kinds of dredging within BCDC jurisdiction. The law also encourages
the participation of Federal agencies in the process to the extent permitted by law.
The culmination of this effort will be a report under the auspices of the Resources
Agency to the Legislature containing recommendations on the processing of permit
applications based on the Commission's experience with the temporary coordination
procedure.

The Secretary for Resources., by inter-agency agreement, has delegatedto BCDC
all Resources Agency responsibilities under SB 2418, and through this analysis of
current regulatory procedures, and the relation between Federal and State agencies,
the Commission has,a unique opportunity to take the lead in proposing needed improve-
ments in existing procedures. Furthermore, although dredging is a limited activity.
and San Francisco Bay is"a limited geographical area., the concepts and procedures
developed and tested in this effort may next be applied to other activities and areas
in the Bay and elsevhere,in California. Moreover, because the.law calls for recom-
mendations on statewide application of these concepts, as well as on State-Federal
regulations, the Commission's work could well have impact nationwide.

The remainder of this.memorandum sets forth the staff's recommended approach
to the responsibilities delegated to the Commission under SB 2418.

1. COORDINATION

The staff proposes to conduct the coordination effort with the minimum
personnel required. Emphasisvil.1 be placed on seeking improved, permanent proce-
dures that will-remain effective after the 18-month temporary c Ioordination period.
ends and testing the value of a single agency being responsible for.coordinationi.
It is estimated that this will require approximately one-half the time of a pro-
fessional staff person until the temporary procedures automatically terminate on
July 1976.

Senate Bill 2418 requires adoption of a standard application form. for
dredging permits. Accordingly, the staff has developed the enclosed standard
application form in consultation with the other agencies involved in regulating
dredging in the Bay Area.

A-11

-2-

The staff recommends that the Commission approve this form with the
understanding that it is a temporary form that will be revised as new information
becomes available or new procedures are suggested.

2. REPORTS AND RECONNEMATIONS

The legislation also calls for the Resources Agency to submit a report
to the Legislature by February 2, 1976, recommending measures to expedite the
processing of dredging permit applications. Pursuant to an inter-agency agree-
ment, BCDC is to prepare the report for the Secretary for Resources. The staff
believes thatevery effort should be made to formulate practical recommendations
that will survive after the temporary procedures set up by SB 2418 expire. The
staff has alread contacted agencies@ groups., and individuals interested in dredg-
ing, in an effort to involve them in the important decisions to be made during the
study.

A detailed background report will be written as the basisfor the findings
and reco=endations,incorporated in the final-report to the Legislature. The back-
ground report will be in two segments. The first segment will address the following
issues:

(a) The need for regulation.of dredging;-
(b) Procedures existing prior to the legislation; and
(c) Powers, overlaps and gaps among the agencies that
regulate or review dredging permit applications.

The second.segment of the background report will focus on:

(a) An evaluation of the on-going temporary coordination
effort; a
(b) Responsible ways to expeditethe permit process;
(c) Personnel and budget req#rements'for the efficient
processing of dredging applications;
(d) Implications of new information about dredging; and.
(e) Environmental impact assessment requirements.

Drafts of both segments of the background report will be reviewed and
discussed with interested'parties,.most importantly the Dredge Advisory Group,
whose membership includes representatives from all agencies involved in regulating
Bay dredging. Revised drafts will be sent to special advisors selected,for this
study. A list of our special advisors is enclosed..

Complete background,:report segments will be condensed.to easily understood
summaries, with proposed findings and recommendations added. These will be given
wide public distribution, with the full report segments being available to interested
members of the public. The staff would recommend-that the Commission then hold public
hearings on each segment-of the report and consider the.proposed findings and.recom-
mendations.

once the Commission has considered and approved both segments of the
background report and.the proposed findings.and recommendations, the information
in the background report., together with the prop6sed.findings and recommendations
will be integrated into a draft of the finalreport to the Legislature. This
draft will be distributed for1review in the same fashion as-the segments of the
background report and then presented to the Commission for consideration and
adoption.

A-1 2

-3-

The staff estimates that preparation of the two segments of the
background report and the preparation of the final report will require one
person working full-time and anotter person working half-time. once complete,
the same effort will be needed until SB 2418 expires in 1976 to follow-up with
the Legislature on the recommendations in the final report.

Staff Reco-nPadation. The staff recommends that the Commission approve
this approach to carrying oUT the Commission's responsibilities under SB 2418.

A-13

ADVISORS ON SENATE BILL 2418 sTuDy

Ronald R. Brill, San Francisco Bay Jack Fraser, Department of Fish and
Area Council; Game;
Frank Goodson, Resources Agency; Robert Langner, California Marine
Richard M. Farrell, Marina and Recreation Affairs and Navigation Conference;
Association; William Leet, Nati.onal Marine Fisheries
William T. Davoren, California Coastal Service;
Zone.Conservation Commission; Senator Milton Marks, Senate,Select
Paul DeFalco, Environmental Protection Committee on Maritime Industry;
Agency; Cmdr. Phillip Parisius, U.S. Navy;
Fred Dierker, San Francisco Bay Regional Dr. R. Ritschard, Save San Francisco Bay;
Water Quality Control Board; Felix Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
@Joseph E. Duda, Dredging Contractors' Service;
Association;
Frank Torkelson, Depaxment of Naviga-
CoL H. A. Flertzheim, Jr., U.S. Army Corps tion and Ocean Development; and
of Engineers; -.-Professor Eugene Lee,
William F. Northrop, State Lands Commission; Institute of Governmental Studies

A-14

APPEMIX B

APPLICATIONS AND PFDJECT@

APPMMIX B APPLICATIONS AND r-ROJECTS

This appendix contains some background information on the type and amount

of dredging done in San Francisco Bay. Between January 1, 1970, and June 1,

1975., BCDC acted on 1P4 applications for dredging permits.. An annual average

of twenty-eight projects accounted for approximately 3.,500,iOOO cubic yards of-

dredging. Federal agencies,accounted for an additional annual average of

6,900,000 cubic yards. Table VII classifies applicants according to their

predominant activity and shows the averageannual number of applicants and

dredging volume. Federal agencies, primarily the Corps of Engineers and Navy,

are also included., although they are not required to apply for BCDC permits.

Sixty percent of the applications.acted on by BCDC were for routine

maintenance activities of the kind that can be expected to recur periodically.

About 50 percent of the applications were for dredging projects of 10.,000 cubic

yards or less. Figure 3 compares the relation between the number of applications

..and the dredge quantity.

TABLE VII

AVERAGE ANNUAL NMVIBM CF AP11LICATIONS
AND
VOLMS OF DREDGING BY ACMITY
(JanuarY 12 19702 to June 1. 1975)

Aalicant Activity Number of Cubic Yards.
Sategory Afp--licatioas of Dredg*

Ports 8 2., ]@.00 2 000

Recreational Facilities 7 5302000

Resource Production 2 68-,ow
(sand, salt., and shells)

Petroleum Facilities 2 250,000

Public Works (flood control, .8 801000
sewage., etc.)

Public Transportation.. 1 430.,000

Sub Total 28 3,458,ooo
2
Federal Agencies

Facilities (_primarily navy) 1,5002000
Navigation. Channels '0 .5.4oo,ooo

Sub Total 6,goo,ooo

TOTALS, 28 109358,000

1. Includes both those who dredge sand and shells, and,those who dredge
channels to facilitate the-production of salt.

2. Me number of.rederal projects comprising these figures was not
estimated.

B-2

MURE 3

Size Classif ication of Dredging Projects 1170 to 6175

113 Applications

20-

E.
. . . . . . . . . .
z ,

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . ....... ..... .
g,

0- 3000- 6000- 10,000- 20,000- 100,000- 200,000- >
2999. 5999 9"9 19,999 99,999 199,999 1,000,000 IGCAO00

Dredging Quantity In Cubic Yards

B-3

AIFIPENDIJZD@' C

r.
LEG-A@L IONS AlTD 7,
T -
IIMPACT

APPENDIX C

LEGAL REGULATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REQUIREMENTS

Dredging is subject to a wide variety of local, State or Federal laws,

ranging from city and county zoning ordinances, to the Federal National Environ-

mental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality ACT, to the Rivers

and Harbors Act of 1899, which gave the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers authority

to require permits for work in the navigable waters of the United States. Laws

that affect dredging Cover a fairly Wide legislative spectrum involving a number

of different agencies. This appendix summarizes the most important legislation

according to type, e.g., land use, navigation, and water quality.

A. Land Use Regulation - Local

Local governments, including some special purpose d1stricts such as ports

or flood control districts, have broad powers to protect the health, safety, and

welfare of their citizens. These powers relate to dredging in two ways. First,

under state law local governments must have general plans to guide land use

decisions; second, local ordinances on zoning and permit requirements may affect

dredging projects. Local governments usually regulate dredging by reviewing

applications for building, grading, drainage, and health permits.

Yet, even though the powerr to directly control dredging exists, many local

governments do not use it. In the Bay Area, the most common reaction among local

governments to a dredging application is indifference. Two major exceptions are

Marin County and the City of Alameda, both of which have fairly stringent ordinances

controlling dredging within their boundaries. The Marin ordinance, "Protection

of Tidal Waterways," Marin County Code, Ch. 22.77, requires a permit for any

C-1

dredging below an elevation of 7.5 feet above Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW).

Environmental considerations are part of the permit Process. Alameda's

ordinance, intended to prevent improperly engineered fills, requires a permit

from the City Council for any dredging or spoils disposal.

B. Land Use Regulation - State

1. State Lands Commission

Under Section 6301 of the Public Resources Code, the State Lands

Commission is trustee for all lands owned by the State or in which the State has

a reserved interest. The State's holdings and interests in tidal and submerged

lands are important because considerable dredging takes place on State lands.

State Lands Commission approval is required for any dredging and or

disposal on State lands. Permits are issued for simple dredging. A more formal

lease is required if royaties may accrue to the State from the dredging and sale

of mineral deposits.

2. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

Under the McAtee-Petris Act, Sections 66601 at seq. of the Goveernment

Code, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission has jurisdiction

over the water areas of San Francisco Bay, a 1000-foot-wide strip of shoreline, and

certain other areas. It also issues administrative regulations, 14 Cal. Adm. 0.

Sec. 10110, et seq. Under the McAteer-Petris Act, the regulations, and the San

Francisco Bay Plan, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

permits are required to place fill, extract materials (including dredging), or to make

any substantial change in the use of any water, land or structure within the

geographical jurisdiction of the Commission.

3. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission

Under Sections 27000-27302 of the California Public Resources Code,

the Commissions (Central and Regional) exercise jurisdiction over dredging or

C-2

disposal of dredged spoils within the "permit area" of the "coastal zone,"

including all areas seaward of the limit of the State's jurisdiction and

1,000 yards inland from the mean high tide line.

A Permit must be obtained from the appropriate Regional Coastal

Commission whenever dredging or disposal operations are to be conducted within

the Commission's jurisdiction. Section 27405(b) of the Public Resources Code,

however, specifically exempts maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels

and the transportation of dredged materials to disposal areas outside the Com-

mission jurisdiction if done pursuant to an Army Corps of Engineers permit.

4. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, an interstate compact

adopted by the States of California, Cal. Gov. C. Sec. 66800, et seq., and Nevada,

Nev. Rev. Stats. 227.190, et sec., and approved by Congress (Pub. L. 91-148;

83 Stats. 360 (1969)), the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has jurisdiction over

use of land and water areas in the Tahoe Basin. It is empowered to adopt and

enforce a regional plan of resource conservation and orderly development, to

exercise effective controls, and to perform other essential

functions. This plan is known as the Tahoe Regional Plan. The Tahoe Regional

Planning Agency is also empowered to adopt all necessary ordinances, rules,

regulations, and policies to effectuate the plan. The Shoreline Ordinance

(Ordinance No.6) requires that a permit be approved by the agency before any

dredging or filling takes place within the shoreline or water.

5. California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Under Section 67000, et seq., of the California Government Code, the

California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has jurisdiction over use of land and

water areas lying within the State of California in the Tahoe Basin. The California

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's Regional Plan includes the goals and policies of

C-3

the agency. A Land Use Ordinance describes allowable land uses and the type of

projects which require approva1 of the agency. The California Tahoe Regional

Planning Agency has authority to require approval of all projects, including

dredging, that are considered substantial.

6. State Reclamation Board (Board) and Reclamation Districts

Under Section 8710 of the California Water Code, activities-including

dredging-that might alter or affect any levee, canal, or embankment in or near

the Sacramento or San Joaquin Rivers or their tributaries and overflow basins

must first be approved by the Board. The basis for the limited geographical

jurisdiction of the Board is apparently historical, being the product of particular

needs at the turn of the century, including problems arising from placer gold

By regulation, whenever the locattion of these activities also happens

to occur within the jurisdiction of a levee maintenance, irrigation or reclamation

district a prior approval must be obtained from the governing board of that

district before the Board approval wil1 be given, 23 Cal. Adm. C. Sec. 18

Projects undertaken by districts themselves which are within the jurisdiction of

the Board also require Board permits.

C. Land Use Regulations - Federal

1. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

If either the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission plan

for management of the coast or the Bay Conservation and Development Commission

Bay Plan is approved by the Secretary of Commerce under the Coastal Zone

Management Act of 1972, a project certification for dredging within the State's

coastal waters will be required. The Act provides Federal funding for initial

development and permanent administration of Coastal Zone Management plans meeting

Federally set standards.

Under Section 307 of the Act, certification of compliance with State

Coastal Management plans is required before any Federal permit may be issued.

C-4

for activities affecting land or water uses within a State's coastal zone.

Even Federal agencies must conduct their activities in a manner that is con

sistent with the plan to the maximum extentpracticable.

2. Navigation Regulations

The earliest basis for regulation of dredging is the Commerce

clause of the U. S. Constitution, which gives Congress plenary power to regulate

interstate commerce. Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Hezbars Act of 1899,

33 U.S.C. 403, Congress delegated authority to the Corsa Engineers over dredina,

filling, and other national concens in navigabel waters of the United States,

including San Francisco Bay. The Phrase "navigable waters" under the law

been intereted by the courts so that the Courts now considers waters navigable they

are, have been in past, a may be in the Luture, susceptable I for use for purpose

interstate or foreing comerce. Once a body of awter is deemed navigable

extends latrally over the entire surface of the body water, regardiess of depth.

In the Bay Area, San Francisco District of the Corps of Engineers has asserted

jursdicticn over all tidal areas below the plan of Mean Higher High Water and all

u2N I I ed areas behind di.ks below Mean 4Hi crher Hig'a Water.

D. water quality Regulation

The impact a dredging and spoils disposal on water quality is among the
L

most iimortant concerns or State and Federal regulations govening dredging.

1. PoterColozne Water Quality Control Act

n as
under the California Water Code, priarily those provisions 1movi

water Quality Control Act CP1 . Water C. Sec. 81"000 7 et se0.
the Porte Cologne Wal

enacted 2i8n 189 867 , Ihe State estalished the State Water Resources Control and

and nine Regional Water 32Oaal 2iLl28y Contra, Boards. The. eoraon4 c,.81

jurisdiction a the none Regional Boards covers the entire State, including all

coastal waters. Any person proposing to discharge materials that could effect the
quality of State water is required to file an application for approval by the
appropriate Regional Board.The State Board supervises the Regional Boards and
hears appeals on their decisions.
As will be subsequently discussed, the State program has also been
approved by the Environmental protection Agency under Section 402 of the Federal
Water Pollution Act. The Regional Water Quality Board's provide
the necessary information on water quality impacts of projects to the State Water
Resources Control Board, which then certifies to the Corps unnder Section 401 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that all standards have been met.
2. Federal Water Pollution Act of 1972
Most existing Federal legislation relating to water quality dates
from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.,
which gave the major Federal responsibility for water quality to the Environmental
Protection Agency, but also provided for delegation of major regulatory respon-
sibilities to the states.
Section 401 of the federal pollution Control Act requires any
applicant for a Federal permit to discharge into navigable waters to obtain
certification from the state that the activity will comply with applicable provisions
of the Act. If this is not done with a reasonable period of time (which shall not
exceed one year), the certification requirement is waived.
Under Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Act, any
State with a Environmental Protection Agency-approved to control disposal
into "navigable waters" becomes the permit-granting agency under the Federal Act.
The Environmental protection Agency Administrator retains the authority to object
to permit appprovals on a case-by-case basis only. California has an approved
program administered by the Regional Water Control Board and State Water
Resources Control Board under the Porter-Cologne Act, Cal Water C. Sec. 13000, et seq.

C-6

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act gives the Corps

of Engineers permit authority over the dispoal of dredge and fill material into

"navigable waters" at specified disposal sites using guidelines developed by Environ-

mental Protection Agency. Until recently, the Corps interpreted "navigable waters"

under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to be the same as "navigable waters"

under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which had been6the basis for Corps permit

regulations for 75 years. However, the Federal District Court in the District of

Columbia recently held that Congress meant the term "navigable waters" in the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act to include "the waters of the United States

including the territorial seas711 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Cal8laT@,iay? 7 E.R.C.

1784, (D.C.D.C. March 27, 1975), a much broader interpretation than that

previously used. "Navigable waters" now includes virtually all waters of the United

States whether presently navigable or not, and whether natural or artificial.

On July 25, 19757 in response to the Callaway opinion the Corps published

"interim final" regulations for the disposal of dredcre and fill materials, 40 Fed.

Reg. 31321. These regulations significantly expand Corps jurisdiction over that

previously exercised in most of the United States. Although they do not appear to

affect Corps permitting activities within San Francisco Bay the new regulations, which

11 be implemented in stages over a two-year period, extend Corps jurisdiction to all

coastall waters, inland navigable waters and their tributaries, interstate waters,

intrastate waters involved in interstate recreationalt agricultural, or commercial

production activities, and all coastal and inland wetlands.

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act also the

Environmental Protection Agency to develop guidelines for the disposal of dredge

U ished as "interim final" regulations
spoils. These entative guidelines is also pub U

in the Federal Register on September 5, 1971 4O Fed. Reg. 41292, leave a great many

central, questions unanswered.

For example, the proposed regulations indicate that, standards to be

applied are those "applicable by law" but there is no indication as to whether these

C-7

laws are to be state or federally established, or which agencies may be responsible
for administering them. In the past the guidelines most widely used by
agencies concerned with dredging regulation were those established in-house
by the San Francisco office (Region IX) of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The tentative regulations leave the Corps' district engineers with
apparently unlimited discretion to determine when tests to evaluate physical,
chemical, or biological critera are to be used.policies of spoils disposal
sites are stated only in general terms. Without specific guidance from the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Agencies are uncertain of what pollution criteria should be
applied in evaluating proposals for aquatic disposal.
3. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
Passage of the Federal Water Pollution Act in 1972, governing
coastal and inland waters,was accomanied by passage of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1401, et seq., known also as the
"Ocean Dumping Act". Under thsi legislation, the Environmental Protecion Agency was
given the power to regulate the dumping of material, including dreging material. into
the ocean waters through a process similar to that specified in Section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. The Corps now issues permits to transport dredged material
to specified sites in the ocean under the Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and
subject to environmental Protection Agency veto.

E. marine and Terrestrial Animal Life Regulation
1. California Department of Fish and Game

Acting under authority of the California Constitution, Article IV,
Section 20, and under the Fish and Game Code, the California Department of Fish
and Game has primary responsibility for the protection of the fish and wildlife
resources of the State of California. Section 5650(f) makes it "unlawful"
to ".. permit to pass into...the watersd of this state...any substance or material
deleterious to fish, plant life, or bird life." Dredging projects that may affect
fish or wildlife resources are reviewed by the agency.

C-8

Under Fish and Game Code Section 5652, permits from the Department

are required for suction dredging in rivers, lakes, and streams. This section

has not been applied within Bay Conservation and Development Commission jurisdiction or

other coas tal areas but is ap plied in inland waters, principally Sierra streams where

gold mining isundertaken.

'Department dredging approval is also required under the I's-treambed

alteration" provisions of the code, Sections 1600, et seq. These sections apply

to any "river, stream, or lake designated by the Department," and apply within the

Bay Conservation and Development Commission's jurisdiction to some rivers and creeks.

The Department serves primarily in a commenting role for dredging

projects in the Bay Area. The Department comments on @11 applications for Bay Con-

servation and DevelopmentCommission, State Lands Commission, and Regional Water Quality

Control Board permits, on all Corps permits under the Federal Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act, and on all related environmental documents prepared under the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the California Environmental Quality

Act of 1970.

These authorizations ensure, at least four opportunities to comment

on every dredging project undertaken in the San Francisco Bay area. The regulatory

functions of the Department of Fish and Game vary with the project location. In

San Francisco Bay and other coastal waters, only commenting authority exists.

In rivers, lakes, and streams, other provisions of the code apply and permitting

authority then exists.

2. Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661,

et seq., requires the Corps to consult with the U.S. Fish a-rid Wildlife Service

and the head of the appropriate state agency concerned with Tivildlife'resources

before issuing a permit to dredge or fill. Pursuant to the Act, the Secretary

C-9

of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior have written a Memorandum of

Understanding 40 Fed. Reg. 17023, pledging mutual cooperation and binding the

Corps to consider fish and wildlife conservation, pollution, aesthetics, ecology,

and the general public interest, as well as navigation, in acting on permits.

This agreement has provided substantial environmental information for the

Corps, but applicants and regulatory personnel claim that it has also given fish and

wildlife agencies a de facto veto over projects. A provision of the

agreement requires a decision at the secretarial level on any project to which an

Interior Department agency (in particular, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

objects. Therefore, an applicant for a Corps permit must alter a project to meet

all such objections or be prepared to wait until the dispute is resolved in Washington,

which can take as long as a year or more.

The National Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce,

which is concerned with the "marine, estuarine, and anadromous resources" of the

nation, has played a regulation role similar to that of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

In 1970, National Marine Fisheries Service was transferred from the Department

of Interior to the Commerce Department and it no longer falls within the provisions

of the Coordination Act or the Corps-Interior memorandum of understanding. Legislation

is currently pending in Congress to restore official authority to National Marine

Fisheries Service.

F. Environmental Impact Requirements

Both Federal and State laws require regulatoryagencies to assess the

environmental impact of proposed dredging projects. The National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., requires the preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement when proposed legislation or other Federal actions may significantly

affect the human environment. The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,

Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq., established a similar procedure,

requiring State agencies to issue one of three evaluations of proposed projects:

C-10

(1) categorical exemption for a project meeting criteria set forth in California

Environmental Qua 3-ity Act guidelines; (2) a negative declaration stating that the
project will not likely have significant environmental effects; or (3) an Environmental
Impact Report for non-exempt actions potentially having a significant environmental---
effect.. Although there are certain differences between the contents of an Environmental.

Impact Statement and an Environmental Impact Report, current statutory requirements

and guidelines for their preparation make the two documents virtually interchangeable.
California Environmental Quality Act guidelines reqaire that the Enviromental

Impact Report be prepared by the "lead.agend7l" that is, "the public agency which

has the principal responsibility for preparing environmental documents and for

carryiIng out a project which-may have a significant effect on the environment." This

agency determines which evaluation will be made. If the project involves more

than one agency, State Environmental Impact Report guidelines explain how to

determine which agency is considered "lead." If a jurisdictionall dispute arises

between agencies, the Office of Planning and Research makes a designation. Thus-

far, no such dispute has occurred.

For dredging projects, full environmental evaluation is usually under-

taken only when disposal in wetlands might occur. The Bay Conservation and Development

Commission and the Department of Fish and Game have determined that maintenance

dredging and small.new dredging projects are generally categorically exempt under

California Environmental Quality Act. Exempt projec ts avoid All California Environ-

mental Quality Act requirements, including lead agency determination and the cost

and time of preparing, circulating, and acting on environmental documents. Certain

State agencies, principally Regional Water Quality Control-Board's? are able to

avoid preparing Environmental Impact Reports because California Environmental

Quality Act guidelines also exempt the entire reviewing procedures of agencies
authorized to protect natural resources and/or the environment. The State Attorn ey

General's Office has questioned the validity of this exemption. Senate Bi-11 707

(Nejedly), recently paszed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, allows

C-11

qualifying agencies to avoid preparing Environmental Impact Reports because their

normal review procedures are equivalent to California Environmental Quality Act

requirements.

The bill has just become effective but its benefits are as yet unknown.

When an exempt agency has to act as a lead agency, it must still prepare an environ-

mental document and go through a circulation process that may prove comparable to

that of an Environmental Impact Report. Some State agencies, such as the Bav Conser-

vation and Development Commission, act as a lead agency so infrequently that the time-

consuming California Environmental Quality Act processes are not a great problem

for them. In addition, SB 707 applies only to State agencies. According to a

just released study by the California Assembly Local Government Committee, less

than 10 percent of all Environmental Impact Reports are prepared by State agencies;

the remainder are prepared by cities and counties. Finally, agencies certified

under SB 707 will have the additional requirement of mandating all feasible

mitigation of environmentally harmful projects, a requirement that the State courts
.
have suggested may already exist under California Environmental Quality Act. See

Friends of Mammoth v. Mono Count , 8 Cal. 3d 247 (1972) and Berger v. Mendocino,

45 Cal. APP 3d 322 (1975).

For applicants, the major problem posed by environmental impact

requirements is the amount of time and money involved in preparing and circulating

environmental documents, including negative declarations. Environmental Impact

Reports must generally be circulated among the various public agencies concerned

for 45 days (a period that can be lengthened or shortened as circumstances require)

and negative declarations for 30 days, usually with no variation allowed. The

review process itself, however, is beneficial and probably indispensable for projects

with a significant impact. A broad examination of environmental considerations,

one that goes beyond immediate economic concerns, is necessary for the full

evaluation of a project, and any well-designed, properly proposed project will

undoubtedly survive environmental review.

C-12

Although the environmental impacts of individual dredging projects are

probably slight, their eventual, combined effect may be more substantial than

is currently recognized. Environmental evaluation of dredging, therefore, might

best be done on a cumulative basis, taking into account all dredging within a

given area during a given time period and the total impact of projects req =*=*ig

maintenance dredging. This approach is legally acceptable under both the Nationa-L

.Environmental Policy-Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. The San

Francisco District. of the Corps is currently completing acomposite Environmental

Impact Statement to evaluate the combined effects of all Federal dredging projects

in the San Francisco Bay system. A recent Federal court decision concerning

dredging indicated that failure to evaluate the cumulative environmental impact

of related types of projects may result in violation of National Environmental

Policy Act, Natural Resources Devense Council v. Callaway, No- 75-704S

(September 9, 1975)., The California Environmental Quality Act requires the

preparation of a single Divironmental Impact Report to cover long-term impacts

of a single project, but it allows the submizsion of an Environmental Impact

Report evaluating the combined,impact of sim:Llar independent projects.

C-13

APPENDIX D

AGE14CY PROCEDURES

APPENDIK D AGENCY PROCEDURES

The preceding appendix summarized the legislative bases for the regu-

lation of dredging. This appendix describes the ways in which the-various

regulatory agencies perform their functions. Some knowledge of these.

functionsis necessary to understanding the problems of the regulatory

process and evaluating of our recommendations.

Figures through 7 show the jurisdictional boundaries for the

agencies that regulate dredging in California. They serve both as a

reference for the discussion in this appendix and as an illustration of

the geographical complexity of the existing regulatory scheme. Each agency

was established independently, and its geographical jurisdiction is based

either on the-location of the resources it regulates, e.g., BCDC and RWqCB,

or administrative convenience,, e.g., the Department of Fish and Game. The

BCDC is the sole agency that operates only in the Bay Area. Figure 2, included

in the Introduction shows the jurisdictional boundaries for the agencies that

regulate dredging in the Bay Area.

Interagency Relations

Many of the laws and proce dures on dredging require a substantial

amount of formal interagency activity, and more can be expected as more

legislation goes, on the@books. At the same time, informal interagency activity

plays an important role in the regulatory process.

For example, in many cases agencies will informally choose not to

exercise,their legal jurisdiction over certain aspects of a project because

another agency has more direct responsibility or greater expertise. A

D-1

number of ageucies rely on the BCDC Bay Plan and the Regional Water quality

Control Board's (RWQCB) Basin Plan to guide them in certain kinds of decisions.

Many agencies also look to local general plans for guidance on the acceptability

of projects. The State Lands Commission (SLC), although primarily responsible.

for State-owned property, is also concerned with the environmental quality of

the waters that flow over its holdings. Lacking the in-house expertise to

make the evaluations independently, however, it has instead looked to the agencies

with primary responsibility in those areas.

To minimize conflicts between applicants and agencies and to ensure

that applicants fulfill all legal requirements, several agencies use condi-

tional permits. An applicant satisfying all the requirements of a permitting

agency may be given a permit contingent on obtaining the approval of one or

more of the other agencies. The SLC, for example, can require that the RWQCB

and the Department of Fish and Game both be satisfied as a condition of obtain-

ing an SLC dredging permit. Although the permit itself is a formal document,

the circumstances of its issuance will vary from case to case..

Within the dredging regulatory system, many problems that might arise

because of conflicting laws and.procedures can be avoided, or at least reduced,

if working cooperation among the different agencies is good-. Consequently,

the personnel of all State and Federal agencies frequently attend meetings,

discuss projects and policies, and generally try to maintain a reasonable

understanding of one another's operations. One example of'an informal, inter-

agency working group is the Dredge Adv isory Group. Organized by the District

Engineer of the San Francisco Corps District, the group holds monthly meetings

attended by members representing the government and the dredging and shipping

industries in the Bay Area.

D-2

Local Government

Most dredging projects do not require formal local approval, but
when local approval is needed procedures vary considerably. Therefore, only

a general description of the local approval process is possible.

Where local approval of a dredging project is required., the local

agency is usually the lead agency for the purposes.of the CEqA and must

supervise the preparation of the required environmental documents. Even if

formal local approval is not required, applicants for BCDC permits must obtain

a "local report," certifying that local approval either has been obtained or

is unnecessary.

Applications for local approval of dredging projects are usually

submitted to a planning agency, such as the city planning.commission, or to

the engineering.depaxtment. This agency will determine if the. project conforms

to local requirements, including the general plan, zoning ordinances, building

codes., environmental regulations, and other relevant regulations. Local

government approval may require action by the City Council or the Board of

Supervisors., although Projects conforming to existing standards can often

be processed administratively. There:are no uniform time constraints for

either the processing of applications or the duration of permits.

State Resources Agency

-The State Resources Agency is involved in the dredging regulatory

process in two major ways. First, the Secretary for Resources at the request

of the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issues statewide guidelines for
implementing the Cd1ifornia Environmental Quality Act-(CEQA), 14 Cal. Adm. C.

-Sec-s. 15000., et,seq. These a:Ld the leaa agenc:Les in determininc., whether a

proposed project -Ls trom detailea-5 environmental assess-

ment. Categorical exemptions can be made relatively quickly. If a project

D-3

is not categorically exempt, then the lead agency must determine whether

or not the project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

A determination that the project is not likely to have significant effect

requires the preparation,, circulation, and certification of a "negative

declaration," which generally takes 30 days. If the project will likely

have a significant effect on the environment (not the case with most d--ed,-,-

ing projects), preparation of an environmental impact report is required

which can take from 6 months to a year.

The Resources Agency also coordinates two types of:'project comments.

First, State agencies forward comments on draft environmental documents to

the Resources Agency where they are collected and transmitted to the lead agency.

Secondly, the Governor has designated the Resources Agency to coordinate official

State comments on Federal projects. The Agency coordinates comments on Corps

Public Notices and Environmental Impact Statements. Upon receipt from the Cc rps
the Public Notice is forwarded b .y the Agency to appropriate State agencies. The-t

comments are then collected, and an effort made to ensure consistent State

responses. In addition to resolving possible conflicts between departments,

the Agency helps to determine what the State policy will be. The Agency directs

the policy orientation of its departments, and on major projects state the

Administration's policy.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)

BCDC regulates dredging, filling, and land use in the Bay and within

.100 feet of the shoreline. Onreceipt, BCDC evaluates an application for a

dredging project for completeness and determines whether the application must

be heard by the Commission or whether it can be processed administratively.

D-LL

Under BCDC regulations, applications for new dredging of less than 100,000

cubic yards in a 12-month period and applications for all maintenance

dredging can be processed administratively. All'other dredging projects

require the preparation of a staff report to the Commission, a Commission

hearing., the preparation of a staff recommendation, and a Commission vote on

the permit application. In both cases, however, the applicant is required

to submit. nearly identical information, and the staff performs nearly identical

evaluations.

Prior to acting on any dredging project,'BCDC is required by the McAteer-

Petris Act to request a RWQCB report and to consider any local report on the

project from any affected local jurisdiction. Application copies must also be

sent to the Corps, State Fish and Game, and the SLC for comment.

If the proposed project is consistent with land,uses designated in

the McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan and if it meets disposal

criteria set by the RWQCB and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), BCDC's

primary concern is to ensure that disposal does not occur in marshes and other

wet@ lands. Disposal in wetlands is prohibited by the McAteer-Petris Act unless

the Commission grants a permit. Bay Plan dredging policies recommend disposal

of spoils on dry land, in approved fill projects, in the ocean,. or as a last

alternative, at designated Bay disposal sites where spoiling will have the

least impact on the Bay.

If BCDC is the lead agency under CEQA, the preparation of an environ-

,mental document will depend on the project. Under Commission regulations,

most dredging projects qualifying,for administrative permits are categorically

exempt, while most projects requiring Commission consideration are. not.

Administrative permits are generally issued in from 2 to 6 weeks,

D-5

depending on Commission meetings and staff work loads. Major permits

require considerably more time, including notice at least 28 days prior

to the public hearing, the preparation of necessary staff reports and

recommendations, and a minimum 2-week interval between the public hearing

and Commission voting. The processing of-applications is described in
detail in the Commission's regulati ons.,.14 Cal.,Adm. C. Secs. 10305, et. seq.

California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission

The California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and its six Regional

Commissions probably has the most uniform, though informal, procedures with

respect to dredging permits of any of the multi-regional State agencies.

Figure 4 shows the jurisdictional boundaries for th6-Regional Commission.

Dredging for non-exempt projects or disposal by any applicant other

than the agencies of the Federal government or their contractors requires a

Coastal Commission permit if.done within Coastal Commissionjurisdiction.

The Regional Commissions are usually informed of such projects in two ways.

Either an applicant directly contacts the Commission specifying the intended

project, or the applicant applies for a Corps of Engineers.permit for the

activity -and the Commission receives notice through the Corps Public Notice.

The Corps has informally agreed not to issue any such permits until Coastal

Commission permits have been obtained.

Applications for dredging or disposal of spoils are treated by the

Regional Coastal Commissions the same as.any other permit application
Applications for dredging projects valued at less than $10,000 are.usually

processed administratively. A permit granted by staff is not.effective

until it has been "ratified" at a Commission meeting. The Executive

Director reports the pending action at the first meeting following the

D-6

AGENCY JURISDICTION
.."..:Regional Coastal Commissions

0 R E G 0 N---
1. North Coast
SISKIY U MODOC 2. North Central Coast
0 3. Central Coast
4. South Central Coast
5. South Coast
1 6. San Diego
0 SHASTA LASSEN I
TRINITY
I Nate: The Coastal Plan has been submitted
to the State Legislature for approval. Until
TEHAMA
S z that time the permit jurisdiction of the Com-
PLUMA@@
I j I missions is 1000 yards from Mean High Tide.
I-0- GLENN SIERRA I
M
Cb
L
0
'0 0PP'o -/7
YOLO
"Oil

7
.y

4AI
CONTRA) MOLUMNE@
TA S
.Cos
NCISC 11@4 I--sip
'SA;N- FRA 0 MONO
TO'
SA Nt Jo
MAT%@ SANTA ,I@
-,CLARA

CRUZ
SANTA

FRESNO

TULARE
MONTEREY ,),,ING I

SAN
LUIS KERN
OBISPO
'Ilk
SAN BERNAOINO

SANTA

LOS
SARBARA 1 1*

ANGELES

RIVERSIOE N

SAN CIEGO IMPERIAL
0 100 200

----------
tP

SCALE IN MILES
Figure 4

1)-7

issuance of the permit.: It then becomes effective unless two commissioners

object and ask that it be scheduled for a public hearing.

Upon receipt of an application requiring Commission approval, a public

notice is prepared describing the nature of the proposed project and giving

the time and place of the public hearing. The hearing must occur between 21

and 90 days after the application is filed. The Regional Commissions must

then.approve or deny a permit within 60 days after the public hearing.

Permits can be granted for several years and conditioned on compliance

with the requirements of other agendies.

Regional Commission decisions are final unless an appeal is filed with

the State Coastal Commission within 10 working days. The State Commission

may affirm,- reverse, or modify a Regional Commission's decision, but its

failure to act on,the appeal within 60 days of filing-, makes the Regional

Ccmmission's.decision final. Under Section 27401 of the Act, where dredging

and alteration of water quality are concerned, the State and Regional Com-

missions require a two-thirds vote of a Commission's membership to grant

permits.. Judicial review must be sought within 60 days after a State or

Regional Commission decision has become.final.

The general statements of purpose and policy in the California Coastal

Zone Conservation Act itself have served as the guidelines for Commission

permit decisions. The Coastal Plan elements adopted by the Commission,

however, cantain'policy statements directed specifically at dredging

operations in Coastal waters. These policies specify the criteria for

dredging approval, including scheduling, necessary sediment analyses, and

disposal site selection factors. Within the next year the California

Legislature must determine the future of this plan and its policies.

D-8

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)

TRPA regulates dredging and filling within the Tahoe Basin. All

applications must first be acted on by the appropriate local government known

as the permit issuing agency." All projects with a value greater than $500

must be approved by a "dual majority." A dual majority means that a majority

of the representatives of one State delegation must agree with a majority of

the other. Courts have held that if a dual majority is not obtained the agency

has not acted. This provision has resulted in automatic approval of projects

under a section of the law which states that ".....(t)he agency shall take

final action, whether to approve,' to require modification or to reject such

proposal, within 60 days after such proposal is delivered to the agency. If

the agency does not take final action within 60 days, the proposal shall be

deemed approved:'- (P.L. @91-i48, 83 Stat- 360, Art. VI, Sec. k). AlJ- applications

must oe acted on by the Board at the monthly.meeting. The only notice requirement

is the mailing of a meeting agenda 5 days before the meeting.

Califorfiia Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (CTRPA)

CTRPA regulates dredging and f ill ing within the California portion of
the Tahoe Basin. The CTRPA Regional Plan provides policy guidance. Y-ai@ers

to be reviewed, application procedures, and decision standards axe described

in the agency's Land Use Ordinance. This Ordinance requires the agency to

act subsequent,to the local agency., but prior to TRPA. Agency staff has 15

days to determine if certain local government permits (which generally do

not require a CTRPA permit) should have a fuller review by the agency. All

matters requiring an agency permit axe acted on by the Governing Board.

Although not mandated by law, the agency generally acts within 60 days after

an application containing adequate information is filed.

D-9

AGENCY JURISDICTION
Regional Water Quality Control Boards
Reclamation Board

1 North Coast Region
2. San Francisco Region
I Central Coast Region
4. Los Angeles Region
5. Central Valley Region
6. Lahontan Region
7. Colorado River Basin Region
8. Santa Ana Region
9. San Diego Region
Reclamation Board approves or disapproves any can-
struction, improvement, or alteration along or near
the banks of the Sacramento or San Joaquin Rivers or

any of their tributaries, or connected therewith, or upon

any land adjacent thereto, or within any of the overflow

basins thereof, or upon any land susceptible to overflow
therefrom. Area generally corresponds to Central

Valley Region.

D-10

State Lands Commission (SLC)

The jurisdiction of the SLC is based on the property interests of

the State. Ia most cases the extent of State holdings is clear, but in

certain areas, particularly tidelands, both boundary lines and the extent

of the State's interest are being litigated.

Dredging approv-als by the SLC include "leases," "land use leases,"

and, "permits." Leases are used exclusively for approval of mineral ex-trac-

tion for commercial purposes@, i.e., mining. A land use lease constitutes

ions as well as
approval of all phases of a project including its operat

the use of the land or minerals. In these cases., since the total nature of

the project is known, any necessary maintenance dredging is approved in the

original authorization for the life of the lease and no subsequent approvals

are required. A dredging permit is given for individual construction

projects. Bids.are not required. Dredge and disposal site s are negotiated

to accommodate the needs of the particular project.

Royalties are demanded by the SLC for any spoils deposited on private

upland areas or for minerals wasted by transportation to'a disposal site

,because in either case the deposits axe effectively lost to the State. A

survey of mineral deposits and a schedule of royalty fees is maintained in

the SLC's Long Beac h office where project applications are reviewed to see

if they concern land interests within the SLC's control,. The initial review

takes one to three weeks., followed @y up to 90 days (plus liberal extensions)

to allow the applicant to reply to a notification asserting SLC jurisdiction.

Practice has allowed "grace periods" for as much as six months. In recent

months, the SLC has also undertaken enforcement of the public trust in

State lands and begun to develop a permit program for ensuring ccmpliance

D- 11

with trust doctrines. Acting on SLCIs behalf, the BCDC enforces the

public trust within its area of jurisdiction.

Within two weeks of submission of a complete application for a

dredging permit@, a "calendar item" is prepared by the State Lands Division,

the administrative arm of the SLC, and sent to the Commission requesting

issuance. The Commission meets only once a month, and it may be as long

as four weeks before the Commission considers the application. Within

one week of Commission approval, dredging permits are issued.

The processing period is lengthened in two ways if a lease is

required.. First, negotiations over royalties can add two to three months

to processing time before the SLC even acts. Second, -'gith competitive

bidding an additional nine weeks may be needed after Commission approval

of the st aff recommendation. This includes three weeks for advertisement,

followed by the submission of bids and a second Commission meeting to accept

a bid and approve the lease.

By statute, the SLC must take final action on an application within
i8O days, Cal. Pub. Res. C. Sec. 6502. Longer periods are allowed if

environmental documents must be considered.

The SLC has broad powers to set the terms and conditions'of the

permit or lease it as will be for the best interest of (the) State." There

is, however, no land use plan to guide decision-making... No formal applica-

tion procedure is specified by the State Lands.Division, although applicants

are pro-@rfcTeRT_with a. list of requirements applicable to their individual

1. Under three provisions of the California Constitution, the people of this
State have asserted their right to maintain the common law public trust for
navigation, access, and fishing on, to., and in specified waters of this State.
(Cal. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 25, Art. XV, Secs. 2 and 3). The trust guarantees
that these rights to use the State's waters will exist in perpetuity and cannot
be ceded by the State. Even where all other vestiges of title have been trans-
ferred, the public trust interests are,automatically reserved to the public.

D-12

requests for dredging authorization. Very few applications are formally

rejected because the'requirements are either met or the applicant withdraws

his application.

SLC administrative policy (which can be waived on an individual basis)

requires the formal approval of the State Department of Fish a-ad Game and

the RWGCB before processing of an application can begin. The SLC will grant

its permits and leases on the condition that certain other agencies approve,

i.e., the applicant need not secure their approvalbefore the Commission acts,

but must obtain their approval to validate the lease or permit. BCDC and the

Corps are two such agencies. At the present time, the Commission itself must

act on all applications submitted to it, but it is considering establishing

criteria to allow administrative processing of certain applications.

State Lands Division staff have indicated that the Commission most

commonly serves as the lead agency under CEQA for dredging projects when it

must act on mineral extraction leases or land use leases. The SLC is -7enerall-y

not the lead agency for a dredging permit application. Where it is -act the

lead agency, the Commission acts as a "responsible agency" under CEQA. and will

not approve applications until it has received the necessary environmental

documents.

State Reclamation Board

The State Reclamation Board handles approximately 1,000 applications

for permits (known as "Board Orders") per year. Figure 5 'shows the Board's-

area of jurisdiction. The application form itself is a brief document, requir-

ing only the name, address, and phone number of the applicant and a short

description of the desired activity. Information was not available as to

what percentage of those applications were for dredging activities. The

ty-pes of dredging projects that would be likely to require a Board permit

D-13

include levee-and flood control projects, and commercial activities

including mining and.extraction of fill material. Board staff indicated

that very small projects involving only m inor material alterations would

generally not pass through the regulatory process. In addition, very simple

maintenance and repair activities would not require a permit The jurisdic-

tion of the Board is traditionally not exercised along the Sacramento and

San Joaquin river systems west of Collinsville, and there are no permitting

activities within the San Francisco Bay system.

It was also indicated that. the Board maintains informal relations

with the other agencies that exercise permitting authority over the same

activities, but that there is no coordination of the processiftg of applications.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

The RWQCB's are the most important State agencies concerned with the

water quality aspects of d-redgiag projects. Figure 5 shows the jurisdictional

boundaries of the Regions. They grant waste discharge requirements (essentially

a permit) required by the Porter-Cologne Act. The Regional Boards also recom-

mend to the State Board whether the certification of compliance required by

Section 401 of FWPCA should be issued or excused in particular cases, or

what the requirements to obtain a certification should be. Certification (or

withdrawal of reauest' for certification), a statement that the proposed

activity will comply with Federal water quality standards, is required by

Section 401 of the FWPCA before the Corps can act.

The State and San Francisco Regional Boards have adopted a Basin

Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin that is the official State water quality

control plan for this region and needs only EPA approval to become the official

D-14

Federal plan as well. (All other Regional Boa'rds have also adopted "Basin

Plans:) Such approval is expected by January 1, 1976. one policy concerns

the disposal of dredged spoils:

"It shall be prohibited to discharge ... silt, sand,, clay-or

other earthen materials from any activity in quantities

sufficient to cause deleterious bottom deposits, turbidity

or discoloration in surface waters or to unreasonably affect

or threaten to affect beneficial uses." [Water Quality Control

Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin.]

This broad policy statement provides general guidance for the case-

by-case evaluation of the water quality effects of each dredging project.

More specific policy guidance is established by policy resolutions. txist-

ing policy is contained in San Francisco Board Resolution 72-15, dated

November 28, 1972. Though currently undergoing revision, Resolution 72-15

now requires the foll owing:

"No significant variation in turbidity beyond present natural

background levels;

"No bottom deposits above natural background levels;

"No toxic or deleterious substances present in concentra-

tions or quantities which will cause deleterious effects on

aquatic biota, wildlife or wildfowl or which render any of

these unfit for human consumption either at levels created

in the receiving waters or as a result of biologic concentrations."

This policy also adopts the same sites in the tay for disposal

that have been designated by the Corps. These sites are areas of relatively

deep water with strong currents.' The two most heavily used are near Alcatraz

Island and in the Carquinez Straits.

D- 15

Also, under this policy the Executive officer may waive sediment

analysis for projects in-siolving less than 10,000 cubic yards of dredged

spoil and specify a disposal site without Regional Board action. In

practice, however, sediment analyses are always required by the Environmental

Protection Agency regardless of volume, and the Resolution therefore

applies only to uncontaminated spoil disposal.

Beyond these policy guides.''there are no Board regulations to direct

decision-making, although the Porter-Cologne Act establishes some broader

procedural requirements, including a maximum processing period of 120 days
for waste discharge requirements,:0 Cal..Water C. Sec. 13264(a), after which a

discharger can begin disposal at the risk of "requirements' being subsequently

imposed.

The San Francisco Regional Board has never assumed the position of

lead agency for the purpose of CEQA because of a categorical exemption from

the provisions of CEQA known as a Class 8 exemption, 14 Cal. Adm. C. Sec. 5108,

which applies to regulatory agencies authorized by State or local ordinance

to assure the maintenance., restoration, enhancement or protection of the

environment where the regulatory process itself provides procedures for

environmental p:@otection.

Applicants for dredging approval submit an application called a

"Report of WasteDischax-ge" and'. if necessary, a request,for certification

to.the Executive Officer of the Regional Board. Included with this report

is an analysis of sediments taken from the dredging site and a proposed

disposal plan. If there will be no discharge or return flow into waterways

D_16

from the project, generally because of land disposal above mean higher high

water no certification is required, and the applicant will be instructed to

withdraw his request.

Discharges with contaminated spoils will always necessitate the

preparation of waste discharge requirements. Contamination is measured

against the in-house guidelines written by the EPA, Region IK. Where

spoils are uncontaminated and disposal is in an approved site, no require-

ments axe necessary, and the matter can be waived administratively by the

Regional Board Executive Officer.

If State Board certification to the.Corps is required, waste dis-

charge requirements are a prerequisite., except in the case of thort-term

activities where there is a demonstrated need for immediate certification

and the Executive Officer believes no significant threat to water quality

will result.

When certification is deemed not necessary by the Regional Boaxd

Executive Officer, the applicant will be requested to submit a letter

withdrawing the request for certification. The members of State and

Regional Boards are advised of the administrative determination and can

override the decision.

This procedure allows disposal of relatively uncontaminated spoils

to be administratively processed without requiring certification. Projects

so approved have been very large, sometimes -as great as 500,000 cubic yards.

Under the Porter-Cologne and Federal Water Pollution Control Acts,

any discharge of a "pollutant" into waters withinthe Acts' coverage requires

certification. Pollutant is defined in the FWPCA to include dredge spoils

D-17

irrespective of contamination.. For this reason,, letters of withdrawal
may be permissible only where land disposal wii@, occur. It usually takes

about 60 days to determine that certification is not necessary and to

process a letter of withdrawal.

When waste discharge requirements are needed, the Regional Board

staff drafts the requirements as a ."tentative order,," including monitoring

procedures (to ensure compliance with orders) and circulates this for 30

days prior to the Regional Board meeting at which time the order will be

considered. To save time., and on the assumption that the order will be

approved, a notice of request for certification is published concurrently

by the San Francisco Board because the notice also requires a 30-day review

period. The State Board Executive Officer is then able to process the

order as soon as it is approved by the Board. About half of the RWQCBs in

the Statense this concurrent publication procedure.

The preparation of waste discharge requirements often requires

considerable time. Although the initial determination of the requirements

can be done quickly,* the whole process can take up to three months because of

the backlog of requests and the negotiations with Regional Board staff over

the nature of requirements, such as disposal site selection.

.No procedural distinction is made between maintenance and new dredging.

Since the Board relies on analysis of sediments.,it, will,only grant permission

to dispose of dredge materials-that have been analyzed. Therefore recurring

maintenance projects certified for more than one year are contingent on annual

sediment analysis. New projects are certified for the duration of the project.

The Regional Board is required to conduct a public hearing on waste

discharge requirements, but generally accepts the staff recommendation,

approves the requirements as a consent item, and requests State Board

D-18

certification if there are no adverse comments. Upon receipt of the

certification recommendation and supporting documents from the Regional

Board, the State Board Executive Officer determines whether certification

should be granted., submitting his decision to the Board for its concur-

rence. If a hearing is requested of the State Board because no hearing

was held by the Regional Board, the State Board makes the decision. The

recommendations of the Regional Board are usually followed. State Board

processing takes approximately 30 days, including 15 days to receive the

Regional Board recommendation and 15 days for the State Board to process it.

The State Board can also consider appeals from Regional Board decisions

setting waste discharge requirements or decisions declining to do so. On

appeal, the State Board can consider any relevant information and has broad

authority to overrule the Regional Board, although it seldom does so. There

are no time limits for final consideration by the State Board.

Regional Water Quality Control Boards vary widely in their treatment

of dredge and disposal projects. Most regions allow small projects, or

projects whichin the opinion of the Regional Boardwill have no adverse

effect on water quality, to bypass the lengthy review afforded larger and more

significant projects.-. California Water Code Section 13269 allows the setting

of waste discharge requirements to be conditionally waived by a Regional

Board where the waiveris not against the public interest. Such waivers

may be terminated by a Board at any time.

Using EPA criteria, the Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo and Colorado

River Basin Regional Boards conduct a staff review of*project,volumes,

contamination level, time involved, and disposal site. If the staff finds

that no significant adverse environmental effect is likely to occur, waste

D-19

discharge requirements and certification may be wai-@ed. Projects handled

in this manner probably never exceed 5,000 cubic yards. The Los Angeles

district of the Corps does not always accept this determination and may

require certification.

The San Diego Region classifies projects of less than 5,000 cubic

yards as "minor" and exempts them from Regional Boaxd review. For other

projects in the San Diego Region designated for ocean disposal beyond the

3-mile limit of State jurisdiction, a staff letter of findings is transmitted

to the Corps dixecting that the discharge is not to exceed EPA contamination

standards. la the rare case where disposal within State jurisdiction is

allowed, e.g., within San Diego Bay, waste discharge requirements are set

and certffication procedures are followed. Shoreline disposal is sometimes

allowed for beach replenishment purposes where the spoils are clean sand.

The Sacramento Regional Board reviews each request for waste discharge

requirements or certification on a case-by-case basis. If, in the Regional

Board's judgment, there will be no significant water quality problems,.

waste discharge and/or certification is waived. Waivers are frecuently

conditioned on the satisfactory protection of water quality and downstream

beneficial uses.

Only one region, Los Angeles, considers dredging permits to be a

significant portion of its workload. Most regions estimated that 19% or less

of their time was devoted to dredging permits. Los Angeles made a similar

estimate of its time expenditure, but indicated that the dredging permit work-

load was expected to increase.
All.regions use State Water Resources Control Board regulations and

guidelines as to procedure; none have formulated regional regulations even

D-20

though Section 13222 of the Water Code encourages the Board to have their

own regulations. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines are the basis

for contamination tolerance levels,, used in conjunction with the regional

basin plans developed by every Board.

Environmental Protection Agency _(EPA)

Under the FWPCA, the EPA is responsible for establishing Federal water

quality criteria for dredging and reviews projects according to these criteria.

EPA interim final regulations for implementing this responsibility were pub-

lished September 5 5 1975, and essentially established creneral disposal

policies,with contamination levels to be evaluated by tests required by the

Corps, using yet to be determined standards. On the West Coast these would

replace current guidelines for contamination levels that have been established

on an in-house basis by Region EK of-the EPA.

In the past, EPA has requested more sediment samples and chemical

tests than the Regional Board. For example, the San Francisco Regional

Board does not often require sediment analysis for projects under 10,000

cubic yards but the EPA does. Generally, agreement was reached by the

applicant, EPA staff, and RToIQCB staff fairly early in the application process

so that the sediment analysis requirements were clearly understood. If an

agreement was not reached, applications could be delayed.

Where spoils were found to be contaminated beyond certain levels,

EPA would insist on ocean or dry land disposal. Thus, disposal sites

would always exist, although heavily contaminated spoils might result in

greater costs or other difficulties for the applicant. The effects the new

regulations will have on these procedures is thus far uncertain

In contrast to the Corps regulations which are discussed later in

this appendix, the proposed interim final regulations published by the EPA

D-21

leave a great many central questions to be answered. No nil erical guidelines

were set. Instead, the regulations asserted general evaluation policies and

the appropriate tests to obtain certain data.

The policies include an evaluation of the need for the project, the

availability of alternative disposal sites, and a careful consideration of

water quality standards. They set forth objectives of non-disruption to

existing physical, chemical or biological balances at the dredge and disposal

sites, protection of aquatic animal and plant life, minimization of adverse

turbidity levels, and preservation of aesthetic, recreational, and economic

values. Paxticular considerations at disposal sites are to include avoidance

of disposal near public water supply intakes, shellfish beds, fish nurser Les

and spawning axeas, avoidance of wetlands excep t where no alternative site

exists and the harm would be minimal, avoidance of excess turbidity or

foul odors or water colors in recreational waters, and avoidance of harm-

to benthic organisms and endangered species.

Tests to evaluate the physical, chemical and biological criteria are

specified including the elutriate test for chemical analysis, appropriate

bioassays for toxicity, inhibition and bioaccumulation evaluations., and

bulk sediment analysis for evaluation of sediment composition at the disposal

site.

The use of these tests is generally stated to be-within the discretion

of the Corps District Engineer. As the regulations state in Section 23o.4-1,

"in order to avoid unreasonable burdens on applicants in regard to the

amounts and types of data to be pr
ovi ed, consideration will be gi en by the

,District Engineer to the economic cost of performing the evaluation,, the

utility of the data to be provided, and the nature and magnitude of any

potential environmental effects.

D-22

The regulations provide that when the tests are performed they.are

to be evaluated with respect to standards "applicable by law." There is

no indication as to where those standards are or will be or who will set

them. Are they to be State, EPA regional.or national standards? When will

they appear and what is to be done in the meantime?

The regulations question the technical validity of the tests it pro-

poses; seeming to imiDly that the standards are meaningless. They state that

the "state-of-the-art" has not shown numerical data to be effectiv ely related

to environmental effects.

State Department of Fish and Game

The State Department of Fish and Game is re sponsible for the

protection of California fish and wildlife resources and reviews dredging

applications accordingly. Figure 6 shows the jurisdictional boundaries of

its regions. The Department serves primarily in a commenting role for all

dredging projects in the Bay Area. It comments on all aDplications for BCDC

permits and, under the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Acton. all

Corps permits, and on all related environmental documents prepared under NEPA

or CEQA. Each of these represents independent opportunities for comment, and

therefore,a bypassed comment opportunity still leaves several T)ossible

alternatives.

When the De-oartment receives a Corps public notice (for Coordination
Act review), an environmental document, or a request from any other agency'for

review and comment, the request-is forwarded to the Area Biologlist in the

district where the project site is located. After preparation, the field report

is forwarded to the Regional Office, and from there to Sacramento for the

Director's approval. It is then transmitted to the reauesting agency via

State Resources. Some Fish and Game comments, such as to BCDC and the RWQC3

are transmitted directly. Field level report preparation has resulted in

D-23

AA--.GA-0,.ENCY JURISDICTION
Department of Fish and Game

0 R E G 0 N
t Note: In addition to the 5 land Regions, the
0@1 MODOC Department also administers the Marine
SISKIYOU I
Resources Region, having jurisdiction over
the Ocen Resources o! the State.

SHASTA LASSEN I
0 1
TRINITY

TEHAMA PLUMAS z

GLENN 'U" SIERRA
VA@@Ajm
0 L 0
N- YOLO SV

CON A TUOLUMNE NO
A MO
SAN FRANCICip '00- 5o
A4

TA
\
LARA C3
C '0
SANTA
CRUZ
A V ------
FRESNO
L

TULARE
ONTERM,
KINGS[

SAN
LUI KERN
OBISPO

SAN BERNADINO

SANTA
BARBARA I LOS

09 RIVERSIDE N

SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL
0 100 200 1
I 1 0
MEXIC
(7

SCALE IN MILES
Figure 6

D-24

some minor problems with comment consistency because .staff members prepare

comments without central coordination. Multiple comments can create problems

on single projects as well as amongsimilar projects. The additional problem

of a lack of an up-to-date plan results in the controlling comments changing

with department personnel.

Fish and Game review is directed at fish and wildlife resource protec-

tion. and the enhancement of wetland areas and mudflats. Spoils contamination

is also of concern, making the sediment analysis an important review element.

Miti gation efforts are actively sought, including scheduling to avoid dis-

ruption of fish runs, use of alternative disposal sites, or the creation or

restoration of marsh areas. No time limits exist for review other than those

set by other agencies such as through the Corps Public Notice or CEQA.

Under Fish and Game Code Section 5652, permits from the Department

axe required for suction dredging in rivers, lakes, and streams. This

sect ion has not been applied within BCDC jurisdiction or other coastal areas

but is applied on inland waters, principally Sierra streams where gold is

mined. Particularly in recent years there has been a resurgence of recrea-

tional and pecuniary interest inthis activity. The Department issues permits

-without charge when a determination is made that the operation of the vacuum

or suction dredge will not be.dele"u-erious to fish. Regulations authorize

the Department to limit the size, type and use of permitted dredges, the

duration of the permit, and the streams, rivers or lakes where operation

of a suction or vacuum dredge of a specified size is acceptable.

Two types of permits are ava:ilable: "standard" and @'special'.'.

Standard permits of up to one year in duration are available for dredging

equipment with intake Dives inches or less in diameter for use in waters

D-25

where dredging.has been pre-determined to be acceptable at'specified times.

Standard permits are obtained by completion of a Department application,

requiring only the a-oDlicant's name, address, phone number,, the purpose

of the dredging operation, and a certification that the applicant has

read the applicable statutes and regulations. No dredging site need-s to be

specified.

A f1speciallt permit-i s required for use of vacuum or suctiondredging.

equipment over 12 inches in-diameter. Applicants must supply extensive

information beyond that required for a "standaxd" permit, including an

exact description of the project site (map required), scheduled time,

volumes and types of material to be removed, equipment to be used, and pro-

bably affects.on water quality and fish and game resources in the axea.

The total number of standard permits issued has increased dramatically,

with 989 issued in 1973, 2707 in 1974, and 4473 in'1975 as of July. Special
permit issuance has grown rapidly also,'with 38 issued in 1973, 371 in 1974.,

and,-107 as of July 1, 1975.

Another Depaxtment of Fish and Game "permit" procedure applicable

to dredging is specified in Sections i6oo through i6o2.5 of the California

Fish and Game Code. Under these sectionswhich axe unique for a State

-regulatory agency,,public agencies, private organizations, or individuals
-hat propose projects that will divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow

or bed of any river, stream.-or lake designated by the Department of Fish

and Game or will use material from designated streambeds must submit a plan

for the project to the Department of Fish and Game.

If the Department believes fish or game resources may be substantially

affected by the project, it has 30 days from the date of mailing the "Receipt

D-26

of Notification" to submit proposals for modification of the applicant's

plans designed to protect those resources. The 30 day period may be

extended by mutual agreement. Within 14 days from receipt of the Depart-

ment proposals (longer by-mutual agreement), applicants mu t decide if

they are acceptable or not. If they axe unacceptable and no agreement

can be reached, a panel of arbitrators must be established within 7 days

of the applicant's rejection of the proposals. Arbitration panels consist

of a Department representative, a representative of the applicant, and a

mutually agreed upon third person, who acts as chairperson. If either party

is dissatisfied with the arbitration, it may seek court action under

Section 1602.5 of the Code.

Although Federal agencies axe exempt from the provisions of Section
16o2, a memorandum of understanding between the Depaxtment of Fish and

Game and some Federal agencies provides for incorporation of waterway

protective measures into permits granted by those agenciez. Some Federal

agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers, notify the Department of stream-

bed alteration projects.

Without further legislative action'. the axbitration provisions

outlined above will cease to be law in 1977, although the recuirements for

submission of a project plan and the preparation by the Department of

recommended modification will continue.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior resDoads

to Corps Public i@otice much as does State Fish and Game. There are no time

limits on these responses, and the-Corps must wait to receive them. The

Sacramento field office of the USFWS reviews Bay Area dredging projects on a

case-by-case basis, guided by the Interior Demartment's Naviga:ble Waters Handbook,

D-27

which contains agency policy statements applicable to dredging projects, as
well as standards*for review., check lists, and form le tters. For' example,

projects affecting the National Wildlife Refuges in South San Francisco Bay

and-San Pablo Bay are reviewed against the Service's refuge plan.

Generally, the Service does not object to activities at the dredging

site@ but may object to a project if (a) proposed spoils contaminant levels

'fail to meet EPA criteria, (b) disposal will -affect wetland#,. ar

conflicts with its resource protection objectives. Land disposal of spoils

is usually acceptable in areas designated or used for parts, marinas, and

water-dependent industries,, particularly if approved by State, regional, or

local planning agencies'and fish and wildlife mitigation is considered in the

project. To this end, the BCDC'Bay Plan often is relied on by the Service for

Bay Area projects. Disposal in former tidelands may be acceptable if the

d isposal site is not recoverable for wetland uses. An on-site inspection

by Service personnel will often be made where land disposal is involved.

.Generally, the Service responds on the basis of the environmen al

iiapact-documents and staff knowledge of the project area. This knowledge

IS Often supplemented by conferring with the State Fish and Game Area

Biologist. The agency often requires applicants to undertake mitigation

measures to red-ace the overall impacts of their projects. These require-

ments are made without reference to firm policy statement or specific plans

but are rarely successfully challenged because of the special status the agency

occupies under the Fish and,Wildlife Coordination Act: it is the only agency

whose.objections can be overridden only at the Secretary level in Washington,

a review process requiring as much as a year to complete. Applicants usually

prefer to concede rather than delay,approval.
The USFWS recently promulgated regulations to guide their decision-
making with respect to projects in navigable waters, 40 Fed. Reg. 55810
D-28

(December 1, 1975). The impact of these new regulations is not yet certain.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

The =S is mandated to protect fisheries resources and also reviews

dredging permits by responding to Corps Public Notices. Procedures or criteria

for this review., other than the broad policy of trying to identify potential

dam,age to the marine, estuarine, and anadromous resources the Service must

protect, have not been established. In the Bay Area, the Service relies on

close coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State Fish and

Game. The Service does not object to projects unless the resources it is

charged with protecting may be adversely affected. The Service relies heavily

on environmental impact documents during its case-by-case review, and on the

EPA Region IX water quality guidelines to judge whether or not adverse

impacts are likely to occur and whether or not comments should be made

regarding spoils disposal methods or sites. There are no time limits for.

,comment submission, but unlike the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps

need not delay processing pending receipt.
U.S. Ar@my Corps-of EEgin eers (Corps)

The Corps authority over dredging and spoils disposal is based on

Federal authority over both navigation and water quality. The regulatory

activities of the Corps of Engineers i= Cal 1.1fornia are administered by three

district offices located in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento.

Figure 7 shows the jurisdictional boundaries of the districts. While each

office operates under the same authorizing legislation and the same formal

regulations., there are some differences in the oDerating procedures of

individual districts. For routine.projects, the Corps generally issues

dredging permits within six and one half mon-chs of the date of 'application. jo

D-29

...AGENCY JURISDICTION
Corps of Engineers

0 R E G 0 N-@

SISKIYOU -0MODOC
L COE -
MS. F. 011! VS
C
0 SHASTA LASSEN I
TRINITY
to District
TEH.AMA 7 PLUMAS
BUTT;",@)
GLENN SIERRA
m

0
ON

YOLO

Ifi_j
CONT A -7Q TUOLUMNE
A'i IAI
MONO

SAN FRANCI CO
A4

TA
RA

SANTA
dFt

FRESNO
-0\ CO Lacto. District\
-COE /I TULARE
ONTEREY INGSI
F. District

SAN
LUIS KERN
valspo 'A I

S
N BERNAOINO
A

SANTA
BARBARA
LOS COE - L.A. District
ANGELES
km

0 RIVERSIDE
_A6

SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL
100 200

SCALE IN MILES
Figure 7

D-30

to one additional year may be needed if a project is controversial or

requires an Environmental Impact Statement.

Corps regulations require consideration of all relevant factors and

preclude permit issuance unless the project is found to-be "in the public

interest." Permit denial at the local and State level will always result

in Corps denial. This ensures that State regulatory standards must be met

as a minimum for Corps approval. Unlike the previous assertion.of general

deference to State determinations, this new policy assures compliance with

State requirements and policies as a minimum. Furthermore, objections to

a project by the EPA under FTA:1CA and the Ocean Dumping Act guidelines will

also usually result in denial.

The counterpart to this, provides that where requisite State approvals

have been granted, the Corps district engineer will normally approve the

project. While stating that a deviation from this policy will only be done

for some "overriding national factors of the ublic interest, a caveat must
P

be noted. A large number of Federal laws must still have their requirements

satisfied (overriding national factors of the public interest by definition)

including NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and others. 'Specifi,c-ally, the

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Actincluding the Corps-Interior Memorandum

of Understandingmust be complied with. This continues the existing situa-

tion of making virtually any unaccommodated objection by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlffe Service effectively a project veto. Local and State plans, no matter

how comprehensive or widely accepted, however., are still only one factor taken

into consideration. The result is that every local and State-approved pro-

ject can be, and usually.is, second-guessed by various Federal agencies

responding to the Public Notice. These agencies are guided by their own

jor objection," e.g., from the
perception of the public interest, and a "maJ

D-31

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requires resolution at the Secretarial

level in Washington, unless the permit applicant is willing to modify his

project to meet the objection. This procedure is mandated by the memoran-

dum of understanding between the Secretaries of the Army and Interior and

is the only case where the district engineer is not authorized to over-

ride the objections of a commenting agency.

When this type of impasse results, a "Section 20 Report" must be

prepared, referring to Section 20 of the Corps regulations on Civil Regula-

cry Functions of April 3, 1974' (ER 1.145-2-303). *This is a lengthy report

to the Chief of-En.-gineers detailing all aspects of a project and requesting
.a determination. Making a decision at this level may add as much as one

year to the Corps decision-making process. There has never been a need

for a Secretary level evaluation for a dredging project within BCDC's

jurisdictional area, but recent permit situations indicate that such a thing

could happen.

Both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) have recently published proposed new regulations for implementing

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. These regulations

were required by Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway, 389 F. Supp. 1263
7 ERC 1784.(D.C.- March 27, 1975),,which held the Corps tohave abused

its rule-making power by promulgatiag regulations that did act comply with

the mandates of the authorizing legislation.

Under these new interim final regulations the Corps' permitting authority

for disposal of dredge and fill material extends over traditionally navigable

waters of the United States, both coastal and inland and also over a extensive

range of other waters. These include all tributaries of navigable waters of the

D-32

Un,ited States, up to their headwaters, all interstate waters, all artificial
channels or canals connected to navigable water's and used for navigation

(thus, excluding drainage and irrigation channels) and all intrastate waters

which are either used by interstate travelers for water related recreation,

used for the collection of fish sold in interstate commerce,or used in

the production of agricultural or industrial goods sold in interstate

commerce. In addition, coastal and inland wetlands, defined in terms of

inl-indation, vegetation and proximity to otherwise included waters will be

included.

Lakes which are intrastate are covered only if greater than 5 acres

in area or formed by the impounding of a navigable water. Stock ponds or

settling basins formed in this way would be included. Jurisdiction up to

the headwaters of rivers and streams,and their tributaries will act generally
be exercised above wherethe flow is less than 5 cubic feet per second.

The expanded jurisdiction will not be completely asserted at once.

At present, jurisdiction is being asserted (and permits required) over

traditionally navigable coastal and inland waters and adjacent or contiguous

wetlands. On July 1, 1976, additional tributaries, lakes and wetlands will

be included. Finally, on July 1, 1977, the full regulatory authority will

be exercised.

This new geographical -urisdiction will require Corps approval to

dispose of dredge or fill material with respect to a large number of water-

ways where no approvals were previously required. In the Bay Area, this

will lead to the inclusion of small tributaries, lakes and wetlands not

previously regulated by the Corps. A tremendous growth in Corps regulatory

D-33

authority will occur in the Central Valley and Sierra river systems and

lakes.

Dredge material is defined as material excavated or dredged from

one of the covered waters.. Its disDosal is defined to be the placement of

.more than one-cubic.yard of that-material in a single operationinto any covered

water. However, material which otherwise-meets this definition but'results

from normal farming, raaching,'or forestry-,-operations wiI no,trequirea

permit. Fill material and its discharge is.defined to be any "pollutant"

(essentially anything other than water) used to replace aquatic area with dry

land or to change the bottom elevation of a water body.or to impound water

(as from construction of a dam). It likewise does not apply to material

resulting from normal farming, ranching or forestry operations or to the

maintenance or emergency repair of dams, dikes, levees or similar structures.

These definitions were designed to eliminate the need for permits for such

basic, common operations as plowi ng a field, seeding or maintaining a stock

pond, 'activities which would likely have negligable direct water quality

impacts.

-Corresponding to the two year phasing in Corps regulatory activity,

applicants will not need a Corps permit for activities in waterways prior

to the time those waters axe covered. However, since the Corps will have

jurisdiction over the waters, even though not currently issuing permits5

certain requirements must still be met. Water quality certifications must

be obtained where appropriate (of particular significance with respect to

hydraulic gold mining in Sierra streams) and there must be compliance with

Coastal Zone Management Programs. There must be no harm to endangered

species, no disposals near public water supply intakes or shellfish beds,

D-34

and there must not be high concentrations of pathogenic organisms.

The Regulations establish permit processing policies that greatly

affect the relations between the Federal and State governments and provide

possible mechanisms for faster processing.

The Corpswill make an effort to unify State comments by requesting
J,
Governors to designate appropriate State agencies responsible for a single

State position on applications. In California, where numerous State agencies,

boards, and commissions are charged by State law with independent decision-

making, there could be an unavoidable conflict with desired comm r ing unity.

Most significant with respect to the expediting of project applications

are three new provisions:

1. District engineers are authorized to enter into agreements

with States having their own permit program for Joint pro-

cessing, including the joint issuance of Public Uotices, joint

hearings, and the joint assessment of comments received on a

project.

2. Approval of new dredgihg for navigation projects (including

channels and slips) will-also authorize periodic maintenance

dredging, subject only to the applicant giving notice prior to

the dredging being done, and.to a review of the project at

- stated intervals.

3. Provision.exists for the issuance of "general" permits by

which a class or type of project is reviewed following all

required procedures. Once the class is approved-, individual

projects in that class need no indereadent approval, although

such can be required-at the district engineer's discretion.

D - 3 5

All the approved class activities must be similar in

nature., both individual and combined environmental impacts

must be minorl categories must be clearly described., and

approved waters and material quantities must be clearly

designated. General permits can be revoked if later found

to be inappropriate or harmful.

This third element will reduce the expanded Corps' increased workload

brought about by the tremendous increase 'in jurisdiction.

Finally, of particular significance to California, the Corps has

formally.put forth the policy,that wetlands axe areas of unique importance

and irreplaceable. It would seem that approvall of wetland projects would

be very difficult to obtain.

The Corps' new regulations expand the Corps' geographical jurisdic-

tion enormously and changes [email protected] are inevitable.

As a first review step, the Corpst regulations require the prepara-

tion of an environmental assessment on all applications to assist in

determining whether an environmental im act statement is necessary. (In
Imp

the San Francisco district they rarely are.) The environmental assessment

is prepared by the District's Engineering Section within approximately 90

days, although procedures are currently being developed to reduce this time.

Within 15 days of completing the environmental assessment, a Public

itotice' is published advertising the project and soliciting comments for

a 30-day period. Public Notice distribution is by means of a mailing,

rather than by newspaper publication. The notice is mailed to persons and

agencies that have indicated an interest in such projects, as well as

certain agencies required by law or regulation to be notified. After

D-36

receiving comments and the decisions of-the State permit-granting agencies,

the Corps' district engineer generally acts on an application approximately

30 days after the close of the public Notice period, unless a public

hearing has been requested or unless objections have been received.

The San Francisco District's procedures allow processing of permit

applications without a Public Notice for projects less than 10,000 cubic

yards involving land disposal above mean higher.high water. This procedure,

known as a "letter of permission", is essentially an abbreviated'lorocessing

for very minor projects. Such projects are not subject to water quality

review under either State or Federal law because no'discharge into water

Js involved, and Corps jurisdiction, therefore, derives solely from Section

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The San Francisco District has a -oermit

staff of 25 persons, and estimates 20 to 30 Dercent of its time is involved

with dredging permit applications.

The Los Angeles Corps Dist-rict Office has no simplified procedures

allowing permit processing for minor projects, and requires a Public Notice

for every project involving dredging. Los Angeles has a permitting staff

of 14,, and estimates that dredgingand disposal applications comprise about

10% of their workload.

The Sacramento Corps District office also uses full Public Notice

procedures for all dredging permits. Sacramento'has a small volume of

dredging permit applications, comprising less than 10% of their 17-person

permitting staff's workload.

D-37

APPEND DC E

ORDER ADOPTING REGUTIATIONS OF THE RESOURCES AGENCY

Pomm 400 Ftrv. 3-64) FACE SHUT
FOR FILING ADMINISTRATINM REGULATIONS
'WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 11390.1)

Copy below is hereby certified to be a true
and correct copy of regulations adopted, or
amended, or an order of repeal by:

(Agency)
Date of adoption, amendment, or repeal:

By:

(Title)
00 NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE DO NOT WRITEE IN THIS SPACE

ORDER ADOPTING REGULATIONS OF THE

RESOURCES AGENCY

Pertaining to the Coo*rdination of
Dredging Projects in San Francisco Bay

After 'proceedings had in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act (Government Code, Title 2, Division 3, Part 1, Chapter 4.5) and pur-
suant to the authority granted in Section 162 of the. Harbors and Navigation Code,
the Resources Agency hereby adopts its regulation in Title 14, California Adminis-
trative Code,- as follows:

(1) Adopts new Chapter 2.5 to read:

CHAPTER 2.5. DREDGING PROJECTS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY

ARTICLE 1. General

W
U 14200. Authority. The regulations contained herein are prescribed.by the
Resources Agency pursuant to the authority granted in Section 162 of the Harbors
and Navigation Code for the purpose of implementing, interpreting, or applying
x Sections 160 through 170 of the Harbors and Navigation Code.

W @14201. Applicability. These regulations apply to new dredging in San
t Francisco Bay of 100,000 cubic yards or less within a 12-month period and to
maintenance dredging in San Francisco Bay of any amount.

0
z 14202. Purpose. These regulations supplement and interpret Sections 160
0. through 170 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, as they may be amended from time
to time. No attempt has been made to reproduce in these regulations the defini-
tions, policies, and other provisions found in S'ections 160 through 170. Therefore,
these regulations should be read and,used togethe3@ with those sections.

E-1

bt 400A CONTINUATION SHEET
FOR FILING ADMINISTPIATIVE PEGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE

(Punuent to Government Code Section 11380.1)

-2-

14203. Applicability of Chapter. The provisions of this Chapter shall be
effective upon adoption and, subject to subsequent amendment... shall remain in
effect until July 1. 1976.

ARTICLE 2. Abbreviations and Definitions

14210. Abbreviations. The f'ollowing abbreviations are used in this
Chapter:

(a) BCDC--San Francisco Day Conservation and Development
Commission;

(b) RWQCB--California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Francisco Bay Region;

(d) -COE.--United States Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
District; and

(e.) SWRCB--State Water Resources Control Board.

14211. Applicant. "Applicant" means any person or governmental agency
that submits an application for a dredging project requiring the'approval of
the authorizing agencies.

3: 1421-2. Application. "Application".means a request submitted on a form
or forms as approved and amended from time to time by the Resources Agency, for
0 1
Z authorization to perform a dredging project.
0

14213. Authorizing Agency. "Authorizing agenc"' means any State agency
y
that approves new or maintenance dredging projects in San Francisco Bay by grant-
ing or denying permits as defined in Section.14221. There are four such agencies--
BCDC, RWQQB, SLC, and M%IRCB.,

14214. Comment. ""Comm nt" means a written statement by a@reviewing agency or
other interested party concerning a proposed dredging project.

14215. Dredging. "Dredging" means any ufiderwater excavation or extraction of
materials using mechanical or hydraulic means.

14216. Dredging Project. "Dredging project" means (a).project to perform new
dredging in San Francisco Bay of 100,000 cubic yards or less within a 12-month period,
.together with related dredge spoils disposal, (b) maintenance dredging of any amount,
together with related dredge spoils disposal, or (c) disposal of dredged material.

14217. Executive Director. "Executive Director" means the Executive Director
of the BCDC.

F, - 2

FORM @400A CONTINUATION SHEET
FOR FILING AD&UNISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE

(Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1)

-3-

14218. Local Agency. "Local ag@ncy" means any governmental agency, other
A than agencies-of-the Federal or State governments,-that is responsiblefor carry-
ing out or authorizing a dredging project.

14219. Maintenance Dredging. "Maintenancedredging" means any dredging in
San Francisco Bay to (a) restore water depths authorized by the COE prior to
September 17, 1965, (b) restore water depths that existed at a facility on or
after September.17,-1965, or (c) restore water depths authorized by-BCDC on or
after September 17, 1965.

14220. New Dredging "New dredging" means any dredging in San Francisco Bay
other than maintenance dredging.
14221. Permit. "Permit,," for the purpose of these regulat.ipns, means a
document, such as a lease, permit, or other entitlement for use or discharge,
issued by an authorizing agency approving a dredging project as specified in
the document.

14222. Permit Coordinator. "Permit Coordinator" means the agency aesignated
by the California Resources Agency to carry out the provisions of Sections 160
through 170 of the Harbors and Navigation Code.

14223. Permit Denial. "Permit denial" means the refusal of any authorizing
-agency to approve a dredging project.

14224. Reviewing Agency. "R@eviewing agency" means a public agenc'y that
regularly submits comments be considered-.by an authorizing agency in deter-
3: mining whether or not to approve specific dredging projects. In San Francisco
Bay, reviewing agencies include, but are'n6t limited to, the State Department
0
Z of Fish and Game, the Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, the United
0
States Fish and Wildlife Service,.the United States National Marine Fisheries
Service, the CCE, and the authorizing agencies when reviewing and commenting
on specific dredging projects to another authorizing,agency.

14225. San Francisco Bay. "San Franci@co Bay" means the area described
in Section 6=0 of the Govqrnm nt Code.

ARTICIE 3. Implementation of Legislation

1424o. BCDC is Permit Coordinator. The-BCDC is the Permit Coordinator
provid*ed for in Section 161 of the Harbors and Navigation Code. The offices
of the Permit Coordinator are located at 30 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco,
California, 94102.

14241. Executive Director. The Executive Director acts on behalf of the
BCDC, and, except as otherwise expressly stated herein, the Executive Director
is authorized to perform any act to be performed by the Permit Coordinator under
these regulations.

E-3

FORM 400A CONTINUATION SHEET
FOP. FILING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THZ SECRETARY OF STATE

(Punuant to G6varnmont Code Section 11380.1)

@4-

14242. CooDeration. The Permit Coordinator and the State authorizing
and reviewing-agencies shall seek cooperation with the Federal government
whenever possible.

ARTICIE 4. Procedures for Processing Applications

14250. Steps to be Taken Prior to Submitting Application. Prior to
submitting an application to the Permit Coordinator; an applicant shall:

(a) Make preliminary contact with the Permit
Coordinator.

(b) Make preliminary contact with local agencies
and determine local approval requirements.

(c) Obtain a determination, if necessary, of which
agency will be the lead agency and if an environ-
mental document is required. For projects approved
or sponsored by a local agency, the local agency will
normally be lead agency. If no local approval is
xequired, a State agency -e.,ill normally be lead agency.
The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq., or the State
Guidelines issued by the Secretary for Resources,
California Admi.nistrative Code, Title 14, Sections
W
15000 et. seq., prov-ide for a determination of the
lead agency and requirements for environmental docu-
ments and.notices of exemptions.
0
Z
0
(d) Obtain a duly prepared and approved environmental
document, if required, or a notice of exemption,'
for submission with the application.

(e) Obtain approval of local agencies, or if no such
tD
approval is:necessary, a statement by the local
agencies to that effect.

14251., Submission of Applications. All applications for dredging projects
shall be submitted to the Permit Coordinator.

14252. Determinatio of Readiness for Processing.

(a) Permit Coordinator to Determine. The Permit
Coordinator shall determine whether an applica-
tion is ready for processing.

E-4

Foolm 400A CONTINUATION SHEET
FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE

(Pursuant to Government Coda Section 11380.1)

(b) Test of Readiness for Processing. An application
is ready for processing if the Permit Coordinator
determines tha t:

(1) All applicable questions have been answered
completely and legibly.

(2) All applicable supporting docu4m'ents have
been submitted.

(3) Checks or money orders for the appropriate
fees have been submitted.

(4) The application has, been certified and signed
as specified on the application form.

(5) The application includes an original and
nine (9) copies of the entire application
(including exhibits), vith the original and
three (3) copies bearing original signatures.

(c) -Time Limit. The Permit Coordinator shall determine if
an application is ready for processing within ten (10)
days after the application is received.

14253. Application Not Ready for-Pro-cessing. If the application is not
ready for ptocessing, the Permit Coordinator shall inform the applicant in writ-
ing and explain what additional information is needed. The 'Permit Coordinator
may regard an application as inactive and return it to the applicant if the addi-
0
z tional information is not received within thirty .(30) days of mailing to the
0
0 applicant of written notice from the Permit Coordinator. A.nev ten (10) day
review Period begins upon receipt of this additional information by the Permit
Coordinator.

14254. Application Ready for Processing. once the Permit Coordinator
determines that an application is ready for processing., the Permit Coordinator
shall so*inform the applicant in writing, shall transmit the entire application
to the authorizing avencies, and shall transmit to any reviewing agencies indi-
cating an interest in the application, those portions of the application materials
deemed appropriate. The Permit Coordinator may also forward the application to
any local, State, or Federal governmental agencies deemed appropriate.

14255. Determination of Completeness by Authorizing and Reviewing
Agencies.

(a) Agencies to Advise Permit Coordinator. The authorizing
and reviewing agencies receiving an application from the
Permit Coordinator pursuant to Section 14254 shall, within
fourteen (14) days of mailing, advise the Permit Coordinator

E-5

Foam 400A CONTINUATION MIT
FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE

(Pursuant to Government "s Section 11380.1)

-6-

in writing as to whether or not the application
or new informatibn submitted pursuant to Section
14258 is-complete and, if not, what additional
information is needed.

(b) No Response. If any authorizing or reviewing
agency does not respond within the time limit
for'determining completeness, it shall be
deemed that the agency considers the applica-
tion complete.

(c) Applicati n Incomplete. If the Permit Coordinator
is notified that an application is incomplete, the
Permit Coordinator shall within ten (10) days inform
the applicant in writing and clearly explain what
additional information is needed.

(d). Response to Reauest for Additional Information. In
the case of an incomplete application, all required
additional information must be submitted to the Permit
Coordinator within thirty (30) days of mailing the
notice described in subsection (c) above. When the
additional information required has been submitted,
the Permit Coordinator shall forward the amended appli-
cation to the same agencies that received the original
and upon forwarding, the fourteen (14) day review period
t described in subsection (a) above will recommence. If
the thirty (30) days pass and the requited information
0 has not been supplied, the Permit Coord-inbtor may regard
Z
0 an application as inactive and-return it to the applicant.

(e) If Application is Complete. Upon receiving notification
from each agency that received an application as specified
in Section 14254 that an application is complete., or passage
of fourteen (14) days from mailing as specified in Section
14255(a), the application shall be deemed filed with all
authorizing agencies. The Permit Coordinator shall within
ten (10) days inform the applicant and the-agencies in writing
that the application has been filed.

14256. Reauest for Extension of Time. A_n applicant may request an
extension of time to supply the additional information which may be required
under the provisions of Sections 14253 and 14255 of this Chapter by so notify-
ing the Permit Coordinator in writing. The Permit Coordinator may approve such
a request by granting a period of-up to thirty (30) days in addition to that '
otherwise authorized by those Sections and by so informing the authorizing
and reviewing agencies.

E-6

FOAM 400A CONTINUATION SWEET
FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE

(Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1)

14257. Processing by Authorizing Agencies with Comments by Reviewing
Agencie.s.

(a) Permit Processing to St6rt. An authorizing agency
shall begin processing an application upon receiving
notification from the Permit Coordinator that the
application has been filed.

(b) Fees. All filing and other fees required by any
agency to be paid before an application is processed
shall be submitted to the Permit Coordinator and held
by the Permit Coordinator until the application is
deemed filed as specified in Section 14255(e). Upon
filing an application the Permit Coordinator shall
release the applicant's fees to the appropriate
agencies.

(c). Procedures for Granting a Permit. Sections 160 through
170 of the Harbors and Navigation Code do not alter the
manner in which the authorizing and reviewing agencies
process applications. These'agencies will continue to
U process applications in accordance with their existing
procedures. and, in the case of an authorizing agency,
shall also send a copy of their decisions to the Permit
Coordinator setting forth the reasons therefor:
Z
(1) For Agencies With No Time Limits Set by Law
k%
Prior to January 1, 1975. Authorizi.ng and
reviewing agencies that have no statutory time
0
Z limitations for action on dredging projects or
0
have no title interest in the dredging project
site must comment in writing (including a state-
-ment of no comment) or take action to approve or
deny a permit and report their determinations to
the Permit Coordinator within sixty (60) days of
that date the application is deemed- filed under
Section 14255.

(2) For Agencies that have Time Limits Set by Law.
Prior to January 1, 1975. Authorizing and
reviewing agencies that have statutory time
limits within which to act upon an application
for a dredging project or have a property interest
in the dredging project site will continue to act
in accordance with those time limits, except that
.within sixty (60) days of the date the application
is deemed filed, each agency shall send the Permit
Coordinator a report of the current status of the
'application within the agency together with any
co=ents the agency wishes to be considered by
the other agencies.

E-7

Foam-400A' CONTINUATION SHEET
FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE

(Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1)

(3) If an Authorizing or Reviewing Agency does
not-Respond. If no response is received from
an authorizing or reviewing agency within sixty
(60) days or the time specified by law, it shall
be deemed that the agency has no comment on the
application and the Permit Coordinator shall so
notify the applicant.

(d) 'Permit'Coordinator to Notify Applicant. If the Permit
Coordinator receives comments, status reports, or agency
decisions concerning an.'application, the Permit Coordinator
shall so notify the applicant within ten (10) days after
the end of the sixty (60) day' reviewing period, or sooner
if all required comments or authorizations are received.

(e) If an Authorizing Agency does not Act. In case an agency
fails to act on an application within the time limits estab-
lished by Sections 160 through 170 of the Harbors and Naviga-
tion Code and this Chapter*, the existing regulations or
statutes of each agency so failing to act-will govern the
status of permit approval or permit denial as appropriate
to that agency.

T 14258. Submission of New Information. If t he applicant desires to submit
M
I- new information for an application that has previously been filed., the applicant
Z may do so by first informing the Permit Coordinator in writing of such a desire.
If, in the opinion of the Permit Coordinator, the new information constitutes a
material ch@nge in the application, the Permit Coordinator shall notify the
applicant, the authorizing agencies, and the reviewing agencies that a new
0
Z
0 review period under Section 14255 will commence beginning on the date the
Permit Coordinator forwards the new information.

14259. Permit Coordinator to Compile Results. -The Permit Coordinator
shall receive the-decisions of the authorizing agencies and compile a report
of State and local agency decisions, reports', comments,, and findings for
transmittal with a s-ummary to the applicant and to the COE.

_(a) Permit Granted. If all authorizing agencies issue
apermit for a dredging project, the project shall
be considered authorized in-accordance with the
terms and conditions of each such permit.

(b) Permit Denied. If any authorizing agency'denies a
permit for a dredging project, the project is not
authorized.

(c) Time Limit. Within ten (10) days of receiving'
permits or denials from.the authorizing agencies,
the Permit Coordinator shall forward the compiled
report and su=mary.

OM.A.7" 4.72 ism C.$r

FoRm 400A CONTINUATION $MEET
FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE

(Pursuant to G*vernment Code Section 11380.1)

ARTICLE 5. Withdrawal of Application

14270. Withdrawal to be Made in Writing. An applidant may withdraw an
application at any time by so informing the Permit Coordinator in writing.

14271. Permit Coordinator to Inform Agencies. The Permit Coordinator
shall notify the authorizing and-reviewing agencies if an application is with-
drawn or becomes inactive and is.re-turned.-"

14272. Return of Fees. If an application is withdrawn after it has been
deemed filed under Section 14255(a), the fees or a portion of the fees will be
returned by the agencies according to each agency's laws and regulations. If
an application is withdrawn prior to having been deemed filed, the Permi
Coordinator will return the entire fee.

Disclaimer

Pursuant to Section 2231 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the Secretary
for Resources has determined that there are no State mandated local costs incurred
under the provisions of this Chapter since there are no new local programs estab-
CL lished and there is no increase in the levels of existing local programs.
21

E-9

AP11ENDDC F

..INFORMATION FOR OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION FOR DREDGING

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
30 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco 94102 557-186o

PERMIT COORDINATOR

INFORMATION
FOR OBTAINING
AUTHORIZATION FOR DREDGING

This brochure will explain how to complete the
application, and the jurisdiction and procedures
of the agencies involved. The appendix contains
detailed information you will find helpful in
completing the application.

Revised November 21, 1975

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Section 1. Getting Permission to Dredge 2

Section 2. How to Fill out the Form

Section 3. The Regulatory Agencies, Their Procedures
and Interests in Dredging 5

Section 4. Appendices

Appendix I Addresses and Telephone
Numbers of the Agencies 13

Appendix II Fees 14

Appendix III Regional Water Quality
Control Board Policy
for the Regulation of
Dredge Spoil Disposal 15

Appendix IV Environmental Protection
Agency Dredge Spoil
Disposal Criteria 17

Appendix V Map of Aquatic Disposal
Sites 24

Appendix VI Form for Sediment Analysis 25

Appendix VII Questionnaire 26

INTRODUCTION

This brochure is intended to help you apply for permits to dredge
in San Francisco Bay. It contains information on the regulatory agencies
and tells how to fill out the application form for a dredging project.
The form is a standard form acceptable to all the State agencies you
must contact*

California legislation has set up a temporary effort (authorization
expires July 1., 1976) to coordinate applications for permission to conduct
maintenance dredging of any amount or new dredging of 100,000 cubic yards
or less within one year in the geographical area of jurisdiction of the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).

If your project is affected by the law described above and does not
include construction activity other than dredging., you should fill out an
application form and give it to the Permit Coordinator in the BCDC office
(projects for work other then dredging are not affected.by the legislation)
The Coordinator will send it to the agencies for you. The authorizing
State agencies are: BCDC., Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and
State Lands Commission (SLC). The Federal authorizing agency is the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The Permit Coordinator does not coordinate
Federal agency processing of your application, but if you wish, will also
-help you apply for a COE permit. The Coordinator will follow your applica-
tion through %411 the steps of the State process and keep you informed of
its progress.

Quite often applicants can save considerable time and money by meet-
ing with the agency staffs to discuss projects before undertaking extensive
planning and engineering. Thus, consultation with staff personnel prior
to submitting the application is recommended. In some cases., as with the
RWQCB, this prior consultation is necessary before your application can be
accepted for processing.

Your help in evaluating the,coordination effort is desired. You are
encouraged to return your comments and suggestions.to the Permit Coordinator
using the questionnaire supplied in Appendix V-11, on page'25.
Please feel free to contact the Permit Coordinator at (415) 557-1860
for additional information.

SECTION 1: GETTING PER.MISSION TO DREDGE
Besides the approval of local agencies (city, county, port authority, etc.)
depending on the location of your project, four agencies may have to grant you permis-
sion to dredge. These agencies are:
(1) San Francisco District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (CCE); 0-
(2) San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC):
(3) San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Rwqn); and, in some instances;
(4) State Lands Commission (SLC).

STEPS IN PERMIT PROCESSING

1. Check with local authorities, the, if required, obtain approval for the project
from the county., city, port authority or other local agency with jurisdiction,
and either a certified EIRI, Negative Declaration, or a Certificate of Exemption.

2. Consult with the RWQCB staff and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine
the number, location, and nature of sediment analysis tests that may be needed., and
with the staffs of BCDC, SW and the COE.to determine their interests in your project.

3. Assemble the supporting documents listed on pages 3 through 8 of the following
instructions.

4. If you believe it is complete, submit your application to the Permit Coordinator,
'dinator
who will send it to BCDC, RWQCB, SLC,.and other agencies. The Permit Coor
does not coordinate Federal agency processing of your application, but, if you so
desire, will forward your dredging application to the COE. After that, it is
your responsibility to work with the COE and the other Federal agencies.

SECTION 2: HOW TO FILL OUT T@E FORM
The following guide is provided to assist you in filling out the application.

Fill out the application form and provide the required attachments. Submit one
complete original to the Permit Coordinator. After the Coordinator has screened your
application, you will be asked to provide nine (9) more copies.

1. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. OWNER:
An owner is a person or governmental agency that claims legal title to the
site where your project will take place.
An owner's representative is a person or governmental agency fully authorized
in writing to act on behalf of the owner in all matters relating to your applica-
tion.
B. APPLICANT:
An applicant is a person or governmental agency who submits the application for
a dredging project.
C. CERTIFICATE OF APPLICANT:
The applicant or,applicant's representative should sign and date the application.

TI. PROJECT INFORMATION
Complete the questions and attach a narrative description of your project. This
description should be complete, but brief since it will be used to describe your
project in various notices.
The description should briefly and exactly describe the work proposed, the nature,
amount (cubic yards), and depth (with reference to mean lower low water (MLLW)), and
extent (acreage or square feet) from which submerged material is to be removed, the
0
2

disposal method and area, the method of removal, flow rate-of return water in
gallons per day if done hydraulically, and the estimated dates of commencement
and completion. State the present use(s) of the area to be dredged, the
disposal area if on land, and the land and water in the immediate vicinity.
If you have a project that involves construction as well as dredging, you
should briefly describe the construction portion of your project. Some of the
agencies you will deal with when you get your permission to dredge will require
that you provide further information regarding the construction portion of your
project. When you contact the agency staffs, you should ask about how the
construction portion of your project will be handled by the agency when it issues.
your permission to dredge.

III. PROCESSING
A. AP11ROVAL BY LOCAL AGENCIES
List all approvals or certifications required by local agencies for any work
proposed in this application.

B. PRIOR AGENCY CONTACT
State when you first advised staffs of the agencies listed or show that they
have not been informed. It is strongly advised that you contact the 'agency staffs
early in your schedule and before you submit your application to the Coordinator.

C. SUBMISSION TO COE.
Permission to dredge must be granted by the Corps of Engineers in addition to
the state agencies. You may either get the Corps approval yourself or have the
Coordinator help you. The COE form is similar to the Coordinator's form. Generally,
if you have answered a question on the Coordinator's form, you may eliminate dupli-
cation by attaching the Coordinator's form to the COE form and writing the words
11See attached sheets" in the appropriate sections of the COE form. IT IS ESSENTIAL,
HOWEVER., THAT THE APPLICANT SIGN BOTH FORM

IV. ATTACHMENTS - Provide one set of attachments with each copy of your application.

1. Local Report. The local goverment unit (e.g., county, city, part authority,
flood control district', etc.) having jurisdiction 'over the proposed project
should be notified by the applicatit and given an opportunity to review the
project for compliance.with local requirements and to make a "local report"
which must be attached to this application. In cases where a report has not
been issued the fact that the local government has been contacted must be
verified. In that case, the applicant must attach his dated request for the
report so the time.within which BCDC must consider the application can be
determined. In cases where the local government does not wish to make a
reportl application processing can be expedited by attaching a letter from
the local goverment stating that no approval is required.

Usualj@r a permit, resolution or letter from a government official consti-
a report. A report contains the following information: (a) a description
of the project reviewed; (b)(1) approval (with or without conditions) or disap-
provals of the application, with reasons therefore, or (b)(2) an informal
statement on the project; (c) such additional information, comments, or
questions as the local goverment may wish to make known.

2. Ownership. For the area(s) from which submerged materials are to be
extracted and the area(s) in which materials are to be placed,, attach an

exact written legal (metes and bounds) description, a current title
insurance report (preliminary or final) or other evidence of owner-
ship, and a property map which includes the names and addresses of
adjacent land owner. If the applicant does not own the area, state
in detail the legal relationship of the applicant to owner (e.g.,
lessee, licensee, authorized agent, etc.) and attach written evidence
of this relationship (e.g., lease agreement, license, etc.). State
if a permit or a license is required from the State Laads Commission.

3. Citizenship-and Corporate Certification (Required for SLC; not
for other public agencies). If an applicant is an individual
person(@s), attach evidence of citizenship, e.g., copy of birth certi-
ficate, certification of naturalization, etc. If applicant is a firm
or corporation, attach a certified statement ofthe names of the
corporate president, secretary, and officer(s) authorized to execute
corporate contracts. In addition, attach a copy of certificate of
incorporation issued by the State of California authorizing the
applicant to transact business in the State. If,the State Lands
Commission already has this information on -file, or if the project
does not involve State land, you need not submit it with this
application.

4. Drawing. Provide pla us and sections capable of reproduction. The
following is a checklist of the drawing requirements. (A sample drawing
is shown on -page 7).

a. General
Submit on 8-1/2 X 11 inch paper. Show distance between proposed
Submit the fewest number of sheets activity and navigation channel
necessary to adequately show the where applicable.
proposed activity. Drawings should
be in accordance with the general b. Vicinity'Map.
format of the enclosed sample draw- Show location of the activity
ing and must be of good reproducable site including latitude and longi-
ZD
quality. tude if known.

A 1-inch margin should be left at the, Show name of waterway.
top edge of each sheet for binding
purposes. The bottom margin should Show name of and distance to local
be 1/2 inch, and the side margins town, community, or other identi-
1/4 inch. fying location.

Drawings should not reflect the Identify'map or chart from which
approval, non-objection, or action vicinity map was taken, if
of any agencies. applicable.

Since drawings must be reproduced Show.graphic scale.
photographically, color shading
cannot be used. Drawings may show Show north arrow.
work as dot shading, hatching, cross-
hatching, or similax graphic symbols.

c Plan View
Show existing shorelines. Show and identify structures (if
any) in navigable waters immedi-
Show ebb and flood in tidal waters and ately adjacent to the proposed
direction of flow in rivers. activity including COE permit
numbers if known.
Show north arrow.
_Phow your property lines and
Show graphic scale. identify adjacent property
owners. (on naxrow waterways
Show mean higher high water line. the property owner on the
and mean lower low water line'. opposite shore must also be
Show ordinary high water line and identified.)
ordinary low waterline if proposed
activity is in a lake or stream. d. Elevation and/or Section Views
( ) Show same water elevations as for
Show line of highest tidal action. plan view.

If applicable, show principal dimen- Show dredging grade. (MLLW datum)
sions of structure or work and extent
of encroachment beyond the applicable If a fill, float or pile supported
high water line. platform is proposed, show dimen-,
sions and identity of any struc-
Indicate number of cubic yards, type tures to be erected thereon.
of material,, method of handling, and
location of fill or spoil disposal Show graphic scale.
area. If spoil material is to be
placed in approved disposal site, a e. Notes on Drawings.
separate map showing the location of List names of adjacent property
the site may be attached. The draw- owners whose property also adjoins
in must indicate proposed retention the water if not shown in plan view.
levees, weirs, and/or other devices
for retaining hydraulically placed State purpose (private use, com-
materials. mercial, etc.) of proposed activity.

If petroleum products or ot her
hazardous material will be stored
or handled at the proposed faci-
lity, so indicate.

5. Environmental Impact Report. Your dredging application will not be
considered complete until the environmental documentation required by
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) is provided.

CEQA requires that a public agency must prepare and certify the com-
pletion of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to acting on any permit
application which may have a significant effect on the environment. *If
the public agency finds, on the basis of a,factual study, that a project
will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may prepare a
Negative Declaration. CEQA applies to both State and local agencies,

but it provides that only one EIR or Negative Declaration shall be
prepared for any project. The EIR is prepared by a public agency
called the "Lead Agency." Sections 15o64-15o65.5 of the State EIR
Guidelines set.forth criteria for designating the Lead Agency, and
these sections also establish the Lead Agency's responsibilities.
CEQ,A requires that other public agencies having discretionary
authority over the project must consider the Lead Agency's EIR or
Negative Declaration-prior to acting on the project.

if your project involving the proposed dredging operation
requires discretionary approvals from a city or county, that city or
'county would be the Lead Agency for preparation of the EIR or.Negative
Declaration.' If'no discretionary approvals are required from a local
agency, the Lead Agency would be a State agency which has discretionary
authority over the project. Usually this would be the State Lands
Commission. If no permit is required from the State Lands Commission,
BCDC would be the Lead Agency unless another State agency has signifi-
cant discretionary authority over the project.

Some public agencies require submission of data and information
to aid them in determining whether a project may have a significant
effect on the environment.. You should contact the Lead Agency to
determine its procedures for complying with CEqA. You can assist the
Lead Agency by identifying other public agencies which you know to
have discretionary authority over your project.

Where a dredging permit must be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps
-of Engineers or any other Federal'agency, the National Environmental Act
of 1969 (United States Code Title 42, Section 434, et seq.) (NEPA) requires
the Federal agency to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement prior
to issuing a permit, if the permit issuance is, or involves, a major
Federal action significantly affecting the human 'environment. You
should contact the Corps of Engineers for its procedural requirements
in complying with NEPA. If a Federal Environmental Impact Statement
must be prepared, bring this to the attention of the CEQA Lead Agency.
There may be ways to coordinate preparation and review of State and
Federal environmental documents.

If you wish a'copy of the State EIR Guidelines, which apply to
CEQA requirements, you may order a copy for $2.12 from the Documents
Section, Department of General Services., P.O. Box 20191, Sacramento,
California 95820.

6. Fees. Pay the fees in accordance with the schedule shown in Appendix
II. Verify the amount needed with Coordinator; pay using individual
checks payable to each agency. The Permit Coordinator will distribute
your filing fees to the appropriate agencies. Refunds must be claimed from
each agency separately.

7. Sediment Analysis. You are required to present an analysis of your sedi-
ments or elutriate in order that your application may be deemed complete.

SAMPLE- D- R A, W.I N G

Top Margin I" minimum

OREOGE SITE

LAT 47035'tg"M
3c
O;SPCSAL cy SMITH N
?I P-i
S TE cy C 0 v E,-l -c -c
Z 3c
@7037' 35-4 C, =
0 uj
KARSCA c4
ELL I C`rT SAY c4 -c .c
13 ISLANO ul
z @n
ISO'!

___2. SPQXA-

SCALE 11 FEET
DISF ITE 100 0 100 200 MG

SCALE III 41LES A -A VICINITY MAP

FROM-. USGS qUAG SHEET(ELLIOTT BAY)

P
IEl 17

@_PROPSRTY LINE 04
TICP EL. M
1@
F
PIER 18
(-MMsff tI.3
-l;Z-;40_II C.O
Z,
to

3 EA I AL. TO
t
ca V4
e BE REMOVED
uj
ft-I T IMG -50.0
EXIS
RI PRAP

CD. SECTION A-A
NOT TO SCALE
PROPERTY LINE NOTES:

APPROXIMATELY IT,COO CY OF GRA44ULAA
MArTRIAL TO BE CREOGEO BY CLAM SMELL
PLAN TO ELEVATION -50.0 AND OEPCSI-,zC AT
DISPOSAL SITE.
300 0 3CO Soo

SCALE III FEET

PURPOft: MAINTENANCE OF BERTHING AREA PROPOSED OREOGrNG INO 01SPOSAL
DATUM MEAN LOWER LC3 "ATER
'OJACENT PRCPC-,9TY 01INERS' IN EAST IIATERWAY
BANKS 'OIL COMPANY AT SEATTLE. WASH i4GTC14
ISLAND STEEL CCMPANY COUNTY OF X! NG STATE MASN.
APPLICATION BY PORT OF SEATTLE

SHEET I OF I CATE 4/15/7&

Bottom
I

Margin 1/2" minimum

The RWQCB will tell you just how you must comply with this provision.
Therefore you should talk to the RWQCB and EPA staff about the
analysis before submitting your application. The Appendix TV contains
the most recent EPA guidelines and RWQCB's current policy is found in
Appendix III. You should use the form in the Appendix VI on.pagt 25
to report the sediment analysis results.

71.- Y04 are requested to use-the queq@innna-Ire-in Appendix..V1I.I.a.nd make sugges-
tions to the Permit Coordinator at any time on how to improve the permit process.

SECTION 3. TEE REGULATORY AGENCIES TBEIR FROCEDURE3 AM INTERESTS IN. DREDGING

PERMIT COORDINATOR: (415 557-186o)

The Permit Coordinator (BCDC) is your most important point of contact for
processing dredging applications in the Bay Area. once an application for State
dredging is submitted to the Permit Coordinator, the Coordinator will forward it
to the other agencies for processing; there are ten (10) days in which to do so.
After the other agencies receive your application, they will teUL the Coordinator
if there is enough information to be a complete application. The law specifies
that this must be done in a reasonable amount of time, which has been determined
to be fourteen (14) calendar days. If the application is complete, the Coordina-
tor will tell you in writing, and your application will be filed by each agency
for processing. If it is incomplete, the Coordinator will tell you in writing
-what additional informetion is needed. If you do not submit that information
within thirty (30) days, your application will be considered inactive. Should
that deadline expire, you may, of course, re-apply.

Once the agencies have received your complete application, they will act
upon it in accordance.with their procedures. Agencies having no time limit set
by law must formulate comments and inform the Coordinator within sixty (60) days.
If the agency has a time limit in which to act, it must at least advise the
Coordinator of the status of your application and any comments within sixty (60)
days. The Coordinator will tell you what has taken place. If the agencies do
not respond within the sixty (60) days or the time set for them by law, they
will be regarded as having had no comment on your application. Once your permit
has been granted or denied, the agency making the decision will tell the Coordina-
tor. Within tenTio) days, the Coordin5ator will mail you and the Corps of
Engineers a copy of the permits and comme nts prepared.by State agencies. These
permits and comments constitute the State's comments to the COE and with which
the COE can act on your application.

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (COE)

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899, provides that
dredging in navigable waters must be authorized by the Corps of Engineers.
Section 4o4 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, provides
that the Corps must authorize the discharge of dredged material into navigable
waters. Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctua:ries Act of
1972, provides that the Corps must authorize the transportation of dredged '
material for the purpose of dumping it in ocean water. The,San Francisco Dis*161rict

office of the Corps �mplements these Acts in the San Francisco Bay Area
using criteria established by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Corps cannot act or make its decision on your application until it
has received comments from the U.S. Department of Interior, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency., U.S. Department of Commerce (NOAA), and the State Resources Agency,
and until the State Water Resources Control Board has issued its certification.

APublic Notice will be issued by the Corps within thirty (30) days of
receiving your application. If substantive objections are received in response
to the Public Notice, the applicant will be informed of the objections and be
given an opportunity to resolve them.. The,-Di.strict Engineer determines whether
a public hearingwill be held. He*will consider the'degr6e of interest by the
public in the permit application; any requests by the applicant or responsible
Federal, State, and local authorities that a hearing be held; and the liklihood
that significant new information will be presented. Any person who has an
interest which may be adversely affected by the issuance of a Corps of Engineerst
permit for the work described in this notice may request a public hearing. The
request must be submitted in writing to the District Engineer within thirty (30)
days of the date of this notice. and must clearly set forth the interest which
may be adversely affected and the manner in which it may be so affected by the
activity.

The decision to issue a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit will be
based on an evaluation of the impact of the proposed work on the public interest.
Factors affecting the public interest include, but are not limited to, navigation,
fish and wildlife, water supply, flood damage prevention, eco-systems, and in -
general., the needs and welfare of the people.

Questions can be addressed to the Regulatory Functions Branch staff of
the San,Francisco District at (415) 556-5178 or 556-5489.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEMOPMENT-COMMISSION (BCDC)

BCDC is a State agency with regulatory power over dredging within San
Francisco Bay. It operates under the provisions of the McAteer-Petris Act
(Government Code Title 7.2), and has adopted a plan for San Francisco Bay as well
as a number of procedural regulations. The jurisdiction of BCDC is described in
Government Code Section 66610, and includes; San Francisco Bay, a 100-foot shore-
line band., salt ponds, managed wetlands, and certain other waterways. BCDC may
issue one of two kinds of permits, depending on the scope of your proposed project.
These permits may be either major or administrative (minor) permits. Copies of
the McAteer-Petris Act or the BCDC Regulations are available at the BCDC office, and
the staff can help explain them as they affect your project. BCDC also has avail-_
able a pamphlet entitled "Information for Permit Applicants" which you may find
helpful.

if your project involves work other than dredging and disposal in an
approved aquatic site, or disposal as fill in an approved site, or disposal
outside of the BCDC jurisdiction, you may be required to apply separately with
BCDC for a major permit. If that is the case, BCDC will notify you through
the Coordinator.

Certain dredging projects in the Bay may be exempt from BCDC permit
requirements if dredging began prior to September 17, 1965; and is now
being carried7on under' a renewal or extension of an Army Corps of Engineers
permit.-

The BCDC phone number is (415) 557-3686.

SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (RWQCB)

The RWQCB is the regional agency of the State Water Resources Control
Board. Both the Regional Board and the State Board are important to your
proposed dredging project. These Boards regulate the water quality aspects
of dredging and dredge spoil disposal, acting under provisions of the Porter-
CologneWater Quality Control Actas'amended in 1972. The.Regional Board
will issue waste discharge requirements for your project, while the State
Board must certify to the Corps of Engineers that your project will not
violate applicable Federal or State standards. Division 7 of the Water Code
tells about the RWQCB jurisdiction; the Regional Board's jurisdiction gener-
ally includes the bays, rivers, and vatersheds of the Bay Area.

The RWQCB will receive your application from the Coordinator and
process it according to its own procedures. The RWQCB will issue your
Waste Discharge Requirements, The RWQCB will make a recommendation of
approval or denial of certification to the State Board, The State Board
will normally act on the RWQCB recommendation within two to four weeks.
If a hearing is necessary the State Board will require more information
than the RWQCB used in reviewing your application, and will request that
additional information be submitted. The certificate issued by the State
Board will be sent to the Coordinator for inclusion in the reports forwarded
to you and to the COE. The COE cannot act until it has received the certifica-
tion of the State Board.

The RWQCB considers the opi nions of other reviewing agencies and will
specifically gxamine your project to see if it meets the provisions of
Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as amended. The RWGCB staff is available to help you understand just how
these provisions apply to your project. If you would like detailed informa-
tion regarding certification, the regulations are contained in Subchapter
II, Chapter 3, Title 23 of the State Administrative Code. The RWQCB regula-
tory policies for dredging are contained in the Regional Board Resolution
enclosed in the Appendix, A new dredging policy will probably be set in
the near future. The RWQCB needs about 60 days in which to process your permit.

The RWQCB may also prepare a "letter of withdrawal." This is a letter
to the Corps stating that since there is no adverse impact on water quality,
the COE should withdraw its request for certification. It should be understood
that the Standard Application Form is also a formal request for certification
which will be granted or denied inless the RWQCB sends the Coordinator a letter
of withdrawal.
An application is considered complete if it has met the Permit Coordina-
tor's requirements and includes the sediment a 'nalysis as required by the RWQCB
Executive 0-Ifficer, cost analysis for various methods o'L disposal, and economic
and social impact data. This policy of the RWQCB is contained in a motion
adopted on october 15, L974.

You must consult with the RWQCB staff to determine the number and
location of sediment samples prior to submitting your application. Please
contact the engineer responsible for certification and special activities.

The Regional Board's phone number is (415) 464-1255.

STATE UANDS COMNISSIOIT (SLC)

The'SLC is a State.agency which regulates dredging on lands in which the
State has ownership or property rights (such as mineral rights). - The Commission
will want to know-who owns your s. ite(s)j who has any leases on your site, a-ad
whether.or not you propose to remove or cover minerals. The State acts through
the SLC as owners of the material (sand, gravel, etc.) on the sovereign lands Of
the State of California'and certain grant lands. Permits are required from the
SLC by Section 6303 of the Public Resources Code to either remove from or deposit
material on the State's sovereign lands in San Francisco Bay. A lease is required
if materials from certain grant lands or sovereign lands are to be dredged for
commercial purposes.

The Commission, in determining if a lease should be gra:nted, does not have
to await written comments before commencing to process your application. Particular
attention will be paid to the Environmental Impact Report prepared (if required)'by
the SLC Staff using the data you supply with your application.

In certain instances if material removal is for commercial resale.? then
certain bidding procedures will be employed, the lease being-issued to the highest
bidder. In any instance where material removed is to be placed upon private pro-
perty (not returned to State Lands), then a charge per cubic yard will be
made.

The SLC will receive your application,from the Coordinator and process it
according to its procedures. If you have a valid lease for your site,, the Commission
will probably complete processing your application form within about 60 days, but if
you need to be granted a permit or a lease, the Commission's procedures will take
about six months. If you have clear title, that is, if the State has no legal
interest in the land, the Commission will forward any comments within sixty (60) days.
However, since the SLC is not"a regulatory agency, but property ownerg the applicant
will be responsible to negotiate directly with SLC staff for your permit or lease.
The Permit- Coordinator will not hold State comments and regulatory permits until
the SLC action is final. The processing of your permit or lease by SLC will'proceed
concurrently with the actions of the other agencies (including the Federal agencies).
Those agencies will normally approve your project with the condition that it becomes
valid if your SLC permit or lease is granted.

Questions can be addressed to the SLC staff either by mail or by phone at
(213) 435-6681.

OTHER AGENCIES

Before action can be taken by some of the permitting agencies, several Federal
and State agencies are required by law or policy to review applications for dredging
permits and to submit their comments for consideration.

Some of the agencies that-usually review each application in detail are
listed below with brief remarks about their interest in dredging:

1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

EPA in conjunction with the COE sets dredge spoil disposal criteria
and requirements for sediment analysis. Besides these policy-making and regulatory
functions, EPA serves as a commenting agency for dredging projects. With respect.
to its interests as a reviewing agency, EPA will look at proposed projects with
particular attention to their air and water quality impacts, including the indirect
impacts associated with related construction projects (such as shopping centers,
factories and complex sources). For dredging projects with open water disposal,
EPA is most interested in the comparison of sediment analysis with site criteria.
For dredging projects involving land disposal, EPA will look closely at any pro-
posed effluent:discharge., impacts on critical areas (such as.marshlands), and other@
aspects.

The EPA criteria and an exDlanation of sediment analysis requirements
are included in Section III.

2. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
United States National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

These agencies have been delegated the responsibility of conserving the
fish and wildlife resources of the nation. Therefore, they review a maintenance
dredging application with particular attention to the sediment analysis (to determine
the pollutant characteristics of the material) and the spoil site (to determine the
suitability of the proposed site in relation to the effect of spoiling on fish and
wildlife). New dredging review procedures are similar but given more intensive
review. In addition, these agencies are concerned with the location and time of year
that dredging and aquatic disposal activities will occur.

3. California State Department of Fish and Game (F&G)

This agency is similarly interested in sediment analyses and spoil sites.
.Also, the Department is concerned with the time of year that any Bay aquatic spoil
site will be used, with the impact of land disposalon wildlife, and with any spoil
effluent discharge associated with a proposed land di'sposal.site. The F&C, comments
are closely considered by WQCB for the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements and
by the State Water Resources Control Board for certification.

4. State Clearinghouse

In case you have to prepare an environmental document as part of your
application, your lead agency should forward copies of the document to the State
Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse). The Clearinghouse will circu-
late the document to State agencies for comment and respond to the lead agency. More
information about environmental documents is found in Section IV of this brochure..

5. Other Agencies Routinely Asked for Comments

The Coordinator will send a condensation of your application to'govern-
mental agencies and private parties with possible interests in your proposed project.
These agencies and parties may include organizations such as the State Departments of
Transportation, Water Resources, Parks and Recreation, Conservation and Navigation
and Ocean Development, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, U.S.Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, Sierra Club, Save the, Bay, local ecology centers, and so on.

APPENDIX I

ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF THE AGENCIES

Mail application to:

Dredging Permit Coordinator
c/o San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue,, Room 2011
San, Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 557-1860

Agencies you may wish to contact for information are:

(Permit granting agencies)

a. (COE) C. (SLC)
Regulatory Functions Branch State Lands Commission
U.S.. Army Corps of Engineers State Lands Division
San Francisco District 100 Oceangate, Suite 300
100 McAllister Street Long Beach, CA 90802
San Francisco, CA 941o2 Phone: (213) 435-6681
Phone: (415) 556-5178

b. (BCDC) d. (RWQCB)
San Francisco Bay. Conservation San Francisco Regional Water
and Development Commission Quality Control Board
30 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2011 1111 Jackson Street
San Francisco, CA 94102 Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (415)557-3686 Phone: (415) 464-1255

(Reviewing Agencies)

a. (USFWS) (EPA)
United States Fish and Wildlife Environmental Protection Agency
Service Region IX
2800 Cottage Way, Room E-2727 100 California Street
Sacramento, CA 95825 San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (916) 484-4731 Attn: Chief, Permits Branch,
Enforcement Division
b. (F & G)
Department of Fish and Game d. (NNFS)
Region III National Marine Fisheries
P.O. Box 47 Service
Yountville, CA 94599 Southwest Region
Phone: (707) 944-2443 P.O. Box 98
Tiburon, CA 94982
Phone: (415) 556-0565

APPENDIX II

FEES

1. Permit Coordinator: none

2. Corps of Engineers: (only if discharged in navigable waters)

For projects involving 2500 cu. yds. or less ........................ $ 10.00

For projects involving more than 2500 cu. Yds ....................... $ 100.00

3. Bay Conservation and Development Commission:

All routine maintenance dredging of whatever amount,.
and-any new dredging less than 100,000 cubic yards
within a 12-month.period ....................... $ 100.00

Work which qualifies for a BCDC major permit ....................... $ 300.00
to
$2,500-00

4. Regional Water quality Control Board:

You must pay a fee for the setting of waste discharge requirements and another
fee for certification. The amount of each fee should be calculated as follows:

TYPE OF DREDGING UNIT FEES

Under 25,000 - Over
25,000 500,000 500,000
cu. yds. cu. yds. cu. yds.

Dredging operations with Quantity $100 'klOO + (1.8 $1,000
spoils disposal such as of material x thousands
navigational dredging, to be of cu. yds.
marina development and dredged
stream.bed modification.

Under 500 500-5000 Over 5000
Tons/Day Tons/pay Tons/Day
Product dredging Maximum $100 $G;20 x $1,000
operations., such as Daily (Tons/Day)
sand, gravel or Production
mineral removal. Rate

It is possible that the Waste Discharge Requirement fee only may be waived in
cases of aquatic disposal at an approved site. The RWQCB staff,will tell you
if this provision applies to your project.

5. State Lands Commission:
Filing fee .............................. $ 25 (public agencies excepted)
Minimum expense deposit ................ $ 100 (public agencies excepted)

APPENDIX III

REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL 130ARD
POLICY FOR THE REGULATION OF DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL

The Regional Board's Interim Basin Pian and Resolution No. 68-32 specify
the following water quality ob'je_ct'ive*s per''rinerm,'to tnis policy which the Board
intends to maintain in the San Francisco Day Region:

A. No significant variation in turbidity beyond present natural background levels.

B@. No bottom deposits above natural background levels.

C. No toxic or deleterious substances present in concentrations or quantities
which will cause deleterious effects on aquatic biota, wildlife, or water-
fowl.or which reader any of these unfit for human consumption either at
levels created in the receiving waters or as a result of biological
concentration.

The Interim Bas @'in Plan also states the Board's intent to prohibit the dis-
charge of all conservative toxic and deleterious substances above those levels which
can be achieved by source control to waters in the Basin; and in Resolution No. 72-15
the Regional Board adopted the following interim policy for the regulation of dredged
spoil disposal:

A. Projects involving disposal of more than 10,000 cubic yards of dredged spoil:

1. Any person proposing a dredging project which involves disposal
of more than 10,000 cubic yards will be required to collect
samples and perform sediment analyses for the following parameters:

Volatile Solids, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen,, Oil-Grease, Mercury, Lead, Zinc, Copper, Cadmium,
Polychlorinated-biphenols, and Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides.

The Regional Boaxd Executive Officer will specify the number,
location, and depth of sediment samples and the report format.

2. EPA criteria and any more recent technical information will be used
as guidelines to determine whether the [email protected] proposed
dredging area are (a) not polluted, (b) polluted with organic matter,
or (c) polluted with heavy metals, (d) if determined'as polluted., the
significance of the degree of pollution to the -waters of the Bay,
and to determine allowable dredge spoils disposal locations as
follows:

a. If none of the allowable concentration limits of the seven
criteria are exceeded, the sediment will be classed as "not
polluted" and will be allowed for dumping at one of five
spoil disposal-sites in the Bay which are proposed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (See attached map for loca-
tions of these sites.) The Regional Board Executive Officer
will specify the appropriate disposal site on a case-by-case basis.

b. If any of the allowable concentration limits of the
parameters except Zinc specified in EPA criteria are
exceeded !the sediment will be allowed for dumping at
a land disposal site approved by the Regional Board
except that spoils if polluted" with heavy metals or
organic matter may be allowed for aquatic disposal at
sites specified by the Regional Board on a case-by-case
basis after weighing both the significance of the degree
of pollution and the community values of the project, and
if it can be demonstrated by the proponent to the.satisfac-
tion of the Regional Board that:.'

--(I) Land disposal is not feasible, and

(2) The project is essential and must go forward,
otherwise severe economic or social damage will
result, and

(3) Additional funds are not available to permit the
project to proceed in compliance with the Board's
Interim Policy of April 25, 1972. It is not in-
tended that an exception be granted on this basis
more than once,

3. Projects where dredge spoils contain excessive amounts of other
0
constituents such as Copper, Cadmium, Polychlorinated-biphenols
or Chlorinated hydro-carbon pesticides, etc., will be reviewed
in accordance withthe.provisions of A.2.b. above.

B. Projects invDlving 10,000 cubic yards or less of dredged spoil:

1. Any person proposing a dredging,project which involves disposal
of less than 10,000 cubic yards of dredged spoil may be required
to perform sediment analyses if the Regional Board's Executive
Officer finds that the proposed dredging area is known or suspec-
ied to be highly polluted. In these cases, the same procedure
as described in Section A above will be followed in processing
the application for certification of the dredge project.

2. In the cases where sediment analyses are not.required, the
dredged spoil will be allowed for dumping at one of the five
disposal sites in the Bay proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The Regional Board Executive Officer will specify
the appropriate disposal site on a case-by-case basis.

Persons proposing a dredging project may be required to monitor the effects
of the dredging and spoil operations on the beneficial water uses. Proponents will
be encouraged to participate in other studies as a means of satisfying this require-
ment.

APPENDIX IV

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY INFORMATION, REGION IX
I DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL CRITERIA

'Purpose
The Dredge Material Disposal Criteria - Revision I (DMDC-RI). is the Regional
Office interpretation and implementation of the criteria published in the Federal.-'
Register of October 15, .1973, pursuant*to Section 102(a) of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 19,72 (PL,92-532) for the territorial sea, contig-
Uous zone, and ocean waters. The DSDC-R1 will also serve in the interim until
guidelines are published pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500) for inland navigable waters (waters of the
United States excluding the territorial sea).

The DSDC-R1 will be used in the evaluation of (1) applications for Corps
of Engineers permits pursuant to Section 103(a) MPRSA72 and Section 4o4(a)
FW:PCA72 and (2) Corps of Engineers projects for new and maintenance dredging.

Dredge Material Classification and Site Criteria

A. Criteria for Open Water Sites

1. Dredge material will be considered unpolluted and will be acceptable
for disposal at any of the established disposal sites and at any other
site, determined by Region IX on a case-by-case basis, provided that
the dredge material complies with the following condition.

a. The dredge material is composed of essentially sand and/or
gravel or of any other naturally occurring sedimentary
materials with particle sizes larger than silts and clays.,
generally found in inlet channels, ocean bars, ocean entrance
channels to sounds and estuaries, and other areas of normally
high wave energy such as predominate at open,coastlines.
Dredge material, having an analysis whereby glJo or greater
of the material-is retained on a Standard U.S. Sieve Size
No. 200, shall be considered unpolluted.

b. Unpolluted Dredge Material Bottom Sediment Criteria

Pollutant Maximum Material Concentration, ppm

Mercury 1.2
Cadmium 2.3
Lead 75
Zinc Igo
Oil and grease 1900

2. Polluted Dredge Material Bottom Sediment Criteria

Pollutant Maximum Material Concentration, pp

Mercury 1.7
Cadmium 3.2
Lead 110
Zinc 250
Oil and grease 2800

3. Heavily Polluted Dredge Material Bottom Sediment Criteria

In cases where dredge material exceeds the criteria in A.1-A-2
aboveY disposal at a 100-fathom site will be decided on a case-
by-case basis.

..B. Criteria For Land Disposal

1. The dredge material shall comply with the unpolluted dredge material
criteria where the site may be subject to erosion or wave action,
with the resultant return of material to the water.

2. If there is no return flov from a land disposal site, there is no
restriction. If there is a return flow, the maximum discharge
shall be 1.0 ml/l/hr settleable solids or less if required by
State or local agencies.

C. Criteria for Beach Replenishment

1. The dredge material shall comply with Section A.l. above; or

2. Both the dredge material and the beach disposal site shall be
sampled in accordance with Section E.1 below. Section A.l.b
shall apply and the average percentage of material retained
on a Standard U.S. Sieve Size No. 200 shall equal or exceed
the average retained on a Standard U.S. Sieve Size No. 200
for beach material core samples. The beach material core
samples shall be at least three (3) feet in depth unless
bed-rock or other destruction limits the sand depth.

D.- Criteria for Backfilling with Dredge Material

1. This section applies to the dredging of,material from an area
and the use of the resulting dredge material for back-filling
in the area from which the dredge material is obtained.

2. Dredge material shall comply with Section A-1.

3. The Area to be dredged shall be sampled in accord with
Section E.l., below.

E. Other Provisions

1. Sampling and Analysis Requirements for Dredge Material Disposal.

a. Number and location of Core Samples to be taken.

For all projects, the number and location of core samples
to be taken must be approved by Regional Office personnel
on a case-by-case basis. This approval will normally be
obtained after a meeting of the applicant or his representa-
tives with the Regional Office personnel.

The followingformula will be used to determine the number
of,cores to be obtained:.
Number of cores to =A -where A = areas to
be obtained 50 be dredged (sq. yards)

Each Cores should be located so as to provide representative
sampling of the dredge material.

Pollution sources, irregulaxity of area to be dredged, and
past sediment data may necessitate an increase in the number
of core samples required.

b. Number of Analyses per Core.

Each core to be analyzed shall be taken from the surface to
project depth. Each core shall then be divided into 3-foot seg-
ments, beginning with the surface segment. After division into
3-foot segments, if the remainder at the bottom is 1-1/2 feet
or greater, it will be considered as an additional segment. If
the remainder is less than 1-1/2 feet, it may be combined with
the last 3-foot segment.

c. Analyses to be Performed.

1. Substantially Sand

For thosd materials which the applicant believes are
substantially sand, only size distribution data are
required. One analysis shall be performed for each
core using a homogenized sample taken from surface to
project depth. In the event that the material is not
found to be substantially sand, the analyses indicated
below are required.

2. Open Water Disposal.

The following bottom sediment anal-yses-(dry weight basis are required):

Mercury Lead Oil and Grease
Cadmium Zinc

3. Analysis of Data.

The criteria for dredge material apply to the value obtained
by averaging analyses for any continuous six feet of core or
to any core having a total depth less than six feet. Where the
value obtained exceeds the criteria for.the proposed site,
disposal of the material which exceeds the criteria shall be
at an alternate site, in compliance with applicable site criteria.

The volume of dredge material that must be disposed of at
alternate sites will be determined by interpolating horizon-
tally between the polluted core and nearest unpolluted cores.

Core Ai Core B

100 ft.
[Hg] = 2 [Hg] = 0.5

Criteria for proposed site [HgJ I

[Hg] _(ppai) 2 cutoff 66-2/3 feet from Core A

4--
core A 25 50 75 Core B

@Distance (feet)

4. Additional requirements and monitoring may be specified to assure
compliance with water quality standards, protection of beneficial
uses, or the protection of wetlands at any proposed disposal site.

5. Sampling and analyses shall be in accord with procedures and methods
described in "Preliminary Sampling and Analytical Procedures for
Evaluating the Disposal of-Dredged Material," EPA, Region IX, dated
April, 1974, or by other procedures or methods for which written
concurrence has been obtained from Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement Division, 100 California Street, San Francisco, California,
94111. Telephone inquiries, on the subject of analytical methods,
should be directed to the Laboratory Support Branch of the Surveil-
lance and Analysis Division., Region DC (Telephone No. (415) 273-7502).

F. Dredge Material Disposal Sites

The description., loc ation, criteria, and special conditions for each
site are presented in the attached list. The use of a disposal site
shall only be in compliance with the applicable criteria.

An applicant proposing a dredge spoil disposal site not herein listed
shall be required to prepare an acceptable environmental assessment
of the proposed disposal.

Questions, concerning application or interpretation of the DSDC-Rl,
should be directed to: Permits Branch of the Enforcement Division
(Telephone No4-(415) 556-3454).

DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL SITES

San Francisco District
Corps of Engineers

SF 7. Farallon Islands 100 Fathom 37031,45"N, 122035,45"W
Distance: 29.6 nautical miles from Golden Gate
Depth: 100 fathoms
Size: 1000 Yard radius
Criteria: A-3

SF 8. San Francisco Channel Bar 37045,o6"N, 122035,45"W
Distanqe: 2.8 nautical miles from shore
Depth: 35 to 46 feetl average 40
Size: about 2 square miles (5000 X 100 yards,
2500 yards south of and parallel to
channel).
Criteria: A.l.a

SF 9. Carquinez Straits 38003'50"N, 122015'55"W
Distance: 0.8 nautical miles from Mare Island
Straits entrance
Depth: 28 to 56 ft., average 42 feet
Size: rectangle 1000 x 2000 ft., long axis
bearing 800 true
Criteria: A.1 (Note: Site should be used only
during the months of Dec... Jan.,
Feb. Use of the site at other times
will require justification; approval
may be subject to provisions in the
permit which require monitoring and
other conditions)

SF 10. San Pablo Bay 380oo'28"N, 122024'55"W
Distance: 2.6 nautical miles NE of Pt. San Pedro
at Black and White-Marker Buoy
Depth: 38 to 40 ft. average 39 feet
Size: rectangle 1500 x 3000 ft., long axis bear-
ing 500 true
Criteria: A.1

SF 11. Alcatraz Island 37 0 49'17"N, 122 0 25'23"W
Distance: About 0.3 nautical miles- of Alcatraz
Island
Depth: 95 to 160 ft., average 130 feet
Size: radious of 1000 ft.
Criteria: A.1

SF 16. suisun Bay 38 0 03'05",11, 122 0 05'35"W
Distance: .2 nautical miles from nearest shore
Depth: 30 feet
Size: Rectangle 500' by 1230001; long axis
bearing 620 East of True North
Criteria: A.1

APPENDIX V MkP OF AGUATIC DISPOSAL SlTES

S v I I U H
ICARQUIN'EZ STRAITI ...
SF9

SAN PABLO BAY Benicia
SAN PABLO SAY Rodeo
SF10 SU is N SAY

Pinole
-PROPOSED SITE

San Nblo
Concord
Sawn Rat I Richmond

El CefTitQ walnut Creek

Bakeley

Islam

Alcatiaz Tfaa=e
14 Isund

Oakland
rALCATRAZ
S F. 11 Alameda

San Leandro
[-SAN FRANCISCO BAR
Daly City
S F a
South S.F. Hayward
IFARALLON I S LA N 0 7S-
S F 7

Pacifiza

Burlingame
San M ea Ffemont

COMPOSITZ ENVIRONME-N-TAL S"I'ATEMENT
SAN FRANCZSCO BAY REGION 'CALIFORNIA

DISPOSAL SITES

Redwood City

U.S. ARMY ENGIAM DIST.. UX FXANCISCO, C OF E
04AW14: FILE NO. HaIfMoon say %lenlo Park
TRACIM To ACCOMPAMY C.E.S.
WED JULY 1975 Palo Alto

4 S 6

APPENDIX VI
FORK FOR SEDMNT ANALYSIS DATA
Contaminant:
laumns 1 2
Sample No. Concentration (c)(ppm) or X .51 g-x
or percent retained on #200 Depth d)(f't) C x d d
seive.

$4
0

!Use at least one page for each contaminant
In Column 1: Write the samDle number.
In Column 2: Write the concentration of the contaminant in parts per million.
;.In Column 3: Write the depth. Use three foot intervals. If the remainder at the bottom is
1-1/2 ft. or greater, it will be considered as an additional segment. If the
remainder is less than 1-1/2 ft., it may be combined with the last 3 ft. segment.
Column 4: Multiply column 2 by column 3 of each depth.
Column 5: Depthweighted average for the core. Add column 4 and divide by the sum of
column 3.
For-substaatially sand --complete columns I and 2 on-ly.

APPE10T7 VII

QUESTIONNAIRE

Coordinator Permit No.
(if knownT

NAME AND ADDRESS

PROJECT

DATE OF COMMENT your comments regarding dredging permit processing
are encouraged. You should make your comments
directly to the permit coordinator by mail (using
this form) or by telephone at (415) 557-186o

1. IS THE COMMON APPLICATION FORM HELPFUL TO YOU? WHAT AREAS SHOULD IT COVER MORE
THOROUGHLY? HOW CAN IT BE IMPROVED? PLEASE EXPLAI11.'

2. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE PERMIT PROCESS: (a) MOVES VERY FAST L\T TERMS OF RESULTS
-(b) MOVES AS FAST AS CAIN BE EXPECTED

IN YOUR OPINION HOW CAN IT BE IMPROVED

DO YOU F MT THE PERMIT COORDINATOR HELPFUL? HOW WOULD Y OU IMPROVE PERMIT PROCESSING
COORDL7ATION?

4. ADDITIONAL REMARKS.

(PLEASE USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NEEDED - WE APPRECIATE YOUR INTEREST)

APPENDIX G

APPLICATION FOR DREDGING PERMIT

TO BE FILLED IN BY PERMIT COORDINATOR

1. Application Number:

2. Date Application Received:

3. Updated Since:

4. Agency Application Number;

Corps Public Notice Number:

APPLICATION FOR DREDGING PERMIT OR CERTIFICATION FOR ALL
MA=NANCE DREDGING AND ANY NEW DREDGING OF LESS THAN 100,000 CUBIC YMS

1. APPLICANT INFORMATION (refer to page 2 in brochure)

A. OWNER

1. Owner's Name:

Owner's Representative (if any):

2. owner's Address:

Representative's Address:

3. owner's Telephone Number: Representative's:

B. APPLICANT

4. Applicant's Name (if different thanOwner):

Applicant's Representative (if any):

5. Applicant's Address:

Representative Address:'

6. Applicant's Telephone Number: Representative's:

C. CERTIFICATE OF APPLICANT

I certify that the information in this application and all acco=ar-ying exhibits
is.-Ifull, complete, and correct,, and understand that misstatement or omission of
such information, whether unintentional or not, shall be grounds for susmension
or revocation of the permit.

SIGNATUREE OF APPLICANT Date of
(or representative): Signature:,
*TE: If signer is applicant's representative, evidence that the signer may bind the
7pp-acant must be included in this am-plication. (Refer to page 3 of the brochu--e.)

If applicant is not the owner, evidence that the applicant may bind the owner must
be included in this application. (Refer to -cage 3 of the brochure.)

11. PROJECT INFORMATION

A. GENERAL

1. Project Name:

2. Brief Description of Work:

3. Brief Statement of Purpose of Dredging:

B. LOCATION

1. County(ies):

2. City(ies) if any (if unincorporated, name of community or other general area):

3. Name of waterway at location:

4. Assessor's parcel number or other brief legal description if property is not
defined as such:

The namis, addresses, and phone numbers of adjacent property owners or
residents are:

NORTH:

SOUTH:

EAST:

'WEST:

6. Does the work fall within the boundaries of BCDC as set fo'rth in the McAteer-
Petris Act, Gov. C. Sec., 666io?

C. OWNERSHIP

1. Is the property involved.in tbd--, application in common ownership with any
adjacent or nearby property? If so, do you intend to amply for a
dredging permit for work on such property within the next twelve months?

2. The project site is owned in fee by the applicant subject to
SLC lease grant lands subject to public trust.

3. Is a lease or permit required frcm. SLC?

-3-.

D. SCOPE

1. The work involves dredging cubic yards of material and deposit-
ing cubic yards of spoil at

2. The work (other then dredge spoils) involves placing cubic yards
of fill over . square feet of surface area, or placing
square feet of structure on pilings or cantilevered over
square feet of Bay surface a-rea and/or square feet of a marsh, and/
or - square feet of a salt pond, and/or square feet of
a managed wetland, and/or square feet of a certain waterway.
3. The work does/does not involve placing fill, grading, constructing structures,
utilities, or other activity within 100 feet,inl'and of the line of highest
tidal action.

4. The work would cost approximately and would be started on
and completed on

5. Is any portion of the activity for which authorization is sought now complete?
Yes No If answer is "yes"give.reasons and brief descrip-
tion

Month and year the activity was completed
Indicate location of completed work on the drawings.

E. TYPE CF DREDGING

1. New Dredging (any dredging other than maintenance dredgin*
g) -
The work does/does not include new dredging. It is expected that further-new
dredging of cubic yards of material will. be_.xe.qu_!zed in the
year Maintenance dredging of cubic
yards will be required every years.

2. Maintenance Dredging. ("Maintenance dredging" means any dredging in San
Francisco Bay to (a) restore water depths authorized by the COE prior to
September 17, 1,065, (b) restore water depths that existed at a facility
on or after September 17, 1965, or (c) restore water depths authorized by
BCDC on or after September 17, 1965.)
The project does/does not include.maintenance dredging. The.last time
the area was dredged was in when, cubic yards
of material was removed. It is expected that maintenance dredging will
again.be_re@quired in the year

F. EG'UIPNENT

The following equipment.will be used: Clamshell-dredge;
hydraulic dredge; Barge (specify type and size).

G. DISPOSAL

1. General. Indicate the approximate quantities of spoils in cubic yards
which will be deposited at each of the following locations:

AMOUNTS

a. a dry land location outside BcDc jurisdiction.
b. a dry land location within BCDC jurisdiction.
C. a BCDC approved fill project.
.d. an ocean dumping site approved by EPA.
e. an U. S. Army Corps of Engineers designated dumping site
in the Bay.
f other (please specify)

If "e" above applies, briefly explain why no other alternative dumping
site is feasible and briefly describe what investigations were made to
find other feasible sites:

2. Land Disposal Only

a. The fill will be unconditioned conditioned.
b. There will/Will not be Ia return flow..
C. Owner of disposal site

I11'.PROCESS nTG (refer to Page 3 in the brochure)

A. APPROVAL BY LOCAL AGENCIES

State the approving agencies., types and dates of each local approval that (a) is
required, and (b) has been obtained and/or (c) has been applied for, including, but
not limited to rezoning, subdivision, PUD, engineering, utilities and/or review by
planning commissions, or departments, port authorities, special committees, boards
of supervisors or city councils, or regional bodies. Indicate the name of the local
person knowledgeable about the approval.
Approving Type of Date of Application Date of Knowledgeable Person
Agency Approval Approval (Phone)

If any city or county having jurisdiction does not require any approvals, attach a
written.communication from the city or county so stating (see Section IV. below).

B. PRIOR AGENCY CORTACT

Contact was made with:
RWQCB (Date of first contact)-- -(-person contacted) -(-Date Permit issued or approval
granted)
BCDC

*LC (Date of first contact) (person contacted) (Date permit issued or approval
-.granted)
COE

EPA

C. SUBMISSION TO COE
Please do = do not submit this application to the Corps of Engineers
for Federal-processing. If you check the "do" box, the Coo'rdinator will give.
you an application form for use by federal agencies. Submit the federal form
to the Coordinator, who will send it to the Corps for you. If you check the
"do not" box, you must obtain this additional form from the Corps yourself.
In any case, you mil t get permission from the Corps.to carry out you�"I@roject.)

PIEASE NOTE: THE INFORMATION ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT. PLEASE READ
CAREFULLY BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR APPLICATION.

IV. ATTACBMENTS TO THE APPLICATION. Attach the following to your application:

1. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT--This description should be complete,
but brief since it will be used to describe your project in various notices.
(See page 2 of brochure for description.)

2. LOCAL REPORT--Statement of decisions on your project by local agencies, or
statements by local agencies that no decision is necessary. (See page 3
of brochure for,description.)

3. bW1ABh6HIP- applies to both dredging and disposal sites. Evidence that site
is owned by applicant or that applicant has a leasehold interest in the
site. (See page 3 of brochure for description.)

4. BIRTH CERTIFICATE OR CORPORATE CERTIFICATION--Required by State Lands
Commission for projects on properties in which State Lands has an interest
unless applicant is a public agency, or document is already on file in SLC
office. (See page 4 of brochure for description.)

5. DRAWINGS--Site plans, typical sections, and location maps. (See page 4
of brochure for description and example.)

6. ENVIROMENTAL DOCUNENT--Report by a lead agency regarding impact of project
on environment or statement by agency that project is exempt from requirement
to prepare such report. (See page 5 of brochure for description.)

.7. FEES--Se-parate checks payable to each agency in accordance with the schedule
shown in Appendix I on page 14 of the brochure.

8. SEDINENT ANALYSIS--Provides a means of assessing the levels of contamination which
may be present at your site. Use the form provided on page 25 of the information
brochure; one sheet for each contaminant.

V. REMAM

APPENDIX H

DREDGING APPLICATION PROCESS RECORDS

Agency Response for Application Completeness
File No. DMk=l SLC SLC 0 Comment -No jurisdiction Dredging
8 0 0 Lease at Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name S. F. Port Commission Application
Date Submitted Feh. 21 - 1
Mace Numbers In Boxes Indicate RVJOC8 SWRCS
Quantity (G.Y.) 5009000 - Days Taken For Indicated SWACS receives data Process
30 Step. 29 from RWOCS and acts
Disposal Site Alcatraz subsequently.
Authorized
0 Now Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
ER Maint. Dredging
lhdicates Agency faitnd application incomplete; 28 62
lime Indicates total days noodod for receival of
necassai y data for application completeness.
BCDC BCDC
16 29 Action by COE
Total no. of days Permit Granted or &nied
neededlor
No. of times application review

Application 3 9 32 26 24
Submitted

No. of days actual review USFWS USFVVS
-J Application
3.6 Filed 15 Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS WITS

5 15
Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA
10 so

Resources Agency mailed
State comments 48 days COE Permit Granted or Denied;
after Public Notice issued. Status Reports;
33 Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied
COE Issues Public Notice 7 542

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC SLC Dredging
File NO. D-75=2 comment -NaJurlsdictlon
19 0
0 Lease or Permit Granted" Mnled
ProjeciName Marina Vlstn
Application
Date Submitted March 5, 1975
RWQCB Numbers In Boxes Indicate RWOCS SWRCB
Quantity (G.Y.) 8,000 Days Taken For Indicated SWRCB receives data Process
19 Step. 110 109 from RWQC8 and acts
Disposal Site Land sub4aquently.
Authorized.
D New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
Maint. Dredging
14 27
indicates Agency found application Incomplete;
time indicates total days needed for recelval of
necessary data for application oomplateness.

BCDC SCDC
Action by COE,
6 41
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
neededfor
NO. Of times application review

Application-> 1 2 2 0 40 173
Submitted

No. of days actual review USFWS USFWS
Application
7 Filed 67
Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NK4FS NMFS
5 33
Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

10 76

Resources Agency mailed
State comments 51days COE Permit Granted or Denied;
after Public Notice issued. Status Reports;
17 Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied
:3[:
E Issues Public 'Notice 81 9

Agency Response for Application Completeness
I SLC
File No. D-75-3 SLC Rl comment -No jurisdiction Dredging
Lease or Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name Smith-Rice Co. pp icat on
Date Submitted March 6, 1975
Numbers In Boxes Indicate SWRCS
Quantity (C.Y.) 59000 Days Ta 'ken For Indicated SWRCS receives data Process
Step. from RWOCS and &cts
Alcatraz subsequently.
Disposal Site Authorized
fia New Dredging + By SB 2418
El MaInt. Dredging

Indicates Agency found application incomplete;
time indicates total days needed for rocelvall of
necessary data for application completeness.

Action by COE.
Permit Granted or Denied
Total no. of days
neadedfor
No. of I Imes application review

Application
Submitted 4

No. of days actua aw
USFWS USFWS
J Applicat on
Filed
Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NIVIFS

Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA

Resources Agency mailed
State comments 36 days Permit Grarited or Denied;
Status Reports;
after Public Notice issued. Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied

COE Issues Public Notice L=

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC SLC
Dredging
EX) Comment No Jurisdiction
File No. D-75=4 0
0 Lease or Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name Basalt Rock Co. A ion
pplicat
Date Submitted March 24, 197
RWOC13 Numbers In Boxes Indicate WWII 5WRC8
Days Taken For Indicated ---I S
Quantity (C.Y.) 10,000 r WIRCR receives data
fro Process
or
Step. 12 m FIWQCB and so*
Disposal Site Alcatraz subsequently. Authorized
0 New Dredging By SB 2418
F+G F*G
Maint. Dredging
13 43
lhdicates Agency found application Incomplete;
ilina indicates total days needed for recelval of
necessary data for application completeness.
acoc ecoc
Action by COE.
0 33
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
needed for
No. of t Imes application review

Application 3 21 53 0 1 32 190
Submitted

No. of days actual review USFW USFWS
Application
6 Filed 14
Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NMFS

13
Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA
6 61,

Resources Agency mailed
State comments 62 days COE Permit Granted or Denied;
after Public Notice issued. Status Reports;
5 Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied

Q A
E Issues Public Notice %J

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC SLC Comment- No Jurisdiction Dredging
File No. D-75=5'. 5 0 Lease or Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name Standard 011 CO Application
Date Submitted April 8- 1
RWOCEI Numbers In Boxes Indicate RWQCB SWRC8
Quantity (C.Y.) 2s300 Days Ta.ken For Indicated SWRC8 receives data Process
22 Step- 57 from RWOCO and act&
Disposal Site Alcatraz subsequently. Authorized
El New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
0 MaInt. Dredging
40 55
indicates Aga=y found application Incomplete;
time indicates total days needed for recelval of
necessary data for application completeness.
BCDC BCDC
0 Action by.COE,
Total no. of days. Permit Granted or Denied
neoded for
No. Cl times application review

Applical Ion 0 0 -9 120
Submitted

No. of days actual review USFWS SFWS
Application
.5 Filed 7 Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NMFS
36 Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA
14 17

Resources Agency mailed
State comments 48 days COE Permit Gra(ited or Denledt
after Public Notice issued. Status Reports;
8 Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied

COE Issues Public Notice

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC SLC
Dredging
File No. DL-75-6 Comment -No Jurisdiction
8 7 0 Lease or Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name Merritt .Ship Repair Application
Date Submitted April 18, 1975 RVVOCB Numbers In Boxes Indicate HWOCS SWRCS
ll t 000 Days Taken For Indicated SMICS receives data
Ouantity (C.Y.) - 17 Step. 27 from RWQC0 and acts Process
Ocean subsequently.
Disposal Site Authorized
8
New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 241
fidWalnt. Dredging
9 38
lhdicates Agency foond application Incomplete;
it(ne Indicates foist days needed for receival of
necessary data for application completeness.
BCDC BCDC
Action by COE.
16 26
Total no. of day& Permit Granted or Denied
neededlor
No. of times application review

Applica Ion
1 .7 0 0 66
Submitted

No. of days actual review USFWS USFWS
Application
7 Flied 20
Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NMFS
F
3 21
Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Daniel

EPA EPA
6 35
Resources Agency mailed
State comments 15 days COE Permit Granted or Denied;
after Public Notice issued. Status Reports;
15 Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Dented

E issues Public Notice 4

Or,

Agency Response for Application Completeness
File No. D-75-7 SLC SLC Comment -No J urisdiction Dredging
13 2 7 Lease or Permit Granted or Denied
Prolect Name Parr-Richmond Terminal Application
Date Submitted April 25, 127 RVVOCB Numbers In Boxes Indicate RWOC6 SWRCS
Quantity (C.Y.) 18,000 Days Taken For Indicated SWRCS receives data Process
14 Step. 69 76 from MOCE1 and acts
Disposal Site Alcatraz subsequently. Authorized
0 New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
EO Maint. Dredging 22 41
Indicates Agency loundapplication Incomplete;
time indicatos total days needed for reGelval of
necessary data for application completeness.
BCOG BCDC
16 13 ActlQn by COE,
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
needed for
No. of times application review

Application 3 11 11
Submitted _> 0 48 158

No. of days actual review USFW USFWS
Application
.2 Flied 14 Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NIVIFS

Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA
16 20

Resources Agency mailed
State comments 85 days COE Oermit Granted or Denied;
after Public Notice issued. Status Reports;
15 Comments Action by COE.
Permit granted or Denied

COE Issues Public Notice 27 120

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC SLO
File No. D-75-8 00ornment - No Jurisdiction Dredging
Le"a or Permit Granted of Denied
Project Name City of Richmond
Application
Date Submitted April 14, 1975
Numbers In Boxes Indicate SWRC8
Quantity (C.Y.) 16,000 - Days Ta.ken For Indicated SWRCS receives data Process
Step. from RWOCS and acts
Disposal Site Alcatraz subsequently. Authorized
0 New Dredging By SB 2418
+ F+G
[H Maint. Dredging
22 8
lndicalasAgencyloundapplicationincomple
tirno indicates total days needed for raLelval of
nKe5sarydatatorapplicationoompletaness.
DC BCDC
Action by COE,
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
d for
neade o
No. of I imes applical Ion review

,atlon
Applic
Submitted

No. of days actual review USFWS usFWs
Applicat on
Filed
Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data 14MFS N s

Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA PA

Resources Agency mailed
State Comments 32 days
after Public Notice issued. COE Permit Grar@ed or Denied;
Status Reports;
Comments Action by COE.
Permit granted or Denied
M

E issues Public Notice
Co

AgericyResponse for Application Completeness
File No. D-75-9 SLC SLC 0 comment -No Jurisdiction Dredging
7 163 X Lease of Permit Caranted or Mnled
Standard Oil Co.
Project Name Application
Date Submitted May 2. 1975 FIWQCB Numbers In Boxes Indicate AWOC8 sVVRC8
Quantity (C.Y.) 849000 - Days Taken For Indicated SWIFICS receives data Process
4 Step. 63 81 from RWOC0 and actit
Alcatraz subsequently.
Disposal Site Authorized
11 New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
IN Maint. Dredging 37
lhalcates Agency IOLnd application Incomplete;
time indicates totil days needod (of rocelval of
nocessairy data for application completeness.
BCDC BCDC
38 Action by COE.
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
needed for.
No. of times application review

Application -39 20
Submitted

no. of days actual review USFWs SFViS
Application
9 Filed
Tran*smittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS MFS
3 30 Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA
8 38
Resources Agency mailed
State coments 36 days -
after Public Notice issued. COE Permit Granted or Denied;
Status Reports;
9 Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied

COE Issues Public Notice 21

Agency Response for Application Completeness
D-75-10 SLC SLC Comment -No Jurisdiction Dredging
File No.
C) Lane or Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name Mira Monte Duck Club
Application
May 9f 1975
Date Submitted
RWQCE1 Numbers In Boxes Indicate RWOCO sWRCa
Quan lity (C.Y.) 16o Days Taken For Indicated SWRCB recelv*3 data Process
Step. from RWQCB and AM
Land
subsequently.
Disposal Site Authorized
Status; Inactive
D New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
Ud maint. Dredging

indicates Agency found application Incomplete;
time Indicates total days necood for recelval of
necessary data for application completeness.
BCDC BCDC
Action by COE,
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
needed for
No. of times application review

Application
Submitted

No. of days am ual review USFW USFWS
Application
Filed Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NIVIFS

Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

COE Permit Granted or Denied;
Status Reports;
Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied

F-J E issues Public Notice

Agency Response for Application Completeness
File No. D-Till SLC SLC [3 Comment No Jurisdiction Dredging
10 6 0 Lease or Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name Levin Metals Corp. Application
Date Submitted May 20, 1975 RWQC13 Numbers In Boxes Indicate RWOCB SWRCB
Quantity (G.Y.) 5,000 Days Taken For Indicated SWRCB receives data
13 Step. 32 from RWOCO and actit Process
Disposal Site Alcatraz subsequently. Authorized
0 New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
(M Maint. Dredging
6 SO
Indicates Agency found application incomplete;
time indicates total days needed for racelval of
necessary data for application completeness.
BCDC BCDC
Action by COE.
Total no. *I days 15 21
Permit Granted or Denied
needed for
No. of I Imes application review

Application 0 9 189
Submitted

No. of days actual review USFWS UsFWs
pplicatlon
9 Filed 8
Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NMFS
3 34
Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA
15 49

Resources Agency mailed
State comments 32 days coli Permit Gran-led or Denied;
after Public Notice issued. Status Reports;
16 Comments Action by COE,
r Denied

COE Issues Public Notice

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC
SLC Dredging
[I comment -No jurisdiction
File No. D-75-12
5 Lease of Permit Granted Denied
ProjectName Construction Aggregates Corp. Application
Date Submitted June 19, 1M I'Moce Numbers In Boxes Indicate RWOCB SWR.CB
Quantity (C.Y.) 1001000 Days Taken For Indicated. SWIFICIB receives data Process
7 Step. from RW0C8 and acts
None GUbSeQuently.
Disposal Site Authorized
New Dredging By SB 2418
F+G F+G
Maint. Dredging

1@dicaies Agency lovnd application incomplete;
time Indicates total days needod for raceival of
necessary data lot application completeness.
SCDC SCDC
Action by COE,
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
neededlor
No. of times application review

Applica Ion
Submitted >[ 3 16 175

No. of days artual review USFWS SFWS
Application
13 Filed
Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NMFS

IS
Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

COE Permit Granted or Denied;
13 Status Reports; ?
Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied

E Issues Public Notice

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC SLC Dredging
File No. DL75-13 0 Comment -No Jurisdiction
19 Lease or Permit Granted or Dertled
Project Name Shellmaker, Inc. Application
Date Submitted June 169 1975 Numbers In Boxes Indicate
RWQCB RWOCO SWRC8
Quantity (C.Y.) 41,000 - Days Taken.For Indicated 6WFtC8 receives data Process
20 Step. 0 0 from SWOCS and acts
Disposal Site Land subsequently. Authorized
0 New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
[M Maint. Dredging
27
Indicates Agency found application Incomplete;
time Indicates total days needed for rocelval of
necessary data for application completeness.
BCDC BCOC
10 Action by COE,
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
neededfor
No. of times application review

Application
Submitted >[@2 14 29 5 10 82

No. of days actual review USFWS USFWS
Application
5 Flied 7 Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NMFS
7 Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

COE Permit Granted or Denied;
Status Reports;
Comments Action by COE.
Permit granted or Denied

COE Issues Public Notice

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC SLC Dredging
D-75-14 0 comment - No Jurisdiction
File No.
Project Name Port of Oakland 8 63 .C] Lease or Permit Granted or Denied Application
Date Submitted July 28, 1975
Numbers In Boxes Indicate RWQC8 SWRCB
Quantity (C.Y.) 309000 Days Taken For Indicated SWRCS receives data
Step. Process
14 61 61 from RWQC8 and acts
Alcatraz subsequently.
Disposal Site Authorized
0 New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
0 Maint. Dredging
16 65
Indicates Agency found application Incomplete;
time Indicates total days neaded for recelval of
nocassary data for appi icat Ion. completeness.
SCDC BCDC
7 50 Action by COE,
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
neadedfor
No. of times application review

Application 8 0 2 88
Submitted

No. of days actual review UsFVVs USFWS
Application
Flied 21 Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMIFS NMFS
15 25 Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

13 61
Resources Agency mailed
State comments 36 days COE Permit Granted or Denied;
after Public Notice issued. Status .Repo rts;
15 Comments Action by COE.
Permit granted or Denied

E issues Public Notice Lu

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC SLC Dredging
File No. D-75-15 X Comment -No Jurisdiction,
Lease or Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name Paradise Cay
Application
Date Submitted Aug. 13-, 197,@
Numbers In Boxes Indicate B sWRG0
Ouantity (C.Y.) 15,000 Days Taken For Indicated SWRC13 receives data Process
Step. from RWOCS and act*
catraz subsequently.
Disposal Site Authorized
D New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
(9 Maint. Dredging

lhdirates Agency foilnd application Incomplete;
time indicates total days noodad for recalval of
nocessary data for application compleloness.
BCDC
Action by COE.
Total no. of day. Permit Granted or Denied
neededfor
No. of times applic ation review

Application
Submitted

No. USFWS USFWS
Application
Filed 2
Permit Coordinator Reviews Transmittal to COE
Application for Required Data NMFS IVIFS

Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

Resources Agency mailed
State comments 28 d4ys COE Permit Granted or Dania&,
after Public Notice issued.
Status Reports;
Action by COE.
Comments
Permit granted or Denied

COE Issues Public Notice
F]

Agency Response for Application Completeness
@SLC
SLC Dredging
File No. D-75-16 C1 Comment -No Jurisdiction
14 0 Lease or Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name P. G. & E. Application
Aug. 15, 1975
Date Submitted HWQGB Numbers In Boxes Indicate HW0CB SWRCS
Days Taken For Indicated 6WRC8 receives data
Quantity (C.Y.) 26t5OO 14 Step. 0 0 from RWQC8 and o0s Process
Alcatraz subsequently.
Disposal Site Authorized
D New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
tM Maint. Dredging
19 41
Indicates AUoncy found application Incomplete;
time Indicates total days needed for racelval of
nocess"y data for application completeness.
BCDC BCDC
0 39 Action by COE,
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
neededfor
No. of times application review

Application 50 7
Submltled->F@1-[@-
No. of days actual review USFWS SFWS
Application
21 Filed Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NIVIFS NMFS
6 21
Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

21
Resources Agency mailed
State comments 43 days COE Permit Granted or Denied;
after Public Notice issued, Status Reports;
13 Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied

Els.sues Public Notice

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC SLC Dredging
File No. _11-75-17 F-1 11 C;omment- No Jurisdiction
Lease or Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name Dept. of Gen. Serndees Application
Date Submitted Aug. 2 5 0 1M RWOC13 Numbers in Boxes Indicate RWQCB SWFtC8
Quantity (C.Y.) 13,500 - - Days Ta'ken For Indicated SWRCS receives da!a Process
21 Step. from AWOC13 and acts
Disposal Site Carquinez subsequently. Authorized
0 New Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
tO Maint. Dredolng

Indicates Agency found application Incomplete;
time Indirales total days needed for recalval of
necessary data for application COMPIOW833.
BCDC CDC
6 43 Action by COE.
Total no. of days Permit Granted-or Denied
neededlor
140, of I Imes application review

Application 8 0
Submitted

No. of days actual review USFWS USFWS
Application
5 Filed Transmittal.to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NMFS

7 51
Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

COE Permit Gran ted or Denled;r
Status Reports,
12 Comments Action by COE.
Permit granted or Denied

A fJ
COE Issues Public Notice

Agency Response for Application Completeness
D-75-18 SLC S.I.C. 0 Comment -NoJurisdiclion Dredging
File No.
17 0 Lem or Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name Benicia, Port Terminal Co.
Application
Date Submitted Oct. 20, 1975
ndicate
Oca Numbers In Boxes I RWOC8 SWRCS
Days Taken For Indicated
Quantity (c.y.) 30r000 Step. SWRCB receives data Process
17 from RWOCS and &as
Disposal Site Carquinez subsequently. Authorized
By SB 2418
0 New Dredging F+G F+G
Maint. Dredging
35
lhdicales Agency found application Incomplete;
t.ime ind:cates totaidays needed for recelval of
necessary data for application completeness.
BCDC BCDC
16 Action by COE.
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
needed for
No.oftimes application review

Application
Submitted-> 7

No. of days actual review USFW$ USFWs
Application
-J 9 Flied 22
Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NMFS

7 18
Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

COE, Permit Granted or Denied;
Status Reports; I
10 Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied

J%
E Issues Public Notice

Agency Response for Application Completeness
File No. D-75-19 SLC SLC 0 Comment - No Jurisdiction Dredging
7 2 X Lane or Permit Granted or Denlqd
ProjectName Standard Oil Co. (existing lease) Application
Date Submitted Nov. 19, 1975 RWQC8 Number'a In Boxes Indicate RWQCB SWRCB
Ouantily (C.Y.) .75t 000 Days Taken For Indicated 6WRCB rocalves data Process
1 13 Step. from P1WQ08 and acts
Alcatraz
Disposal Site Authorized
D Now Dredging F+G F+G By SB 2418
0 MaInt. Dredging .14
l4dicale3 Agency found application Incomplete;
time Indicates total days needed for rocalval of
necessary data for applical Ion completeness.
BCDC
Action by COE.
Total no. of days. Permit Granted or Denied
@neadedfor
No. of times application review

Application 1 2 2 7
Submitted
No. of days actual review USFWs Application UsFWs
10 Filed 7
Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NMF5

7
Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

COE Permit Granted or Denied;
Status Reports;
10 Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied

COE Issues Public Notice

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC
Dredging
File No. D-75-20 C] Comment-. No Jurisdiction
0
Lome or Permit Granted " Denied
Project Name 1-be Sand Co.
(existing lease) Application
Date Submitted Dec. 11 1975
RWOCO Numbers In Boxes Indicate RWQCB SWRCS
Quantity (C.Y.) .100,000 Days Taken For, Indicated SWRCS receives "a Process
7 Step. 0 0 from FtWOC13 and moo
None subsociuantly.
Disposal Site Authorized
[a New Dredging F+Q F+G By SB 24.18
C3 MaInt. Dredging

Indicates Agency found application Incomplete;
time Indicates total days needed for receival of
flOG03sary date for application completeness.
ec BCDC
Action by COE,
Total nof days Permit Granted or Denied
nee for
No. at times applical "?n review
d

Applica Ion 2 4
Submitted 4

No, of days actual review USFWS USFWS
Application
13 Filed
Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NIVIFS NMFS

5
Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

COE Permit Granted or Denied;
Status Reports;
13 Comments Action by COE.
Permit granted or Denied

to COE issues Public Notice

Agency Response for Application Completeness
D -21 SLC SLC Dredging
File No. L-72 r 10 Comment -No Jurisdiction
0 two or Permit ar4nied or Pentad
Project Name Western Dock Enterprises Application
Date Submitted Dec. 3, 1975 Mace Numbers In Boxes Indicate RWOCH SWIFICS
Quantity (C.Y.) .400-500 Days Taken For Indicated swacs rwelves dogs
- Step. Process
from RWQCB and saiii
Disposal Site Alcatraz gu"uently.
Authorized
CR Now Dredging F+G F+Q By $13 2410
(I Maint. Drodoing

Indicates Agency found application Incomplete;
time Indicates total days nooded for recalval of
necessary data for application completeness.
8COC BCDC
Action by COE_
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
neadodfor
No. of times application review

Application > 5
Submitted

No. of days actual review USFVVS USFWS
Application
Filed
TransmIltal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NMFS

Total No. of Days for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

COE Permit Gran!ed or Denied;
Status Reports;
Comments Action by COE,
:23 Permit granted or Denied

COE Issues Public Notice

Agency Response for Application Completeness
51-c SLC
-75-22 No Jurisdiction Dredging
DL C4mment
File No.
7* Less* or Permit Granted or Dortled
Project Name Lawrence Giovannoni'
Application
Date Submitted Nov. 18, 1M
fivVOCB Numbers In Boxes Indicate MOM SWRCU
Quantity (C.Y.) 2,000 Days Taken For Indicated SWRCB receives 0814 Process
step. from RWOCO and acts
Disposal Site Land J subsequently. Authorized
El New Dredging F+G F+G By S13 2418
W MaInt. Dredging

Indicates Agency found application Incomplete;
time Indicates total days needed for recalval of
noc 3ary data for application completeness.
BCDC BCDC
6 Action by COE,,
Total no. of days
Permit Granted or Denied
neededfor
No. of times oppilcal Ion review

Applica Ion 2 14 28
Submitted

lJo. of days am ual review USF USFWS
Application
Filed
Transmittal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data
NMFS NMFS

Total No. of Mys for
Application Approval or Denial

EPA EPA

COE Permit Granted or Denied;..
Status Reports;
Comments Action by COE.
Permit granted or Denied
o
OE Issues Public Notice
f 4. 10

Agency Response for Application Completeness
SLC SLC Dredging
File No. DL-75-23 0 Comment -No Jurisdiction
Lane or Permit Granted or Denied
Project Name Harry. Easorn Application
Date Submitted Dec. lill IM Numbers In Boxes Indicate
RW B BWRCB
Quantity (G.Y.) 300- Days Taken For Indicated SWRI08recalvesclata Process
Step. from RWOCO and wit
Disposal Site Land subsequently. Authorized
13y.S13 2418
13 New Dredging F+01
IS Maint. Dredging

indicates Agency found application Incomplete,
lime Indicates total days needed for recalval of
necessary data tot application completeness.
IBCDC
Action by COE,
Total no. of days Permit Granted or Denied
needed for
No. of I Imes application review

Application 7
Subm@lted

No. of days actual review UsFWs
USFWS
I A Application
Filed
smiltal to COE
Permit Coordinator Reviews
Application for Required Data NMFS NMFS

Total No. of Viys for
Application Approval or Denial

EIA

COE Perrinit Granted or Denied;
Status Reports;
Comments Action by COE,
Permit granted or Denied

COE Issues Public Notice

APPENDIX I

OUT-OF-STATE COOBDINATION SYSTEMS

APPENDIX I OUT-OF-STATE COORDINATION SYSTEMS

At least five states have either implemented or begun to implement permit

Coordination systems of various types. Three of them-Washington, Oregons, and

Florida-have enacted permanent coordination structures. Minnesota is

contemplating doing the same. -The fifth, California, is conducting a

temporary experiment in coordination of dredging application which is

evaluated in Chapter Il of thisreport.

A. Washinpton-The Environmental Coordination Procedures Act of 1973

The Washington legislation, the only statewide coordination system to

be fully implemented thus far, is available at the applicant's discretion for

projects requiring at least one permit from the state Department of Ecology
(DOE). Applicants using the coordination system begin by filing DOE's "master

application" obtained from a county office or from one of the DOE offices.

The offices serve as information centers to assist applicants in deciding

whether or not to use the coordination procedures but, unfortunately7 many

counties lack the staff and funds to carry out these responsibilities.

DOE forwards the master application to State agencies, who in turn.

indicate whether or not they are "interested," which permit programs are

applicable, and the likely value of a public hearing. An agency failing to

assert its interest within 15 days waives it. Where permits are required,

applicable forms for each agency are sent to theapplicant by DOE. Completed,

and returned to DOE, they are forwarded to the appropriate agencies, Local

government approvals are a prerequisite to filing the master application.

I-1

A notice containing the project description and the time and place of any

required public hearing is published in a newspaper of general circulation in
0
the project's county three times at one-week intervals. A public hearing

mus t be held unless all interested State agencies and DOE indicate none is

required. Hearings are chaired by DOE and jointly attended by all interested

agencies, If there is no hearing, the public may submit written comments
to DOE within thirty (30) days of the notice publication.

Following the hearing or written submissions, DOE sets a date for

final permit decisions based on consultation with the agencies. There is no

statutory time limit. Agencies retain whatever permit powers they possbssed before
coordination, although non-compliance with time limits (absent a grant of an

extension) apparently bars further agency involvement. The authority of DOE as

coordinator to time limits tailored to the nature of the project is unique to

Washington.

Upon receipt of all agency decisions, DOE incorporates them into one

document and delivers it to the applicant. Appeals are available, as is judicial

review. An interesting dichotomy of appellate review standards has resulted

from the voluntary nature of the coordination system. "Coordinated" agency

permit decisions are sustained unless unsupported by material and substantial

evidence, or if arbitrary and capricious or violative of any statutory

condition. If an applicant proceeds with agencies individually, however, the

appeal boards may reevaluate the entire project and reach a different result.

Thus an applicant is in effect encouraged to shop for "favorable" procedures and

not all applicants are treated equally.

To date, the Washington Coordination Act has been utilized-for eighty6l-

one (81) projects, primarily large and complex ones. Applicants with small

1-2

projects have generally been advised that the coordination procedures would

not provide any significant benefit and might increase delays and expense.

No project that was solely dredging has utilized the Act's procedures, though

a number of projects including dredging have.

B. Oregon

1. Senate Bill 903-1975 Regular Session.

Like the Washington legislation it resembles, Oregonts new

coordination measure is intended to simplify permit application procedures,

accelerate decision-making, centralize application information availability? and

encourage joint Federal and local government participation in the procedures.

The bill took effect January-11 1976. As in Washington, use of coordination

procedures is voluntary. Coordination information is to be available

through the Executive Department (Governor's Office) and appropriate local

government offices.-

Any applicant using the coordination system submits an application

,to the Executive Department and requests issuance of all applicable permits.

The Executive Department then sends the application to all state agencies with

a possible interest requesting an indication of their interest and applicable

permit programs. Failure to assert an interest within 30 days waives an

agency's jurisdiction.

The Executive Department then supplies specific permit application

forms to the applicant, to be completed and returned directly to the

appropriate agency with a copy to the Executive Department. No changes have

been made in agency processing procedures or time limits. A consolidated

hearing is available but, unlike Washington, must be specifically requested

by either an agency or the applicant.

1-3

2. Low er-Willamette River Management Plan

Coordinated uniform permit procedures have been combined with

land and environmental planning for Oregon's major port and population center,

the Lower Willamette River Valley. The "Management Plan" embodies policies

and guidelines for the management of the 17 mile portion of the Willamette River,

agreed upon by all regulatory agencies,, and an administrative process

designed to facilitate.permit review... The guidelines contain specific land use,

water quality', and fish and wildlife preservation standards.

Applicants submit an application to the Corps of Rigineers. A

public notice is prepared and a copy sent to the central state clearinghouse.

If the proposed project conforms to the Management Plan, the clearinghouse

circulates a permit review form to all necessary state agencies which then have ten
(10) days to respond. If no negative comments are received the clearinghouse

forwards the Corp, s Public Notice to the Governor's Office recommending

approval of the project by the Corps. If a state permit is required, the same

recommendation is made to the Division of State Lands, which is constitutionally

required to manage lands belonging to the state.

If a proposed project does not comply with the plan, the applicant

is immediately notified, a lengthy permit review form is issued, and state
agencies have thirty (30) days to specify points.of non-conformance prior to

the applicant requesting State Lands authorization for his project. A newly
proposed amendment would limit the total agency review time to twenty (20)
days for a conforming project and ninety (90) days for a project not in

compliance with the plan. Presumably dredging projects within the scope of the

Wi-Ilamette Plan and coordination and conforming with it are more quickly

reviewed than those outside the plans area7 as proposed time constraints for

conforming projects are shorter than those a-Ilowed by State Iands for dredging

projects generally.

Dredging is defined as a major type of alteration.to the

Willamette River, and is subject to a permit procedure. The plan puts

applicants on notice of the management policies for the region7 the river

zone his project is in, sets forth guidelines for that zone and indicates

whether or not his project is one considered beneficial and therefore permissible

in that location. Applicants can therefore anticipate the length and

complexity of the review process, and tailor their proposals to avoid time,

expense, and frustration.

C. Florida-Environmental Reorganization Act of 1975_

The changes in Florida procedure appear more pervasive than those

in Washington and Oregon. The Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of

1975, effective July li 1975, is intended to promote the efficient, effective7

and economical operati-on of 6tate environmental agencies by centralizing

responsibility for environmental management, authorizing delegation of

substantial decision-making authority to a regional level, and consolidating

administrative, planning, permitting, enforcement7 and operational activities.

A new Department of Environmental Regulation, headed by a secretary

appointed by the Governor, is composed of administrative services, environmental

programs, and environmental permitting divisions. The secretary is to establish

environmental districts with boundaries and office locations to generally

coincide with existing water management districtst but modifiable to best

serve the purposes of the legislation. The act also creates the Environmental

Regulation Commission as a part of the Department of Environmental Regulation.

1-5

This Commission sets all standards and processing procedures for the

Department of Environmental Regulation. It also acts as an appellate body for

all actions of the Department of Environmental Regulation, except those

involving State lands. Where State lands are at issue, the Governor and

cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust

Fund and owners of State lands, hear and decide appeals of its decisions.

The Secretary may delegate permit and other department authority to

district managers, except where projects wi-U have regional impact. Regional

projects must be centrally processed. The majority of applications will be

handled by district offices.

The Environmental Permitting Division of the Department of Environmental

Regulation processes designated permits, licenses7 and certificates, and

establishes uniform procedures and forms*

TheSecretary is authorized to adopt a short form application and

special procedural rules for certain statutorily defined activities, including,

among other things, dredge or fill of less then 4,000 cubic yards, maintenance

dredging for navigation channels, turning basins and berthing areas if performed

within ten (10) years of the original permit issuance, and.maintenance dredging

within ten (10) years of permit issuance of existing man made channels and

intake and discharge structures to original design specifications where the

original permit was granted prior to July 1, 1975.

D. Minnesota-Environmental Coordination Procedures Act

Minnesota is currently considering an "Environmental Coordination

Procedures Act," an intricate legislative proposal. The act's procedures would

be available to anyone applying for more than one of 180 environmentally related

permits designated by the state.

1-6

A coordination unit in the Council on EnvIronmental Quality would be

established to provide applicants with master application forms. All necessary

local approvals including locally required environmental documents must be

obtained within ninety days after receiving the master application.

The coordinator would forward the completed master application to

all agencies with a possible permit interest, the agencies than having twenty days

to indicate any interest, their applicable permit procedure, and their

desire for a public hearing. As kith the previously discussed systems,

.failure to assert an interest constitutes a waiver of review authority.

The applicant is then supplied with the necessary project applications and

ninety days in which to complete them. The coordinator then forwards them to the

agencies within ten days.

A public notice desc ribing the project and announcing the-public hearing,

if any? would then be published in a local newspaper. Hearings, if required,

would be jointly held for all agencies unless the chairman of the Council on

Environmental Quality determines that a joint hearing would be contrary to

the public interest. Any agency's participation is optional. If no public

hearing were to be heldq written comments would be sent to the coordinator within

thirty days following the notice publication for forwarding to each agency.

Following the hearing or commenting period, each agency would have to

report proposed findings and conclusions to the coordinator within a reasonable

time, copies of them being sent to all interested agencies. Final agency decision

deadlines are to be set by the coordinator, not to exceed sixty days from the

close of the public hearings or commenting period. When all are received, the

coordinator compiles them and delivers them to the applicant. All time limits

1-7

may be axtended by the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality for
reasonable cause and no methods,of enforcement of time limits is provided.

No special appeal procedures are provided.

1-8

APPENDIX J

QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS

APPENDIX J QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS

This appendix contains some information on dredging which is conducted

outside of San Francisco Bay. In calling-.for this report, the Legislature asked

for advice on the possible stateiride application of any recommendations. With

the assistance of the U. S. Maritime Administration, questionnaires were sent

to a.11 commercial ports in California (excluding the Bay Area ports), and

selected ports in other Pacific Coast states. Several small boat marinas and

private industries with waterfront facilities were also contacted. The

questionnaire, a copy is in this appendix, was intended to compile data outside

the Bay Area, to survey experience with permit delays, and to uncover any

unique. problems or noteworthy regulatory procedures*

The distribution of questionnaires is summarized in Table viii. .Fdghty

percent of the questionnaires were returned, many with additional explanatory-

information.

TABLE VIII

PORTS AND MARINAS SURVEYED

Number of
Location Questionnaires Mailed

California (excluding the Bay Area)

01 Ports and Harbor Districts 12
Marinas 23
Private Facilities 4

Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington

Ports 18
Private Facil�ties 4
TOTAL .61

J-1

Analysis of returned questionnaires shows that the regulatory agencies

in.other parts of California, their procedures and aloplication time.-require-

ments are similar to the agencies active in the Bav Area.. Respondents from
outside of California indicated the same Federal agencies and similar state
I
agencies are involved in their states. In general the time required to secure

.permits in other Pacific states is less than in California.

In answer to a-specific question..regarding the length of tijne port

and marina interests considered appropriate for agencies to spend processing

applications, about 80 percent answered less than 60 days. A few said

permits should be issued in less than 30 days. The majority noted that

presently the average length of time to receive all necessary permits is

between 90 and 180 days.

Several respondents listed their view of the dredging problems. The

most frequently mentioned were the following:
1. Disposal of dr edge spoil's (especially polluted spoils);

2. Delays encounteredin seeking permits; and

3. Uncertainty as to which agencies have jurisdiction and what

procedures and policies are applicable.

Many respondents stressed that maintenance dredging was of particular

importance to their operation because the safety and economic security of ongoing

operations required adequately deep water. They argued that the importance

of providing safe operating conditions requires that applications'for maintenance

dredging should receive quicker action than should an application for new work.

Concerns regarding delay and uncertainty, and the special role of

maintenance dredging applications are addressed in Chapters I through III of

this report. Returned questionnaires are not included in this report, but they

are available for review at the BCDC offices.

J-2

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

30 VAN 14ESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
Pf: 557-3686
DREDGING QUESTIONNAIRE

Facility Name:

Facility Address:

1. Facility Type: Port, Marina, Petroleum Terminal, Other.
(please specify)

2. Purpose, quantity, and frequency of dredging. Indicate. the first part by check
marks-and the latter two by a numerical answer:

Channel Maiatenance cubic yards every -years., months (circle
one)
Berthing Maintenance If _years., months
Fier and Piling Inspection _____years, months

Utility Installation fit months

Is If ?I
New Constructi6n _ years, months
Other.(specif,y)
years, months

3. Type of material dredge@d:. sand or gravel.,: s,ilt And clay., shells
other (specify)

4. Which of-the agencies below are involved in your dredging approval process?

U. S. Army Corps of Eagineers.

Environmental Protection.Agency, Region

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

National Marine Fisheries Service

California Coastal Z`bne Conservation Commission, Regional Comm.
Cal"Ifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board, -Regiou

California State Lands Commission

California Fish and Game, Region No.

J-3

OTHER AGENCIES: Towhat other. local, regional, state, or federal agencies
(including those requiring building or use permits) must you send permit
applications?)

Local Government Unit
a. City or County: Yes No. If yes, given name and address.'

b. Special District (e.g. Port District): Yes No. If yes,
give name and address.

-Other.regional, state, aiid.federal agencies: Give name,, location, interest
(e.g. wildlife,, land use, water quality), region (where appropriate), and
respoiasibility'(whet@er-permitting or commenting agency)*-
NAME, LOCATION, INTEREST REGION RESPONSIJ3ILITY (circle one)
permitting/commenting

2. permitting/commenting

rermitting/commenti-ng

Permit Processing Procedures:

A. Is there a formal system f6r,permit coordination among the agencies requiring
permits from you? Yes No Don't know

B. Is there oce application form acceptable to a.11 of the agencies?, Yes No
If not, how many applications are necessary?

C. Do any agencies have specific time limits in processingpermit applications?
Yes No If yes, which agencies and what are the limits?

Agency @Time Limit

D. What is the average time after a complete application has been submitted until
all agencies have acted?

Under 30 days, 30-90 days, 90-180 days, over 180 days.
J-4

Do any of the agencies have short-cut procedures to allow for-rapid processing
of non-controversial or routine applications? Yes No
If yes, which agencies and how long does this pr .ocessing take?

Agencies Time

E. Assuming that some regulation of dredging is necessary, what would you con-
sider to be a reasonable period of time necessary-to process applications?

Under 30-60 days 60-90 days 90-180 days Over 180
days

F. Are permits for longer than a 12'-month period grAnted? yes No
If yes., who grants these permits and for how long?

Agencies Time

G.. What is the cost to you in seeking dredging approval?

Are there any local or state land use plans or port plans which deal in any way
with dredging? Yes No_ If yes,

Are specific spoil sites identified? Yes No.

Is dredging or spoiling prohibited in certain areas? Yes No.

Do they recognize that dredging is a necessary coorelative activity to
shipping and boating? Yes No.

7. Does your port, terminal, or marina have a dredging plan under which projects are
scheduled and given priorities? Yes No.

8. If additional information is desire6 from your organization, who should be contacted?
Give name,, address, and phone.

9. Please elaborate on any special problems in your area that affect dredging. For
example, polluted dredged materials, availability of disposal sites, unusually
high or low rates of siltation, unique environmental concerns. Also, please -feel
free to comment further on any of the above questions or on any related topics of
concern to you.

J-5

APPENDIX K

MI=S OF PUBLIC HEARINGS

AND

WRITTEN COMMENTS

NOTE: Minutes from the two public hearings held by
BCDC in the preparation of this report and
copies of all written comments received are
included in this appendix.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPNENT COMMISSION
30 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco 94102 557-3686

TO: All Commissioners and Alternates
FROM: Charles R. Roberts, Executive Director

SUB,JECT: MINUTES OF MEETING OF JANUARY 15, 1976

1. Call to Order. The meeting of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission was called to order by Chairman Joseph C. Houghteling, at
1:40 p.m., in Room 1194, State Building, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco.

2. Roll Call. Present: Chairman Houghteling, Vice Chairman Watkins, Commis-
sioners Aramburu., Bra=,,. Bruno,- Chapman,, Cooper,,. Cuneo, DeFalc.o (represented by
Alternate Freeman), Feinstein,, Flertzheim, Heller (represented by Alternate Becks),
Henderson, Jacobson, Kopp (represented by Alternate Ergina), Kortum, Lollock, Northrop
(represented by Alternate Golden), Ogawa, Osborn, Price, Speck (represented by Alter-
nate Dowd), Steinberg,and Ward. Absent: Commissioners Boggess and Harper. Also
present: Alternates Fraley., Stickney, Sheltonand Erskine.

3. Approval of-Minutes of December 4, 1975.

MOTION: Commissioner Cuaeo moved that the minutes be approved, seconded
by Commissioner Flertzheim. The motion was unanimously approved.

4. Report bf Chairman Houghteling.
a. Next Meeting. The next mee@ing will be on February 52 1976,at 2:00'p.m.,,
in the State Building in San Francisco. The tentative agenda includes a report on
the fish and game element of the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan, as required by Senate
Bill 1981, by Mr. Charles Fullerton, Director of the Department of Fish and Game;
voting on the Bay'Farm, Island permit for three control structures, the Claim of
Exemption of the Bisso Brothers; and public hearings on permit applications of Trade-
marks Homes, Benicia, and Alviso Marina, Santa Clara County.

.Chairman Houghteling said that the complete report on the fish and game
element of the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan which is quite a long report, will be
sent to those Commissioners and Alternates who request it. A summary of, the report
will be mailed to all Commissioners and Alternates before the next meeting.

b. Introductions. Chairman Houghteling introduced.Supervisor William
-Kortum, new Commissione'r from Sonoma County, and Supervisor -Thomas Hannigan., (Alter-
nate to Richard Brann), Commissioner-Osborn'introduced her Alternate Pat Shelton, from
Santa Clara County.

5. Report of Executive Director. Mr. Roberts said the list of sixteen admini-
strative permits filed since the last meeting was mailed to the Commissioners in a
memorandum.dated January 5, 1976. The State Lands Commission has written expressing
its concerns with five of the applications; these will be resolved before proceeding
with issuance of the permits. Chairman Houghteling asked if there were any questions
and there was no response.

Mr. Roberts called attention to Amendment Two to Permit No. 11-73, Palo Alto,
and said the staff advised the County that an amendment was required for work being done

-2-

around the Yacht Club. In response to public concern with the public access
around the Yacht Club, Kent Watson, staff-Design Analyst/Landscape Architect,
has negotiated with the County representatives and has obtained what staff feels
is adequate public access.

Mr. Watson indicated the public access on a drawing. He said a fence had
been removed and the County raised the area to prevent flooding. The area has been
11rocked" to provide a firm base for temporary trailer storage and rigging of sailboats,
The staff's primary concern was visual access to the Bay from the public access and
roadway., as well as physical access along the shoreline.

Commissioner Steinberg_said she would like to seethreegonditions in the
amended permit; First, a requirement that a sign., approved by the Commission. be p1jqLcid
to indicate where public access exists; secondly, that the master plan be completed
before the Yacht Club lease 2ines.are set; and third., that the proposed.three-foot
railing be authorized only until the master plan and lease lines have been approved
and relocated if necessaryto conform with.the lease lines. She said the Yacht
Club has expanded the area previously used by almost one-third more than that
previously enclosed by the fence which was removed, and now the Yacht Club is ask-
ing that the three-foot railing enclose this larger area. Commissioner Ste-inberg
said that until a master plan is completed it will not be known w1aere the lease
lines will be drawn; therefore precautions should be taken so that the authoriza-
tion of the'three-foot rail will not be misinterpreted. Mr. Roberts said the staff
will check with the applicant and., unless the County has a problem, those conditions
will. be included in the administrative change. Chairman Houghteling asked if thlere
were any questions on the changes, there was no response.

Mr. Roberts said on December 24, 1975, an emergency permit, No. E-29, was
issued to John A. Blume and Associates for the replacement and repair of a pier
that had been damaged by a ship collision.. Some of the decking and the pilings
had to be replaced on a one-for-one basis. The approximately 6,600-square-foot
pier belongs to the Holly Corporation and is situated near Martinez in the Bay.,in.
Contra Costa County.

6. Commission Consideration and Possible Approval of a Procedure for Payment
of Per Diem to Commissioners and Alternates. Thomas D. Hoard, Assistant
Executive Director, Administration said a memorand= was sent to the Commissioners
on January 9., 1976, explaining the system for per them pay. He said that the system
for paying per diem, as described under Item 3, has been changed. Instead, the
procedure will be much the same as the treatment of travel expense claims. The
staff will indicate what would normally be paid as travel expense, but per them
will be paid in lieu of those expenses. Both will be shown for tax purposes, the
actual expenses and the per diem, and the staff will forward.a statement at the end
of the year, listing actual expenses vs. the amount of per them paid.

Vice Chairman Watkins said she would propose a more definite rule for
attendance. After discussing some of the qualifying rules used by other agencies,
she would propose that the Commission use the ABAG rule for a model. The ABAG rule
is that a member must appear within 15 minutes of the beginning of a meeting and
remain until the end of the meeting to qualify for per diem. She said she would
suggest that the arrival time be extended to thirty minutes from the beginning of
the meeting, because of the problems of parking here in the City. Commissioner
Cuneo said she agrees wholeheartedly and thought the measure would help to retain
the quorums.

BCDC Minutes
1/15/76

-3-

MOTION: Vice Chairman Watkins moved that a rule be adopted for attendance
that would require Commission members to appear within 30 minutes of the beginning
of a Commission Meeting and to remain until adjournment to qualify for per diem.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cuneo.

Commissioner Henderson said she was in support of the Vice Chairman's
motion.but would raise a question with regard to the rule requiring that members
remain to the end of meetings, since occasionally meetings run quite late and there
is no way to anticipate time of adjournment. This could be accommodated, for bona
fide reasons, by advance notification by Commissioners who must leave prior to
adjournment.

MOTION: Commissioner Henderson moved to amend the main motion, that
members could qualify for attendance without staying until the end of the meeting
if there was advance notice of having to leave approved by the.Chairman.; secoaded,
by Commissioner Brann.

Commissioner Feinstein asked if the only allowable reason for leaving early
would be to attend another scheduled meeting. 'Commissioner Henderson said that had
been the only reason she has had; others might have apersonal reason. Her con-cern
was that it was difficult to know an exact adjournment time and this often resulted
in hardship-for members.

Commissioner Ogawa asked how far in advance notice.should be given. Com-
missioner Henderson said she presumed by the beginning of the meeting. Chairman
Houghteling said the amended motion was before the Commission which provided the
members must appear within 30 minutes of the time of the meeting, stay for the full
meeting unless excused by the Chairman prior to the meeting.

Commissioner Chapman asked if the Commission had the ability to make such
a decision since State legislation provides $50 per them per meeting. Mr. Hoard
said it appears to be within the Commission's.discretion.

Commissioner Bruno said he thought this was a tempest in a teaDot, and
he would like to see a, requirement that everyone stay until the end of the meeting,
which would mean members must make plans accordingly and also that the Chairman
move the meeting along to avoid late adjournment.

Chairman Houghteling asked if there were any further questions or discussions
and there was no response. He called for a vote on the amendment to the main motion
by a show of hands; the vote was 10 in favor, 14 against. The amendment failed to
pass.

Chairman Houghteling called for a vote on the main motion,, that a Commissioner
must arrive within 30 minutes of the time the meeting is called and stay throughout
the meeting to the point of adjournment. The vote was 16 in favor, 8 against. The
motion was thus approved.

Chairman Houghteling said he would note for the record those Commissioners
serving on other committees on behalf of, BCDC: on the ABAG-MTC Airport Planning -
Committee, Commissioner Watkins with Commissioner Jacobson as the Alternate; the MTC
Seaport Policy Committee, Commissioner Osborn and Chairman Houghteling; on the A13AG
Section 208 Water Quality Planning Task Force., Commissioner Jacobson; the South
Richmond Special Area Planning Commission, Commissioner Jacobson and Commissioner
Boggess.,with Mr. Cline as Alternate.

BCDC-Minutes
1/15/76

7. Public Hearing and Possible Vote to AMove the Regulation of Dredging
Studv., Final Report. Chairman Houghteling called attention to letters of
comment from other agencies.which were either mailed to the Commissioners or are
in their folderswhich include: the Secretary for Resources, Department of Fish and
Game, State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Navigation and Ocean Devel-
opment., Santa Clara Val-ley Water District, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and
the Department of the Navy (San Bruno), copies of which are included.as an official
part of these minutes.

L. Thomas Tobin, Staff Engineer, said the report before the Commission
represents a group effort which he believed would lead to speedier processing of
applications for dredging permits. The report,, and especially the recommendations,
h as been circulated widely. The staff asks that after the public hearing the Com-
mission consider voting to adopt the report. on approval, the report will be forwarded
to the Secretary for Resources for transmittal to the Legislature.

Mr. Tobin said there has been-some misunderstanding regarding the scope of
this report. Both Section 160 of the enabling legislation and the interagency agree-
ment delegating the work to BCDC state that the report should address procedures
affecting dredging applications statewide. The confusion arose because the act
limited the geographical scope and type of dredging affected by the coordination
experiment. Coordination only applies to all maintenance dredging and new dredging
of less than 1001,000 cubic yards conducted in the area of BCDC's jurisdiction, while
the report deals with all dredging statewide.

A principal finding of the study is that delay is primarily caused by the
amount of time it takes agencies to act rather than the lack of coordination.. To
reduce the delaysthe staff has recommended adoption of administrative regulations
and policies, and time limits with sanctions like those under which BCDC operates.
Staff also recommends a loosel-y-structured on-going coordination effort in areas
where needed, to enable agencies to-effectively share activities; combined public
hearings with the Corps of Engineers, is an example.

Mr. Tobin said there has been considerable discussion on how-agencies should
adopt and carry out the recommended policies. The staff recommends that policies
should be adopted by each permitting or commenting agency after public hearings.
Those who dredge have stated that the recommendations should be acted on by the
Legislature--a forum where they will be heard. Others have suggested that all
recommendations should be carried out administratively. The staff believes that
most recommendations should be carried out administratively by the Secretary for
Resou-rces because it is faster, and provides flexibility for additional change.
'The Secretary for Resources is in a position of leadership and the influence of
the office is significant.

Commissioner Lollock said the Secretary for Resources requests some editor-
ial changes. He 'referred to a list of those changes in a memorandum to Mr. Roberts,
dated January 14, a copy of which is attached to the official copy of these minutes
on file in the Commission's office. Copies of the memorandum are in the Commissioner's
folders.

BCDC Minutes
1/15/76

-5-

The most significant comment concerns a recommendation that a portion of the
Department of Fish and Game's budget for commenting on permits be included in the
General Fund. The Secretary requests that this recommendation be deleted. The
Agency believes that more appropriate alternatives for funds are available. He
added that the Governor has already taken steps to eliminate the problem of under-
staffing noted in the staff's report.

Commissioner Lollock said the first change appropriately describes the role
of the Department of Fish and Game as being custodian of- the State's fish and wild-
life resources The next several changes are single-word changes which the Resources
Agency feels more clearl - tain sections ofthe r.eport.- The Resources
y emphasized cerl
Agency recommends the report include a statement that the Agency has proposed a
categorical exemption under CEQA for maintenance dredging of 10,000 cubic yards or
less.

Mr. Tobin said staff has read and discussed the recommended changes and
accepted them; there may be some minor editorial changes to integrate them into the
report, but staff appreciates these comments.

Commissioner Lollock complimented the staff on behalf of the Secretary,
for an excellent report.

Commissioner Aramburu asked if the report's recommendations would be auto-
maticall-y-implemented if the Commission approved the report. Mr. Roberts said "no.
When approved the report would constitute a set of recommendations to the Secretary
for Resources and the Legislature. He referred to Table VI on page.55 which indicates
the implementing agencies.

Chairman Houghteling said that staff was apparently willing to accept these
recommended amendments from the Resources Agency, and hearing no objection he would
consider them included in the report at this time, subject to other changes being
made during the process of the public hearing and thereafter.

Commissioner Chapman said on the matter of the categorical exemption under
CEQA for dredging of 10,.000 cubic yards- or less, it seemed the disposal of 10,.000 cubjq
yards of spoils could cause a significant environmental impact therefore, he questioned
the categorical exemption. Mr. Tobin said the Resources Agency proposal states
disposal of spoils would have to be in an approved site, not on a wetland or other
environmentally sensitive area. Commissioner Chapman asked if a negative declara-
tion would cover the disposal of spoils. Mr. Tobin said if a project were considered
categorically exempt, there would be no need for either a negative declaration or an
environmental impact report unless the project is located where it could have a
significant ...ffect on the environment. In that case the lead agency would have
responsibility for an environmental document. Commissioner Chapman asked why a
categorical exemption was needed if the lead agency reviewed a project and issued
a negative declaration. Mr. Tobin said a negative declaration must be circulated
allowing a certain period of time for comments from other agencies. The categorical
exemption is a finding made by the lead agency without the need for circulation.
Commissioner Lollock said the Resources Agency proposals for categorical exemption
will be among many to be considered at the public hearing to be held-by the Agency
later this spring.

Chairman Houghteling said the staff., as well as the Commission if it wishes,
wi I I consider the proposed guideline revisions of the Secretary. That will be the

BCDC Minutes
1/15/76

-6-

point-at. which to address the d@tails; Commissioner Lollock is asking simply that
the factual point of information be included. Commissioner Chapman said, that the poi
of information on pages 60-61, is a'recommendation -. Mr. Roberts said the BCDC
policy presently categorically.exempts all maintenance dredging and new dredging UpO
to 100,000 cubic yards., and has been so since CEQA came into existence. The report
recommends that State guidelines list certain dredging as categorically exempt.
BCDC's experience is that dredging can be categorically exempt and as Commissioner
Lollock points out, public hearings are necessary . The need for dredging is caused
by silting of material which is already moving within the water, not-the introduc-
tion of new material into the system. Commissioner Chapman said then it was not
the water course itself that causes problems, but where the spoils were disposed.
Mr. Roberts said the disposal is categorically exempt if it meets certain disposal
criteria, one of which is disposal at one of the Corps of Engineers approved sites;.
disposal in marshes is not allowed. 'Cha 'irman Houghteling said the recommended
change is an indication of what the Resources Agency is doing at this point._and per-
haps when guideline proposals come out the Commission will again consider them.

Commissioner Flertzheim, said his agency had a great interest in dredging,
hence he would like to-compliment Mr. Tobin and the staff for accomplishing a real
public service in trying to bring some order to the whole dredging permit system
and simplifying things for applicants.

Peggy Lang,, Consultant to the Senate Committee on Local Government, said
the Committee Chairman, Senator Milton Marks asked that she read his statement.
Ms. Lang then read Senator Mark's letter., a copy of which is attached to the official
copy of these minutes, on file in the Commission's office. In his letter, Senator
Marks said that the.investigation identifies the reforms necessary to solve permit
problems, and while he commended BCDC on the report, he took issue on some points:
State Land's Commission should be subject to the same time limits as other agencies;
time extensions should not be granted for a clear oversight; and the report should
have emphasized more legislative action to implement the recommendations.

Chairman Houghteling said there were some points which the Commission would
return to for discussion after the public hearing.' He said he was specifically
referring to the point on the State Lands Commission. Ms. Lang said there was no
intention to change the report itself. Chairman Houghteling thanked Ms. Lang for
her presentationj

Michael J. Giari, representing Thomas J. Patterson, Jr., Western Region
Director., U.S. Maritime Administration, said the report was a very thorough report
on the regulation of dredging in the San Francisco Bay Areaand in the State of
California and was very well done. He said he would make three points contained in
Mr. Patterson's statement: First, the description and the analysis of dredging
regulation problems are excellent; It covers over thirty pages in the report and
is very complex as is the problem itself. Second, the evaluation of the coordina-
tion exper.iment conducted by BCDC was surprising to the Maritime Administration
in some ways. Those familiar with dredging and its regulation in the Bay Area, and
with the Marks Bill expected that it might lead to the establishment of a permanent,
statewide., dredging coordination agency. This was not the conclusion of the report,
and the Maritime Administration felt that the conclusion--that the modification of
existing regulations and increased coordination among the agencies--could lead to
some definite improvements in the permitting system. Finally, and most importantly

BCDC Minutes
1/15/76

-7-

the Maritime Administration thinks these recommendations must be implemented.
It is a very complex set of-recommendations, but he thought the recommendations
could be compared to a heavy rainfall after a long-dry period. He said. these
recommendations.,as a heavy rainfall@ are coming all at once. If the agencies are
like hard ground and are not ready to absorb these recommendations. all benefits
would be lost. Mr. Patterson urged the Commission to emphasize the need for imple-
menting the recommendations as soon as possible, hopefully by early 1977. He said
consideration should be given to delegating progress review in the future to BCDC,
the agency which in compiling this report has demonstrated its knowledge and
expertise on this subject. To summ-a ize, he said the Commission had before it a
good report which contains a few surprises. He emphasized the importance of
implementing these recommendations, making sure, through-some kind of progress
review)- that theserecommendations have been implemented...

Robert Langner, Executive Director of C-MANC(California Marine Affairs and
Navigation Conference),an organization which rep-r-e-s-ents the commercial ports and
recreational harbors in California, said C-MANC's dredging committee had reviewed
the final January 1, Regulation.ofDredging Report and Join in the commendations
expressed to the BCDC staff andothers involved. The-report does an excellent job
of defining the multifaceted problems which face all involved in dredging and
navigation. He presented a statement commenting on recommendations in the report
(a copy of which is part of this official record). He emphasized the need to
Implement the recommendations.

Ron Henrekin, Consultant, Solano County Industrial Development Agency,
said the welfare of Solano County was highly dependent on.dredging and had long
suffered for allthe problems associated with dredging regulations. Expansion of
existing industry and development of new industry is dependent largely on adequately
dredged channels. He presented a statement (a copy of which is attached to the
official copy of these minutes on file in the Commission's office, which stressed
the need for time limits., the automatic approval condition, and the need for public
adopted policies and procedures. In conclusion,, he said. it vas their experience that
for the last several years, there have been several times when dredging permits
were held up for more than a year, sometimes as long as fourteen months and in
some cases it became almost impossible to get a ship into the dock because of the
problem.

Thomas G. Bertken, Chief Engineer, Port of Oakland@ presented a statement
(a copy of which is attached to the official copy of these minutes on file in the
'Commission's office). He said the Port was in general agreement with the recom-
mendations in the report and was especially pleased that some matters which have
given them a lot of difficulty inthe-past were covered. In particular., with
existing procedures there is no way to expedite small dredging projects or
emergency dredging projects that occur when there is a high spot in the channel,
or a berth causing problems with larger ships.

Anthony Taormina,, Special Assistant to the Port Director Thomas Soules,
Port of San Francisco, said Mr. Soules asked him to present his comments to the
Commission (a copy of which is attached to the official copy of these minutes on
file in the Commission's office). The Port of San Francisco urged the approval
of the report and stressed the need for time limits and formalized criteria
and policies.

BCDC Minutes
1/15/76

Marin Matosich, representing the California Marine Parks and Harbors
Association (CMPHA),said his association includes recreational boaters. He
was in accord with all the remarks by Mr. Langner and CMPEA is in general agree-
ment with everything in the report. Since there exists recreational boating on the
Bay, dredging will be necessary,, and problems identified inthe report cannot be
afforded. These problems-have become almost impossible to overcome. Marinas and
recreational facilities simply cannot afford all the costs of full-time Personnel
needed to cope with all the regulations. Looking at the time-flow charts in Appen-
dix H of the report, it is easy to see that the permit process is so complex -
and confusing that 66 percent of theapplicants had to resubmit applications more
than once,, and 32 percent., three times. S,implified,p-rocedures are desperately
needed; as well-as specific time limits within which the agencies have to operate.
If recreational boating is going to continue on the Bay vastly simplified and more
accountable regulations are needed. He said he vould like to commend the fine work
of the BCDC in attacking this problem and I-ecommended that the Commission move to
implement the recommendations.

Rose Beatty, Peninsula Conservation Center, said PCC was in agreement with
most of the reportfand the necessity for such a report. There was certainly a need
to standardize procedures of regulatory agencies. However., PCC was strongly opposed
to categorical exemption on new dredging of 10,000 cubic yards or less and believed
applications should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Time...1imits should be stan-
dardized so.that all have time to reviev,,___coordinate., and comment on applications.
There is a@vay.
confusion when one agency is on a different time schedule than another.
An area not covered in the report is disposition of dredging spoils; prpceduresand
policies should be made on disposal problems.

Chairman Houghteling asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak
on the Dredging Report. There was no response.

MOTION: Commissioner Lollock moved that the public hearing be closed.,
seconded by Commissioner Jacobson. The motion was approved unanimously.

Chairman Houghteling said the Dredging Report was now before the Commission,
in addition to today's various comments. There were several comments about the
State Lands Commission, and the staff recommendation that they not be subject to
sanctions of automatic approval of permit applications because SLC's a property
owner. There was another comment that there should not be a time extension for an
oversight by an agency. There was some discussion of the categorical exemption
of dredging projects under 10,000 cubic Yarcts.

Mr. Golden said he believed it was proper to reply to State Lands. He
agreed with Mr. Langner that it would be inappropriate for any agency to take more
time than necessary. From SLC's point of view delay is caused by ownership and
boundary determination. The uncertainty of title in many areas of the State leads
to an honest disagreement between the applicant and SLC. Resolving these questions
does take time. It is not an exercise of the police power. He agreed with Mr.
Langner that State Land's should meet the 90-day deadline for granting permitting,
except when more time is required to resolve trespass or boundary problems.

BCDC Minutes
1/15/76

-9-

Commissioner Steinberg said several speakers addressed themselves to the
90-day limit and asked if the staff would comment on shortening the time limit.
Mr. Tobin said the 90-day. time limit should be the longest time allowed, and
should apply to complex dredging projects. There were some shorter time limits
considered, 45 days for minor projects, but staff ran into problems defining
"minor." For example,,BCDC might consider a project "minor" because of its effect
on-land use, while the RWQCB would determine a project t1minor" by the cotamination levelf
in the spoils. Staff found problems with different time limits and decided to
recommend 90-days as the maximum. It is the intent of the report., and hopefully
the intent of the agencies carrying it out, that the minor projects should be acted
on faster. BCDC, operating under a 90-day time limit,, has found that it cannot
afford to spend 90 days on the more simple administrative applications,, they are
processed much more quickly. He said staff was not against the shorter time dead-
line, but cautioned that it could cause complications.

Commissioner Chapman said he thought one of the important recommendations
in the report is that-oversight.#earings beheld early in 1977 to follow up on
implementation and recommendations made in the report. He asked if it is approp-
riate for BCDC to ask that staff also analyze the implementation efforts that have
been made and make a report at that time. Not only are there time problems with
permits for dredging, but there are time problems in carrying out reports sent to.
the Legislature. He asked if the staff had in mind reviewing the progress in
implementation, and if the staff would be amenable to suggesting to the Legislature
that another report on implementation be funded by it. Mr. Roberts said that was
an important point; staff does not recommend that BCDC be responsible for a report
on implementation but recommends that it be done by the Legislature. Staff could
monitor and report to the Commission on the progress, and if something should be
done, a recommendation could bemade at that time.

Chairman Houghteling asked if there were any other comments from the
Commission members.. There was no response.

MOTION: Commissioner Ogawa moved that the Regulation of Dredging Report,
as amended, be adopted for submission to the Secretary for Resources and to the
Legislature., seconded by Commissioner Price.

Chairman Houghteling said, if it is agreeable to the maker of the motion,
he would like to include as another appendix the minutes of this public hearing as
well as a summary of the earlier correspondence received. Everyone who received
the report will know what occurred at the public hearing and the emphasis on
various aspects of the report.

Commissioner Ward said that Mr. Golden had, stated that the 90-day, time
limit was acceptable except for -matters that inIvolve clarificatlon of title or
trespass, and asked if that was t.o be included_as an.--amendment to thereD ort-.,-
Chairman Houghteling asked that the recordshovthat the,State Lands1representative
stated that 90 days was a livable time limit,, except 'when more time is required to
resolve issues of trespass and property ownership. Chairman Houghteling asked if
there were any further comments and there was no response.

Chairman Houghteling called for a voice vote, which unanimously approved
the motion to adopt the Report.

BCDC Minutes
1/15/76

State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY

Memorandum

J'anuary 14, 1976
To Colonel Charles Roberts Date
Executive Officer
San Francisco Bay Conservation F-flie Nd'-'
and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue Subject Regulation of
San Francisco, California 94102 Dredging Report

From Office of the Secretary

Sections 160-170 of the Harbors and Navigation Code require the Resources Agency
to coordinate the review of applications for maintenance dredging and new dredging
of 100,000 cubic yards,or less in San Francisco Bay. Section 169 requires that a
report be submitted to the Legislature evaluating the coordination procedures and
the regulation of dredging. The Resources Agency delegated responsibilities for
coordinating permit activities and drafting a report to the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission.

We -want to.take this opportunity to compliment the BCDC staff on the thorough.,
professional manner with which it has carried out the above provisions of the
Harbors and Navigation.Code. our comments and editorial recommendations are
made in furtherance of the report's objectives. We concur that the reporlt
should not be construed as applying to projects for which dredging is only a
part of a greater regulated activity, such as the filling of valuable -wildlife
habitat or the construction of a liquid natural gas terminal. There is a major
difference between a routine dredging project and a major construction project.

We do have some editorial changes which we would like to see included in the
report.- The recommendations are made in the order which they appear in the
report.

1. on page 13, in the first paragraph, delete the discussion of the Department
of Fish and Game and insert:

"The Department of Fish and Game is charged with protecting
and regulating California's fish and wildlife resources.
In areas where Fish and Game possess commenting rather than
permitting authority, the agency derives some of its authority
from the same source as the United States Fish and Wildlife
Serv-ice--the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for
projects undertaken or regulated by the Federal Government.
Additional commenting authority is derived from the Porter-
49 Cologne Act., the McAteer-Petris Act, the Fish and Game Code
11. and ... otherstate statutes."

2. On page 14.,.third line from the bottom, delete "the" and insert.."a-slight".

3. On page 21, strike title 1 and renumber making conforming changes.

Colonel Charles Roberts -2- January 14, 1976

4. On page 24, five lines from the bottom, insert "dredging" between "the" and
11permit".

5. On page 26, paragraph 1, delete the "Laboratory tests for detailed evaluation
of project data may be required" and delete "chief executive officer" and insert
"director".

6. On page 26, paragraph 31 delete the second a 'nd third sentences and insert, "The
Department of Fish and Game has been particularly concerned about insufficient
personnel and budget".

7. on pages 27 through'32 of the report, we concur that state:agencies should have
clearly, defined policies and criteria by which they review an application.for a
dredging project. Some state agencies do not have a comprehensive plan such as
BCDC has adopted and must review an application in accordance with statutory
criteria. More precise definitions of phrases such as "significant effects"
may be a useful way of establishing these criteria and avoiding uncertainty,
but it must be recognized that stated criteria cannot entirely replace the
discretion which an agency must exercise when dealing with diverse factual
settings on a case-by-case basis. Insofar as possible, the exercise of
discretion should be consistent with clearly stated objectives.

8. on page 27, title 1. strike "are either vague or nonexistent".'

9. on page 31, bottom paragraph, delete the first two sentences and insert
"Government should attempt to base its decision on clear policies which
- specify its objectives in carrying out a mandate to @rotectthe public
interest. Without such policies., action on an application can become
uncertain or inconsistent".

10. on page 32, the last sentence of the first paragraph., delete "supported by
written findings and reasons" and insert "explained and".

11. on page 32, title 2., delete "often do not exist

12. on page 34 through 35, delete the two paragraphs concerning categorical
exemptions which begin at the bottom of Page 34, and insert:

"CEQA Guidelines should be amended to clarify how dredging
is to be handled. The Resources Agency has proposed a cate-
gorical.exemption which would exempt maintenance dredging of
10,000 cubic yards or less. In order to establish a categorical
exemption for a class of activities, CEQA requires the Secretary
for Resources to find that the exempted activities will not cause
a substantial adverse impact on the environment. Testimony on
this proposed categorical exemption and other proposed amend-
ments to the State EIR Guidelines will be taken at a public
hearing to be held in the early spring. Many projects which
do not come under this exemption may nonetheless be found,, on
a case-by-case basis., to have no significant effect on the
environment. Such projects would receive a negative declaration."

Colonel Charles Roberts -3- January 14, 1976

13. On page 54, at the end of the first full paragraph, insert:

"These recommendations should be understood to apply to those
agencies permitting and commenting actions involving dredging
only. Approximately 30 such applications were submitted during
1975 in the Bay Area. They are not intended to apply to a
project which involves activities other than dredging."

14. on page 59, delete the second sentence of item 4 and insert "State agenc,ies
should establish criteria for minor projects for which review should be
completed as a general rule in specified periods of less than 90 days.
Emergency applications, should be processed immediately.'7

15. on page 60, paragraph b, insert "If the time limit is exceeded," at the
beginning of the first sentence.

16. on page 60, paragraph 3, delete "which comments are valid and".

17. on page 62, second line of paragraph A. I., following "regions" insert:

f1when in the judgment of the supervising agency., a principal
agency is needed".

18. On page 65, amend paragraph VIII B. to be consistent with out commentnumber
8 above.

Secretary for @esourcez

PLEASE REPLY TO,
STANDING COMMITTEES
E3 SACRAMENTO ADDRESS BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Room 2070 HSAL.TH AND WILLFARM
STATE CAPITOL LOCAL. GOVERNMENT
95:14 SENATOR TRA145PCRTATION
PHCHN, (91 ) 445-1412
MILTON MARKS COMMISSION
[3 SAN FRANCISCO ADDRESS STATE GOVERNMENT
1*4' STAT'TSU'LD'NQ NINTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND ECONOMY
350 CALLIS MR STAKET
941C2 REPRESENTING SELECT COMMITTEES
PHON14 (4115) 5574437 SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME INDUSTRY (CHAIRMAN)
IN THE CHIL.DREN AND YOUTH
HOUSING AND URBAN AF7AIRZ

JOINT COMMITTEES
COMMUNITY DEVELOP14ENT AND
HOUSING NEEDS
STATr'S ECONOMY
CHAIRMAN
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

January 152 1976

The-Honorable Commissioners
San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In 1974, as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee

on the Maritime Industry,.I became aware of the problems involved
in processing of dredging permit applications by the many

government agencies involved. Frequently, processing required

many months to complete and was so complex as to be confusing

at best and unreasonable, inconsistent and unfair at worst.

So I authored Senate Bill 2418 which asked you to

coordinate dredging permit applications in the Bay Area on an

experimental basis and to-investigate the problem.and recommend

solutions which would clean up the process without jeopardizing

any of the essential environmental protections afforded us by

the agencies involved.

The report before you today is the culmination of your

effort which has proven to be worthwhile in every respect. The

experiment taught us that establishing a coordinating agency

January 15, 1976
Page two

alone is not the solution and may even complicate the problem for

some applicants. It is your investigation that has been so

valuable in identifying the reforms necessary to solve the

problems. Your work assumes even greater value when we realize

that the reforms you recommend need not apply only to dredging

permits, but can be-and hopefully will be-used as a basis for

the very necessary reform of the permit process.'in general.

While I commend you on 'Ehe report before you, there

are certain aspects of it with which I take some issue.

Because a process is only as efficient as its least

efficient component, the State Lands Commission should be

subject to the same time limits as other agencies and to

sanctions for hot adhering to those time limits. The role of

the State Lands Commission as a property owner does not

necessarily make the sanction of automatic approval inappro-

priate, (See page 25.).

While I agree that extensions of time limits for

agencies to submit comments may be necessary because of.a.

significant change in the project or because of the receipt

of significant new information, I disagree that time extensions

should be granted for a clear oversight'. Excusinga clear
oversight is excusing irresponsibility or incompetence and should 'C
not be allowed (See page 60.).

Most importantly, I would like to have seen your report

emphasize more legislative action to implement your very fine

recommendations. The Legislature initiated this study and will

January 15, 1976
Page three

evaluate it as a whole, and I plan to hold legislative hearings

which will subject your recommendations and means of implementation

to public review and discussion. Undoubtedly there is-a need

for legislative action to implement some of your recommendations.

While the enthusiasm of the Secretary of Resources to

implement your recommendations administratively is essential,

some of the reforms are beyond the Secretary's existing authority.

For instance, the Secretary cannot change the time limitations

now specified by law, nor can she authorize the establishment of

new.permit categories with different processing requirements for

such categories as maintenance or minor permits unless the law

so specifies.

Moreover, even for those reforms which can be implemented

without legislative action, I would like to see the Legislature

on record as requiring these essential reforms under this or

any future administration. Because we are agreed on the goal

.of reforming the processing of permit applications without

jeopardizing any essential environmental protections, I have

every confidence that the Governor, the Secretary of Resources,

and the Legislature will be able to work together to implement

the recommendations you are considering today.

Once again, I wish to commend Claire Dedrick, Secretary

of Resources, you and your staff, particularly Mr. Tom Tobin,

on the very fine job you.have done. You have proven that the

trust vested in you by my-bill was well founded.

Cordially,

Milton Marks

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Maritime Administration
Western Region
450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36073
San Francisco, California 94102

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THOMAS J. PATTERS01i, JR., WESTERN REGION DIRECTOR,
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, TO THE SAM FRANCISCO BAY COMSERVATION AND DEVELOP-
MENT COMKISSION AT A PUBLIC HEARING OX THE REGULATION OF DREDGING, FINAL
4. REPORT, HELD BY THE COMMISSION IN SAN FRANCISCO ON JANUARY 15, 1976.

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to submit this statement to

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission on the Final

Report on the Regulation of Dredging.

The Maritime Administration,.Western Region, has followed the progress

of the experimental coordination procedures and the development of this re-

port. In reviewing the many drafts and by contributing information on.com-

mercial ports and dredging regulations in other states, we know that a great

deal of research, time and effort has gone into this report. The regulation

of dredging is a very complex aad serious problem and deserves the close

examination BCDC ha s given it.

There are three points I would like to emphasize to the Commission.

They summarize what I consider to be the major points in the three chapters

which make up the body of the Final Report: Chapter II, Problems and Analy-

sis; Chapter III, Coordination Experiment Evaluation; and Chapter IV, Re-

commendation Implementation.

First, the description and the analysis of dredging regulation prob-

lems are excellent. The maritime industry in recent years has had to cope

with a multiplicity of agencies and regulations with confusing and ambigu-

ous requirements that have resulted in cumbersome procedures and permit

delays. This report thoroughly describes the problems which exist with

dredging regulations. In many cases these s ame problems are found in

other types of environmental regulations.

Second, the evaluation of the coordination experiment was in a way

surprising. Many members of the maritime community involved with dredging

believed the Marks Bill and BCDC's efforts in coordinating permit proce-

dures would lead to the est@ablishment of some type of permanent, formal,

coordinating mechanism. Instead the-report concludes that a rigid, formal

coordination system is not the answer but changing,existing agencies' pol-

icies and procedures and improving methods for interagency cooperation is

justified and warranted. Recognizing, as this report does, that the crea-

tion of a new bureaucracy does not always solve regulatory problems is wel-

come and laudable. The maritime community has always supported the reform

of dredging regulations rather than the promulgation of new ones. This was

the concept behind the Marks Bill originally.

However, this leads to my third and final point--the importance of

implementing the recommendations. The efforts of BCDC and all those who

participated in developing this report-will be wasted if these recommenda-

tions are not implemented. The maritime community supported the Marks

legislation because it was aimed at producing more than a report but real

improvements in the regulation of dredging. I would, therefore, urge the

Pommission. in forwarding the Final Report on the Regulation of Dredging to

the State Resources Agency and the State Legislature to emphasize the

importance of putting these recommendations into effect as soon as possible,

to strongly put forth the need for the Legislature to implement the review

of the progress in improving dredging regulations by early 1977, and to

consider delegating this progress review to BCDC, the agency which in

* vil
compiling this report has demonstrated its knowledge and expertise on this

subject.

Because the recommendations made.in the Final Report are generally

directed toward changing policies and procedures of existing agencies,

there is a clear danger these recommendation s will be lost in the same

regulatory maze they were intended to simplify and improve. A strong and

definite commitment to review and determine the effectiveness of the

implementation by BCDC will hopefully avoid this-danger.

So, in summary, the Regulation of Dredging, Final Report, fully des-

cribes the problems with dredging regulations and proposes a comprehensive

coordinated Approach to simplifying the regulatory maze. We recommend that

BCDC in forwarding this report to the State Legislature strongly emphasize

the need for a knowledgeable State agency, such as BCDC, to follow up and

evaluate the progress of implementing the report's recommendations.

Thank you for this opportunity to express the Maritime Administration's

views on this subject.

CALIFORNIA ORGANIZED 1956
Marine Affiars and Navigation Conference
303 WORLD TRADE CENTER - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 24111 - TELEPHONE (415) 982-7788

STATEMENT ON THE REGULATION OF DREDGING REPORT
to
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
by
Robert L. Langner
January 152 1976

The Dredging Committee of the California Marine Affairs and
Navigation Conference has reviewed the final (January 10 1976)
version of TheRegulation of Dredging developed pursuant to
S. B. 2418 (the Marks Bill). We commend the BCDC staff. for' an
excellent job of defining,, categorizing and presenting the multi-
faceted problems which face all of us involved with dredging.*

While the report will serve to define the problems created
by and associated with dredging regulations, agencies and applic-
ants alike will continue to suffer the problems until the recom-
mendations in the report are implemented.' We fully support and
urge early action on the recommendations.

.For the purpose of allowing early attention to specific
problems, we would like to emphasize and elaborate on the follow-
ing sections of the report:

1. p.viii: "Each agency should establish and adhere to clear
criteria for decision-making, and time limits for processing ar-
application should be more rigorous. Relations among State
agencies and between State and Federal agencies can be improved,
and "principal agencies" should be designated to serve as the
focal point of all State dredging permit activities."
COMMENT: We regard these statements as descriptive of the
heart of needed reform; probably a majority of our problems fall
into these areas with the rest due to technical criteria.

K. C. (KRIS) KLINGER, President FRANK C. BOERGER. Consuffing Engineer WFSLF VGWRE, City of San Leandro
Ventura Port District CARL IAOWFR. LA,HLN i
CAPT. THOMAS A. EDDY, Vice President Crescent Citv Hart Commssion LK Firards & Associates
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS Richmond Part Commission WILLIAM L. DICK. VICTE SAUER. Cowra Costa County
San Diego Unified Port Oistric' DIaMeit 0,Public Works
VICTOR AOORIAN, Peasuier SOB HOFFMASTER.F',rt -31 L,,no I I,' _ @X-'-,, SE14 Pori of Oakl3no
Los Angeles Courity. EDWARn MILLAN. Port nt H,,enp@,p 4,S 7-
ROBERT LANGNER. J. WARD 1,1cCL,--l_L Aff Commission
Executive 0.rer tot ana Secretary Moss Landing 2W0@rnot DsOrici LAV.'A8@EN2@E vVH17ENEC.K, Port of Lt,s An.-Pbs

Robert L. Langner BCDC Statement January 15, 1976

2. 2.-4_,31! 2: "...complexity and delay grew not by agency design
but because concern with resources management and environmental
protection has increased the regulations governing dredging. Thus.,
although the regulatory process serves the goals set forth by-,the
lawl it too often does so in a way which may appear time-consuming
and confusing."
COMMENT: We would characterize the situation.perhaps less
euphemistically and more accurately as follows:
@O No'single source of blame can be isolated.
0 The regulatory process does-not always serve all
the goals set forth by law; in fact, it can be shown
frequently as counterproductive to the intent of law.
0 The-process not only appears time-consuming and con-
fusing, IT IS.
0 Complexity and delay might not have grown by 'agency
design, but they certainly were not decreased by
agency design either.
3. p 1O_,_1r 2(bottom): "Because of the different statutory int-
erests of the agencies., it is not reasonable to expect them to.
always reach identical decisions."
COMMENT: This is very true and raise's a key issue,: with
single-purpose agencies legitimately reaching different decisions
and holding either statutory or de facto veto authority, who is
to render the ultimate decision (in the interest of.the general
public) and how?
4- P. 185 #4: "Duplication of public hearings".
COMMENT: The fact that several different agencies must
hold independent public hearings and issue (or require an applic-
ant to issue) independent public notices for the same project
seems to us to epitomize the worst aspect of mandated but un-
coordinated bureaucracy. We note, for example, that even though
complete information about a dredging project is given to all
who request it by the Corps in their Public Notice mailing, and
often additionally through BCDC mailings., the Regional Water

page 2

Robert L. Langner BCDC Statement January 15, 1976

Quality C rol Board (by law) requires an applicant to publish
a similar pu@__C__,notice in an appropriate newspaper at his own
expense@- from $50 to $100 in most cases. The Board must wait
30 days for responses to this notice before taking any further
action. According to the Board staff, it is very rare that a
response to such a notice is received. We concur with recommend-
ation IX on page.66 to eliminate such duplicationt,
510 p. 20.(top): "In some cases., all permits can be secured.with-
in 6 weeks, while in other cases it may tak'e more than 6 months."
COMENT: We're very interested in actual figures on time
consumed in obtaining permits because it represents delay'.. a
period of uncertainty and costs. We have no knowledge of any
dredging project recently permitted within such a short time
as 6 weeks and we do not believe it would be possible. In
our experience,. required permits for an average maintenance
dredging project can be obtained by a person with a reasonable
knowledge of regulatory procedures in about 6 months. Statistics
'COMP3.led by the BCDC staff for projects with all permit actions
completed which were handled by the BCDC coordinator (appendix
H) indicate that-45% of the projects required 6 months or more.
A study by our Committee of Corps records*for the period 1972-
1974 inclusive indicates that.the average Corps processing time
(largely dictated by other agencies) exceeded 200-days alone;
this figure does not include time required to obtain local and
some State approvals. It would appear that the BCDC coordinator
in fact succeeded in reducing overall permit processing time.
p. 21 (top): ... the actual time spent in reviewing an
application for completeness, processing or commenting on the
project, And preparIng a permit document if one is to be granted,
is very brief.1t
COMENT: We would like to expand and emphasize the signifi-
cance of this finding. While an application might require only
a few hours.of actual attention, it was found that the application
frequently remained at an agency for weeks or months during which
oht

page 3

Robert L. Langner BCDC Statement January 15, 1976

the actual work hours were expended. We have always wondered
why there should be such a large discrepancy betw;:n work time
and processing time; although we have never -found a satisfactory
ans wer, the BCDC report has enlightened us about the actual times
involved. When we querried one agency staffer about this discrep-
ancy, he responded that it took three weeks to get a one paragraph
response through the typing pool.
7-'p. 24,3P 1: "As a general rule,, the Corps will wait well
beyond theclose of the Public Notice period for comments by
important State agencies such as Fish-and Game.n
COMMENT: In fact, the Corps is REQUIRED to wait not only
"well beyond the close of the Public Notice period" for such
comments, they must wait until such comments ARE received, no
matter how long it takes.
8. P. 54: "Formalization of Policies and-Procedures".
COMMENT: We strongly urge adoption of as many -administrative
processing procedures as possible. Some agencies, notably the
State Lands Commission, require. almost every project, no matter
how trivial, to come before the Commission f or approval. Such
approvals are generally very time consuming, requiring long lead
times for access to crowded agendas at infrequent meetings, much
staff work to prepare presentations and considerable time and
expense for applicant -appearances at such meetings*
9.-p. 56: "Time Limits".
CO@Z'IENT: A 90 day time limit on permit actions with auto-
matic approval is proposed. We see no reason, based on the find-
ings of the BCDC report, why more than 30 to 45 days.should be
required in most cases. We believe tighter time limits with
the automatic approval condition will be conducive to stream-
lining agency processing procedures and actions. While up--to
90 days may be required legitimately in very complex projects,
we would like to emphasize the statement on page 64 that "the
time limits are to be considered maximum limits rather than
normal operating goals."

page 4

Robert L. Langner BPDC Statement January 15, 1976

We note that the State Lands Commission is effectively to
be exempted from the time limits. We would concur if a complex
lease., trespass or other property issue is involved, but we
believe excusing this agency for any other reason would weaken
needed reforms and be inconsistent with the other recommendations
in the report.
With regard.to time consumed by multiple commenting oppor-
tunities by an agency, we.recommend that comments @e developed
once only with copies distributed simultaneously to all agencies
as well as the applicant. We have heard many complaints from
various agencies that they either did not receive or were unable
to obtain nec Iessary comments from other agencies' and so-delayed
their own processing.
11.__p. 63, #7: Topic: Define., through regulations., the terms
11majorlIP 11minor".. "insignificant" and "emergency".
COMMENT: This would clarify many misunderstandings and
inconsistent approaches by the various agencies.
12. p. 64, #10: Topic: Resolution of conflicts.
COMMENT: Now, when one agency approves a project and an-
other disapproves, or when one agency interprets another's
criteria differently than the originating-agency, it is left,
to the applicant to resolve the two positions. This is an un-
acceptable situation; assistance in conflict resolution would be
warmly welcomed by applicants.

We hope the foregoing comments will be useful,in implement-
the recommendations, which we hope will proceed as soon as
possible. We offer-our assistance in the implementation proce9s.
Again, we wish to congratulate the BCDC staff for an ex-
cellent r@@port.

page.5

STATEMENT OF F. R. HENREKIN,
INDUSTRIAL DEVELORVWT CONSULTANT,
SOLANO COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPNENT AGENCY
Commission Meeting, January 15, 1976

Mr. Chairman., members-,of the Commission,, my name is Ron Henrekin;

I'm with the Solano County Industrial Development Agency.

The welfare of our County is highly dependent on dredging;. we have

long suffered and made excuses for all the problems associated with dredging

,regulations. Expansion of existi ng industry and development of new industry,

like Dow, in our County is de@endent largely on adequately dredged channels.

One of our biggest problems - as well as that of industries in our County

is the uncertainty and risk caused by the regulations.

I'm delighted to see your report because it pinpoints the problems we

have experienced - now, with this analysis - the problems are out.in the

open so that they can bedealt with. I congratulate your staff for a job well

done.

I would like to stress two of the points made in your report because

we consider them very important:

1. The establishment of time limits and the automatic approval condition

are absolutely essential. Applicants have to abide by these conditions - if an

applicant misses a deadline, that's too bad because its. his fault and he must

live with the consequences so why should agencies be treated any differently?

Time constraints and automatic approvals will serve to "'cut the fat" out of

processing, increase efficiency and reduce delay and uncertainty.. If I recall

correctly, BCDC has such conditions and they seem to work here.

2. There is a real need for publicly adopted and available policies

andprocedures for each agency. The conspicuous lack of such policies and

Statement of F. R. Henrekin
January 15, 1976

procedures is at the root of many problems. Formally establishing internal

procedures will help agencies as well as applicants. As your report points out,

some agency staff members are not sure about their own operating procedures

(and this is quite understandable since in many cases there are none); this

situation cannot help but cause delay and inconsistent actions. Applicants

need to know about these procedures before they start a project not when

they're halfway through one. A lot of misunderstandings and improper applications

could be prevented and better-planning undertaken if procedures were formalized

and available. Also., better coordination agencies could be effected with less

staff time being spent explaining the process for each application.

Finally, since the agencies are acting in the public interest, the public

should know what the agencies are doing and how they are doing it. In fact,

by publicly establishing procedures, the public may help provide for more

practical and workable Drocedures.

Again, I am delighted to see your report:and I commend your staff for

their well-done work. I hope we can proceed to the implementation phase as

rapidly as possible..

Thank you.

STAMWT OF THOMAS G. BERTKM,
C= ENGIDMER, PORT OF OAKLAM
Commission Meeting, January 15, 1976

"REGUIATION OF DREDGING"

BCDC Report dated.January-1, 1976
for BCDC Meeting of January 15, 1976

We are in general agreement with the report recommendations on

Formalization of Policies and Procedures for the permitting and reviewagencies.

We are especially pleased that some of the matters which have given us much

difficulties in past dredging applications would be remedied under these

recommendations. Under the existing procedures,.+,,here are no provisions to

expedite emergency or small dredging projects. If we discover a high 'spot on
the channel bottom or at a berth that constitutes a hazard to navigation, th@re

axe no procedures for speedy authorization to permit us to remove that obstruction.

The report recommendations provide for emergency action.

Under the existing procedures, all dredging projects, large or small,

new or existing., must,undergo the same time-consuming process. The new

recommended procedures will make provisions to segregate the large versus the

Small projects and permit certain applications to be handled administratively.

In addition, the imposition of time limits on processing of.dredging applications

and the provision by the Resources Agency to include certain dredging work as

categorical exemptions under the California Environmental quality Act Guidelines

are all positive steps toward streamlining the existing cumbersome process.

We cannot emphasize enough the need to place a reasonable time limit on

the proce ssing of dredging permits. The primary finding of the report is that
the whole-applicatioa processis bogged down due to two things: (1) Virtually

unrestricted Zrocessing time and (2) no sanctions for delays (pages 21 to 26).

Statement of Thomas G. Bertken
January 15, 1976
Page 2

The report recommended a time limit of 90 days from the date of the

application is found to contain sufficient information. The Marks Bill

used 60 days. Frankly, we would like a shorter period. The study noted that

the actual review time on an application by each of the various permitting

agencies is somewhere between one to twelve hours - or less than 2 working

days (page 21). The remainder of the time it's likely to be on someone's

tray. Meanwhile some jobs will be set aside and additional costs experienced.

I wish to extend my appreciation to this Commission for undertaking

this task, I wish to commend the BCDC staff for an excellent report.

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO - JOSEPH L. ALIOTO, MAYOR
PORT OF SAN FRANCI'SCO

F E R P Y 8 U I L 0 1 WG
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 - TEL.: (415) 391-8000
;f2' @; 3_1
com
January 14, 1976

COMMENTS TO THE BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Re: Regulation of Dredging, Final Report (Senate Bill 2418)

January 15, 1976 - BCDC Commission Meeting

San Francisco Bay and the Delta comprise one of the major
waterways in the United States, facilitating transportation
and commerce. In 1973, according to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 56,146,483 short tons of waterborne commerce was
.reported to have utilized this waterway system., Significantly
over 22 million of these tons were foreign trade.

The dredging of the navigational and berthside channels asso-
ciated with the San Francisco Bay port system is the function
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the respective ports.

The extent of the economic impact directly associated with
the maintenance of these channels has been estimated by the
Corps of Engineers as follows:

1. 20,400 jobs in the San Francisco Bay-Delta area
are directly related to the waterborne transportation
industry.

2. The payroll for the jobs directly related to the
waterborne transportation industry is $309 million.
3. Approximately 7,800 jobs in the region have been
identified in export manufacturing employment.

4. The total port investment - military and civilian
in the Bay-Delta area is nearly $2 billion.

5. 4,781 vessel trips (1973) with ships of greater
than 25-foot draft pass through the San Francisco Bay.

Regulation of Dredging, Final Report
(Senate-Bill 2418)
January 15, 1976 - BCDC Commission Meeting
Page 2

The navigational channels required for present day operationii
are maintained by over 20 separate dredging operations conduct-
ed by the Corps of Engineers in the Bay and Delta region. The
importance of this dredging is noted in the fact that if maint-
enance dredging is discontinued, it is estimated that the ex-
isting channels will revert to lesser depths. For example, in
the San Francisco Harbor, the Main Ship.Channel is at an exist-
ing depth of 55 feet; the original condition of this channel
in 1915 was 34 feet. If the channel is not maintained it would
revert to a 28'-34' depth, and thereby making this channel
useless to the needs of the present day maritime industry.

Similarly, as the channels entering into a port area must be
dredged to accommodate the steamship traffic, so must the
respective ports provide maintenance dredging along their berth-
side facilities. To that extent, the Port of San Francisco
dredges approximately 500,000 cubic yards of material annually.

The regulation of this maintenance dredging is described in
detail in your report on the 'Regulation of DredginE. Many of
the problems the Port of San Francisco faces. in obtaining the
necessary permits are also clearly outlined and I will therefore
not comment on them specifically.

The problems the Port of San Francisco faced in acquiring the
necessary permits for dredging are not.unique to this particular
port, nor are they specific problems of any one agency, nor
circumstances thatIcan be immediately remedied.

Prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 2418$ the major problem
facing any person with respect@to dredging was in identifying
the problems.

This fact has been overcome by this report on the Regulation
of Dredging prepared for the Resources Agency by BCDC. The
report must be commended for its concise and excellent synopsis
of problems facing public agencies and persons with respect to
dredging.

Regulation of Dredging, Final Report
(Senate Bill 2418)
January 15, 1976 - BCDC Commission Meeting
Page.3

The Port of San Francisco would urge that this report be
approved and adopted by the Resources Agency, and that this
agency monitor the implementation of the recommendations
made by the staff of BCDC. It is further recommended that
any,legislative changes required with respect to State
agencies' roles in dredging be-'submitted,to the Legislature
for this session, and that the recommendations to memor-
ialize Congressional action in this field be carried out at
once.

The fact that many agencies review and process a permit
application does not in itself have to be a problem. It is
accepted today that certain regulations and environmental
constraints are required for dredging and land fill. In the
past these regulations and constraints-have never appeared
in a workable form. Therefore, the need to formalize criteria,
policies, and procedures in the California Administrative
Code would indeed be a great step forward.

One of the primary reasons for the enactment of Senate Bill
2418 was to get other State agencies to conform to an established
time limit for reviewing permits, similar to BCDC's ninety
days. At that time, proposed time limits appeared unrealistic.
Your recommendation to amend the Porter-Cologne-Act to reduce
the existing time limit for applications for waste discharge
is supported by the Port of San Francisco. Failure for an
agency to act within a time limit established should result
in that agencies' permit being granted.

I can only conclude by urging the respective State agencies to
follow the conclusion of this report;

. . . recommendations that the BCDC as the study
agency proposes .(may) require some State legislative action.
Most can be implemented immediately by the regulatory agencies
themselves without legisTa-tive action. Change is always
difficult, but the pressures today are strong for a change'
in excessive and unnecessary regulations. If the changes are
made haphazardly, the results will be unpredictable and possibly
harmful to the environment we all want to protect. The approach
proposed here will simplify the regulatory maze and speed appli-
cation processing without undue disruption of the affected
agencies' other activities or jeopardizing the critical pro-
tection of natural resources."

-end--

Mr. Chairman.* members of the Commission, my name is Marin
Matosich. I represent the CMP11A which includes recreational
boaters. [STATISTICS'

.I would like to second what Bob Langner said and add a few
points about recreational boating.

If we're going to have recreational boating on our Bay,
we're going to have dredging. But we can't continue to have
the kind of regulations which cause the problems identified in
your report.

I.say this because these problems have become almost im-.
possible, and in many cases impossible, to overcome. We don1t
have experts with a lot of time to wade through the paperwork
and all the conflicts that develop along the way. Marinas and
,recreational facilities simply cannot support all the costs and
full time personnel needed to cope with all the regulations*
Just look at the time flow charts in appendix H of your report.
The permit process is so complex and confusing that 68% of the
applicants had to re-submit applications more than once and 32%
three times. If the Port of San Francisco, which has been dredg-
Xng the Bay a long time, and which has its own dredge and expert
staff, had to submit their last application threeltimes., what do
you th ink happens to a recreational marina administered by a
group of volunteers? We desperately need simplified procedures,
we need to know what they are and we need specific time limits
within which we and the agencies have to operate.

Sop if we're going to have recreational boating on our Bay,
we're not only going to have dredging, wefre going to have vastly
simplified and more accountable regulations. If we don't imple-
ment the recommendations in your report soon, marinas, whichever
ones are still operating, will be forced to raise their rates out
of the reach of most of the boating public just to cover the costs
of,coping with the regulations.

Again, I wish to commend the BCDC staff for tackling this
problem - Now., lets move to implement you n recommendations.

I?irst,, I would:like to comment briefly on the scope and
ramifications of this report. Since we have been closely in-
volved with this effort from the drafting of the Marks Billi
we believe we car. address this matter.

Regulatory problems are ubiquitous and increasing - as
evidenced by the many articles and commissions recently estab-
lished to deal with these problems. It is our belief - and this
was brought out at the hearings on the Marks Bill - that any
attempt to deal with all regulatory problems on a frontal basis
would result in frustration. However, it was recognized that
many regulatory problems are similar in different sectors and
in different geographical areas.

In order to have a good chance of isolating and analyzing
the problems, it was decided to place only the dredging sector
in the San Francisco Bay area in a fishbowlw The results are
in this report - which indicates the technique worked.

We have had-many inquiries from other sectors in other
areas about this report and we believe the reports findings
and recommendations can and should be applied to other sectors
and areas.

State-of California The Resources Agency
Memorandu.m

To Tom Tobin Date: November 5, 1975
BCDC

From: Department of Fish and Game - Region 3

Subject: Draft. Recommendations on Regulations of Dredging

Subsequent to our meeting,of October 24, 1975 in Yountville, we have reviewed
the proposed recommendations section of your agency's Report on Regulations
of Dredging idgreater detail and offer the following comments for your
consideration.

We are concerned that recommended time limitations for commenting agencies
may be unnecessarily restrictive. Paragraph 111 2 f emphasizes a need for
establishing time Limits which provide sufficient opportunity for agency
action. This should also apply to commenting agencies.

Our understanding is that you propose to have permit granting agencies act
on applications requiring public hearing within 90 days of filing a complete
application; those handled administratively, 45 days. Commenting agencies,
on the other hand, would be required to comment within 21 days of the request
for comments when subject to public hearing and 14 days otherwise. We believe
these limitations afford considerable contingency time for the permitting
agency but seriously limit a commenting agency's ability to respond. We
recommend these comment limitations be extended to 28 and 21 days respectively
with the option of a mutually agreeable extension if additional field and/or
literature investigations are necessary.

We believe your recommendation #2 on page 5 relating to failure of an agency
to comment within proposed time limits is unduly restrictive and contrary
to provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. This Act requires
the Corps of Eng:Lneers to consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the State agency having the responsibility for fish and wildlife resources
prior to granting, in this case, a dredge permit. Your proposed restriction,
therefore, would effectively preclude such cooperative efforts and seriously
compromise the intent of the Act. We could not accede to a provision that
barred us from commenting at the Federal level simply because we had not
commented at some previous time.

Of further concern, is your recommendation that.agency comments be'consistent
throughout the review period. We certainly agree that an 'agency should
carefully assess all pertinent information before dete ining its position.

Tom Tobin -2- November 5, 1975

Howevert in commenting to various regulatory agenciest comments may not
contain all of an agency's concerns due to the limited regulatory responsi-
bilities of the permitting agency. In some cases new information or con-
siderations come to light which may justify a rev.ision in an agency's
position.

We concur with your suggestion that the "letters of permission" form of
approval be expanded. However, we believe that "letters of permission"
should not be used on controversial projects even though there has been a
prior extensive state regulatory program. Also, the regulatory program's
@effectiveness and relationship to possible project impacts should be
carefully weighed before using "letters of permission" on major or contro-
versial projects.

Thank you for soliciting our comments on this subject. If we can be of
further assistance, please let us know.

C. Fraser
Regional Manager
Region 3

cc: Environmental Services Branch
L. Frank Goodson, Project Coordinator
Resources Agency
4

raser

State of California 'rho Resources Agency of California
LU
IJ
Memorandum
n U."i S v VI `j k
%j
T Mr. Charles R. Roberts CC' Date November 28, 1975
Executive Director
San,Francisco Say Conservation Subied: Proposed Dre dge
and Development Commission Application Regulations
30 Van Ness Avenue, Room 201.1
San Francisco, California 94102

From Department of Navigation and Ocean Development

On November 14, members of in y staff met with Tom Tobin to review and
discuss the proposed report on recommendations for the regulation of
dredging.being prepared by BCDC. It was suggested that we submit a
statement to you expressing any concerns or recommendations the Depart-
,.ment may.have on these regulations, as well as a Department policy
statement on dredging. I have attached such a policy statement.

DNOD fully supports the efforts to accelerate the time for processing
dredgi,ng applications consistent with safe environmental practices.

'We have.no specific comments on the proposed regulations, but throughout
there are places where terms should be defineii and/or clarified in the
context of which they are,used. This was discussed with Mr. Tobin and
he has made note of them.

I believe there should be a provision for all concerned agencies to
have an opportunity to review any "late" comments of another.ag6ncy.-
This pertains to proposed regulation I-B-iii-b.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

FRANK TORKELSON
Acting Director

Attachment

(over)

MED

DREDGING POLICY STATEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF NAVIGATION OCEAN DEVELOPMENT

The Department of Navigation and Ocean Development recognizes that

dredging is a necessary requirement for the establishment and mainten-

ance of marinas, ports, and navigable waterways. Further, the Depart

ment recognizes that these marinas, ports,.and waterways provide

income and job opportunities.for thousands of people in the state and

nat.lon. Needless to say, dredging has a major impact on the'economic

.well-being of the state and the continued recreational and commercial

uses of the coastal and inland waters. Therefore, consistent with

good environmental practices, all dredging projects should be evaluated

with regard to short and long-term advantages and disadvantages,

Including@economic, financial, engineering., and environmental factors.

The Department encourages the continued research to mitigate any adverse

physical' or toxicological effects upon the environment-resulting from

--dredging, and also the possible use of dredging spoils.as a resource to

be placed in areas vo!d of flora and fauna.

RE NAL WATER UALITY CONTROL BRD RECEIVED
INTERNAL MEM0 A DEC - 1 1975
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
To: State Water Resources Control Board FROM: ---Los Angeles Region DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

DATE: NOV 26 1115 SIGNATURE:
RA4Y4*66100 M. HER0ME0Z
SUBJECT: BCD8C Regullation of Dredging Exectutive Officer
Report: Tentative Recommendations
(11/5/?5)

We have reviewed the tentative Recommendations under consideration
for the Regulation of Dredging Report being prepared by the
San Francisco Board Conservation and Development Commission.

The recommendations contain an item that is grossly in conflict
with existing regulations concerning time limits for action on
dredging permits, as well as other items that are not consistent
with our views on dredging regulation. We are writing to express
these views and to urge that any SWRCB response take issue with
the specific recommendations mentioned below.
1) Recommendation Item I.B.b. @0Da4ge 3): "Time limits should be
specifiec as f ollow : 8i. Permit granting agencies shall act
within 90 days of filing a complete application, etc.11

We are concerned that the recommended 90--da8y time limit for action
on a (dredging) waste discharge application will be in conflict
with existing statutory reuirements, namely, Section 132644(a)(2)
of the Water Code, which states that a discharge may not be
initiated prior to 120 days after compliance with Section 13260
(filing of a complete waste discharge report).

The proposed recommendation would reuire an amendment to Section
13264 (a)(2) providing an exception in the case of certification
of dredging applications. We do not feel that the processing of
waste discharge reuirements with the attendant time constraints
of preparation, circulation, publication, and adoption by Regional
and State Boards can always be achieved in less than 120 days.
Although we generally manage to keep well within this maxim0un time
limit in processing dredging applications, it should be retained
at its present duration to allow for those cases where additional
time is reuired.
2) Item I.E and I44II.A.0I.2(32P80aes 687 and 10): A categorical exemp-
tion 0fnT@ maintenance dredging or new 4c36L4-edging of 610,000 yards
or less is proposed, unless significant adverse impact may be
anticipated.

We strongly oppose the setting of arbitrary exemption limits for
L

dredging projects. Waivers of.certification for minor projects
should continue to be granted on a case-by-case basis.

SWRCB 32GA(4/75)

SURNAME:

StateWater Resources Control Board Nov 2 6 1975

Item 2I2V Page 11 each agency should have clear
policy guidelines and administrative regulations which are
formally and publicly adopted."
Item IV B*8(0Page 12)*. "All agencies should formally adopt
'0policies on dredging."

We believe that Regional Board administrative guidelines on
dredging certification protocol are all that are necessary to
supplement present practices. There is no need f8o8r a general,
statewide dredging and dredge spoil control policy.

cc: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
California Regional Water uality Control Boards

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. 8ROWN JR., Govemor
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-
_-) 4a
SANTA ANA REGION

11MRSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506 DEC
INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 1 8 1975
PHONE- (714) 6"9330
December 4, 1975

Mr. L. Thomas Tobin, Staff Engineer
San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Mr. Tobin:

Thank you for providing a copy of the confidential draft of the
staff report on "The Regulation of Dredging." The report contains
some excellent suggestions regarding the need for proper coordi-
nation and prompt response to dredging proposals.

We have one basic suggestion--that you modify the proposed
volumetric values at which a waiver essentially would be granted.
The value you suggest is probably valid for San Francisco Bay,
but not necessarily relevant for our much smaller bays. We suggest
instead that each major agency be required to develop a volumetric
value for such-a possible waiver provision..

This Board would possibly disagree with your introduction where you
state "Moreover, new dredging projects almost always require main-
tenance dredging on a regular basis." This would indicate to us
that either the original project was poorly designed or that erosion-
siltation controls were not being diligently exercised in the drainage
areas tributary to the project.

The report states on page 7 "The Regional Water Quality Control
Boards and the State Water Resources Control Board derive some water
quality control authority from the Federal Water Quality Control Act."
We do not believe this is true. These boards derive their authority
from the State Water Code and the State Administrative Code.

The report's suggestion that if a specific deadline is not met the
permit is automatically granted (pacre 15) should he upon the condition
that the proponent has provided an acceptable application.

An item not covered in the report is the need for more information
on correct dredging procedures, and especially that phase concerning
spoils disposal.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sipprely,
John M. ZAasa zinski
Staff Engineer
JMZ/ps

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

WESTERN DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

P.O. BOX 727
7:7;7@- ---
-SAN BRUNO. CALIFORNIA 94066 IN REPLY REFER TO:
VL%
09BEA:RTR:lm
DREDGING/BCDC

DEC 10 1975"

Mr. Charles Roberts, Executive Director
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Mr. Roberts:

Thank you for your letter dated November 28, 1975, transmitting a draft of
"The Regulation of Dredging" dated December 5, 1975, and inviting comm nts.

The draft has been reviewed and several recommendations and comments have
been indicated in the margins of the enclosed copy. Particularly significant
questions or comments are as follows:

1. The fact that essential Navy dredging accounts for about one-tenth of
all annual maintenance dredging in the San Francisco Bay Area is not in-
dicated on the location map in the introduction or elsewhere in the study.
It is requested that the report map and narrative discussion clearly show
the significant proportion of Bay dredging performed for U.S. Navy defense-
oriented purposes.

2. How will the procedures, as outlined in the Federal Register by both
EPA and the Corps of Engineers, for the Section 4o4 (a) and (b) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) amendments of 1972, impact on
the coordination of agencies within the State, as well as between the State
and the Federal Government? It is believed that this matter should be
discussed in the report.

3. In the introduction, no mention is made of the quantities of solids
resuspended in the Bay system by wind and wave action. This figure is in
the Corps of Engineers' study of San Francisco Bay, and is very significantly
larger than the eight to ten million cubic yards brought in annually by the
Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems. It is requested that this natural
occurrence be mentioned and thereby brought to the attention of the report
users.

The opportunity to review and comment on your draft report is appreciated.
Mr. Richard T. Russell, P.E., (415) 871-6600, extension 2603,.,is available
to assist with any questions your staff may have.

Sincerely,

Copy to: (w/o encl)
P. J. P-Ajislus
U.S. Corps of Engineers San Francisco District cc-
EnvironTn ntal Protection Agency, Region IX L_ =ander, CRC, USN
Procram Officer

Santa ClaraValley Water Distdd

5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY ......
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118
TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600

December 23, 1975

Mr. L Thomas Tobin
San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Nrl

We have reviewed your report, "The Regulation cf Dredging" and
we concur with the recommendations contained in it. We wish
to clarify that our agency's role with respect to dredging
activities is that of (1) a permitting agency (under our own
ordinance 74-1), (2) a commenting agency (with respect to
proposals referred to us by B.C.D.C. and others), and (3) an
agency which from time to time comes under B.C.D.C. regulation
when we propose our own dredging projects.

Thank you for.the opportunity to comment on the report.

Sincerely,

ohn L. Richardson
Head, Project Development Branch
Design and Construction.
@
0 L
Hed
Desi@

AN E12UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Recieved
Jan 20 1976
San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission

January 19, 1976

Mr. L. Thomas Tobin
Staff Engineer
BCDC
30 Van Ness Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Tom:

You and the project staff responsible for the recommendations in "The
Regulation of Dredging" report are to be commended for a most compre-
hensive and effective analysis of and solution to the dredging regula-
tion problem in the Bay Area.

Due to other project commitments I have not been active in commenting
on earlier drafts of the report, but this should not be construed as a
lack of interest or support for the study. As you know, in our own report
dealing with maritime development, the Bay Area council was most concerned
with the regulatory problems involved in all aspects of maritime devel-
opment in the Bay Area.

This brings me to a question. Do you feel the procedures, recommenda-
tions and findings of your study would be applicable to maritime devel-
opment permit situations other than dredging? We are most interested
in seeing your recommendations implemented and would like to be kept in-
formed of any progress or legislative activity on your very fine report.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Ronald R. Brill
Projects Director

RRB:bs

STAFF
The Council, establish in EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
1945 is a private, non-profit CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIRMEN CHAIRMANS APPOINTEES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
organization involved in J.W. HULL B.F. BIAGGINI ROBERT B. SHETTERLY A.W. CLAUSEN ANGELO J SIRACUSA
research and advocacy on Chairman of the Board President President President
such areawide public policy The Pacific Telephone Southern Pacific Company The Clorox Company Bank of America, NT & SA PROJECTS DIRECTOR
issues as environmental & Telegraph Co. H.J. HAYNES RONALD R. BRILL
quality, economic vitality, Chairman of the Board SHERMER L. SIBLEY C.R. DAHL
transportation, and regional IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIRMAN Standard Oil Co. Chairman of the Board President PROJECTS ASSOCIATE
planning and goverment. Director, Retired President of California Pacific Gas & Electric Co. & Chief Executive Officer THOMAS O. MERLE
EUGENE E TREFETHEN, JR. Crown Zellerbach Corporation
Kaiser Industries Corporation ARJAY MILLER CHAIRMAN, STEERING RESEARCH ASSISTANT
Dean, COMMITTEE WILLIAM R HEWLETT BRIGITTE STRAUBS
Graduate School of Business WARREN D CHINN President
Stanford University Senior Vice President & Chief Executive Officer
Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc. Hewlett-Packard Company

THE BAY AREA COUNCIL, INC. 348 WORLD TRADE CENTER SAN FRANCISCO 94111 (415) 981-6405

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
RJAII '2 0 1976
Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95SO1
(916) 322-3580 '"1 FKM0bUU 8AY CUNSUVATION
& OEVELOPMENT COMINIMICH

In Reply Refer
to: 225:ME

JAN 19 ITM

San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Franciscof CA 94102

"THE REGULATION OF DREDGING" BY*THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - FINAL STAFF REPORT

The following are the State Water Resources Control Board's
comments on the above subject.

1. The proposed recommendation would require an
amendment to Section 13264 (a)(2) providing an
exception in the case of certification of
dredging applications. We do not feel that the
processing of waste discharge requirements with
the attendant time constraints of preparation,
circulation, publication,and adoption by Regional
and State Boards can always be achieved in less
than 120 days. Although we generally manage to
keep well within this maximum time limit in
processing dredging applications, it-should be
retained at its present duration to allow for
those cases where additional time is.required.
To require formalized procedures for 'time
extensions would merely add further delays and
additional confusion to the process of issuing
waste discharge requirements for dredging projects.

2. We feel that specific criteria or standards for
dredging projects are unworkable in light of the
varied nature of such projects and the basic
differences in the geographical areas where such
projects are proposed. We feel that a uniform
administrative procedure is sufficient to provide
the necessary consistency and to inform applicants
D

of the appropriate procedures to follow in obtaining
waste discharge requirements for these projects.

San Francisco Bay Conservation,
and Development Commission
-2-

3. on page D18 in the third paragraph, Los Angeles
Regional.Board is referenced. We believe that
the San Francisco Bay Regional Board should
have been referenced instead.

We request that these comments be considered when making
your final decision.*'

W. R. Attwater
Chief Counsel

cc: Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board
107 South Broadway, Room 4027
Los Angeles, CA 90012

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
30 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco 94102 557-3686

TO: All Commissioners and Alternates
FROM: Charles R. Roberts, Executive Director

SUBJECT: MINUTES OF MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 1975

1. Call to Order. The meeting of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission was called to order by Chairman Joseph C. Houghteling,
at 1:45 'P.M., in Room 3-194, State @uilding, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco.
2. Roll Call. Present: Chairman Houghteling, Commissioners Boggess (represented.
by Alternate Cline), Brann, Chapman (represented by Alternate Searcy)., Cuneo I DeFalco
(represented by Alternate Freeman), Flertzheim (represented by Alternate Wolfe), Heller
(represented by Alternate Becks), Henderson, Jacobson (represented by Alternate Stickney)
Lollock, Northrop (represented by Alternate Golden), 0gawa (represented by Alternate
Weinreb), Speck, Steinberg and Ward. Absent: Vice Chairman Watkins, Commissioners
Aramburu, Bruno, Cooper, Feinstein, Harper, Kopp and Price.

3. Approval of Minutes of August 7., 1975. Mr. Roberts said the staff had
received some changes. On page 5, paragraph 3, Commissioner Cuneo's question was
inadvertently omitted. The following sentence should be inserted just before the
last sentence in that paragraph: "Commissioner Cuneo asked how the staff felt
about extending the time limit." On page 6, paragraph 2, add that Commissioner
Jacobson voted against the motion. On page 11, third line from the bottom of the
page, change to read: "ofthe decision of BCDC jurisdiction."
MOTION: Commissioner Cuneo moved that the minutes be a@proved as amended,
.seconded by Commissioner Lollock. The motion was unanimously approved.

4. Report of Chairman Houghteling

a. Introductions. Chairman Houghteling introduced Mrs. Dorothy Erskine, a
long-time friend of those who have served on BCDC, who has been nominated as alternate
to Vice Chairman Watkins, and L. Russell Freeman, alternate to Commissioner DeFalco
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
b. Next Meeting. The Commission meeting for September 4, 1975, will be
cancelled because informa ion needed to hold public hearings on claims of exemption
planned for that meeting has not been -provided.

c.' October 16 Meeting. Plans are to hold the October 16 meeting in Fremont
so that the Commission can tour Leslie Salt facilities. There will be a tour of the
Leslie Salt facilities in the morning., a no-host luncheon, and the regular meeting
in Fremont that afternoon. At that meeting, the Commission will be briefed on the
option between Leslie Salt and the Trust for Public Lands. Further information about
reservations for this tour will be provided later.
Legislation. Chairm n Houghteling said two bills of Jnterest to the
Commission have been amended recently in the Legislature. Assembly Bill 625 (Knox),
the bill to create a regional planning agency, has been amended so that the absorption
of BCDC in 1979 is not automatic. Instead BCDC has been moved into a section of the
bill where its future role in the Bay Area scheme is to be studied, and a report is
to be made to the Legislature in 1979. The bill has also been amended to require
a referendum in June of 1976, -putting the final decision on this regiona.1 agency
up to the vote of the people of the Bay Area. The bill still has to go to

-2

the full Senate, back to a conferencecommittee, and if the Legislature is to act
this year it will have to 'do so by September 15. There will be no
further opportunity to report to the Commission on this bill,and at this point
BCDC is not directly involved.

Commissioner Brnrr said at the hearing before the Senate Local Government
Committee,- a statement was made that Chairman Houghteling, speaking'as the BCDC Chair-
MAn, approved AB 625. Chairman Brann said it should be noted as a matter of record
that this Commission-has not taken a position on AB 625. Chairman Houghteling said
Commissioner,Bra_nn was correct, and he did not know who would have said that. He
said-that as a member of a committee of the Planning and Conservation League, he had
said he would vote for approval of the bill if it had certain amendments, but he had
not said.this-as BCDC Chairman. However,-his main concern was BCDC, and he certainly
agreed with Commissioner Brann that BCDC had taken no position on this'matter.

Assembly.Bill 1601(Wornum), the bill which wx2A allow perdiem for
members of the Commission to a maximum offour meetings per month, has beenamended
againto restore the per them to $50 per meeting, which would be on a mar with most
other regional commissions. This bill had. been amended earlier., reducing the
per them to $30 per meeting.)

Today's Agenda... Item 9.a. on the Agenda, the public hearing for a.bike
path in the City of Burlingame,, has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
This item was withdrawn.from the.agenda at the last meeting.

Alan R. Pendleton, 'Staff Counsel, said that the City of Burlingame has
requested thatthe public hearing on its application No. 7-75,,be p4t.over again
because Westbay Community Associates,, a group of investors which claims certain right*
to lands immediately bayward of the pro-posed project, has interposed an objection with
regard to title;.thi.s may affect the Commission's determination since.there is an area.
involving fill. The applicant expects to resolve the issue in the near future.
Chairman Houghteling asked if the applicant agreed to extend the ninety-day limit.
Mr. Pendleton said they had.

5.- Report of Executive-Director.

Administrative Permits. Mr. Roberts said the administrative permits filed
since the last meeting were reported to the Commission in a memorandum dated August 18,
1975, and briefly described some of the projects involved. Chairman Houghteling asked
if there were any.que.sti.ons and there was no response.

6. Further Commission Consideration and Possible Ado@otion of Resolution on
Proposed Regulations for Coordinating Dredging Applications. Philip Weismehl, staff
attorney, said that on August 7 the hearing was held on the regulations proposed for
coordination aspects of Senate Bill 2418; at that time there was -no testimony offered
from the audience.- The staff received a request that the comment period be held open
for one week so that written comments could be submitted. During that week a letter
was received from the Alameda County Flood Control District, copy of which has been
distributed to the Commissioners. Its suggestions have been dealt with to the extent
possible., and are reflected in changes in a, memorandum dated August 18, sent to the
Commissioners. Mr. Weismehl summarized comments and.asked.that the Commission approve.
the resolution wUch willbe seit.to Secretary of Resources who. has the final authority
to adopt the regulations.

BCDC Minutes
8/21/75

-3-

Chairman Houghteling asked if there were any comments on the regulations
as proposed,,. including the amendments. There was no response.

MOTION: Co-.vjzssioner Henderson moved that the regulations pro-posed by
C_
the staff in memorandums of August 18, and August 20) be accepted, seconded by
Commissioner Becks. The motion was unanito usly approved.

Chairman Houghteling asked if there were any comments on the proposed
regulations as amended. There was no response. Commissioners Henderson, Steinberg
and Ward, and Alternates Searcy, Golden and Freeman, said they had read the minutes
of August 7. and were prepared to vote.
MdTION: Commissioner Henderson moved that the proposed regulations as
amended, and the resolution be approved, seconded by Mrs. Stickney. Chairman
Houghteling asked if there were any comments on the motion. There was no response.
He said a.t1yes" vote would be in favor of the motion, and a "no" vote would be
against it. The roll call vote was as follows: Yes: Commissioners Cline, Brann,
Searcy, Cuneo, Freeman, Wolfe, Becks, Henderson, Stickney, Lollock, Golden, Weinreb,
Speck, Steinberg, Ward, and Chairman Houghteling. The motion was. approved 16-0.

7. Public Hearing and Commission Consideration of the 'First Part of the Study
on Administrative Procedures Affecting Dredging. This -part of the background report
describes the reasons for dredging and its regulation, and the regulatory framework
(procedures and powers). The Commission will be asked to adopt findings, which will
be.-part of a final report to the Legislature as required by SB 2418.
L. Thomas Tobin, Staff Engineer, said in 1850, the year of California
statehood, the State took over ownership of-certain tidelands.
This was perhaps the first time that California got into the regulation business
as far as dredging was concerned. Since that time there have been many laws which
affect dredging: in 1899 the Federal Rivers and Harbors Act; in 1965. the McAteer-
Petris Act creating BCDC; in.1967 the Porter-Cologne Act dealing with Water quality;
in 1967 the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was implemented through a
Memorandum of Understanding at the federal level, bringing new regulations concerning
dredging; in 1969 the national Environmental Protection Act; in 1970 the California
Environmental quality Act; in 1972 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and in 1972
the Federal Marine Protection,, Research and Sanctuaries Act. These laws addressed
many different topics: ownership, land use, water quality, fish and wildlife resources,
navigation, environmental impact and interagency relations. They have something in
common; they were all enacted independently without regard to the overall pattern of
regulation and they created agencies with overlapping interests. In short, about twelve
regulatory agencies were created in the Bay Area, and applicants axe still leaxning how t
live with this relatively new body of legislation and new interpretations.

Mr. Tobin said the,.first part of the study has been -prepared with the fill'
participation of the agencies involved, the BCDC Advisory Committee, and a Special
Advisory Committee of twenty 'persons with special expertise in dredging. This public
hearing is to consider the findings in the first part of the study-, These findings
axe intended to support recommendations the Commission will be asked to make, perhaps
in November, when the second part of the study is completed. The law (SB 2418)
requires that the report be prepared by February 1. The report will be short,
consisting of findings and recommendations--a format very similar to the Bay Plan.
The report will be transmitted to the Legislature through the Secretary for Resources.

BCDC MI=S
8/21/75

-4-

The final report will identify problems in the permitting process, make rec mendations
concerning efficient ways to expedite the -process, propose future relations between
state and federal agencies pertaining to dredging matters, and recommend legislation 0
for statewide application of the -procedures.

Mr. Tobin'said not all dredging is conducted by the ports; one-third of the
applications do come from -ports, one-third from marinas, and one-third from those who
wish to conduct public works projects. .So dredging regulations affect private people,
ports, county flood control districts, and county -public works departments. We
have also learned that not all projects are new and not all are very large; in fact,
half the projects are less than 10,000 cubic yards in size. About sixty percent of
the projects are what are ca.Iled."maintenance" dredging. It is apparent to the- staff
that these smaller, recurring projects do not need the same level of
scrutiny as the new, very large projects which may have a significant environmental
impact.

Mr. Tobin gave highlights-of the findings and said the laws and regulations
which surround-the dredging process are currently in-a very dynamic state..
Procedures are changing as are the areas of jurisdiction... In other words, the'staff
is trying to.solve a problem.that is-changing.

Chairman Houghteling opened the public hearing on "Part I, The Regulation
of Dredging.

Commissioner Cun'eo-asked if the Regional Water Quality Control Board
recommendations had been taken into consideration. Mr. Tobin said they had, however,
there was one-major point which should be restated. The report 'says the Regional
Water.Quality Control Board considers only the effect of the dredging project on
water quality, and this is not the case. The administrative regulations promulgated
by the State Water Resources Control Board say that the Regional Boards are to take
into account the environmental impact of factors other than water quality in making
their decisions on waste discharge requirements.

Chairman Houghteling said he did.not notice the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) among the agencies an applicant must go through. Mr. Tobin said
ABAG has A-95(e) review responsiblities when federal money is involved.* The staff
feels this is,a review that occurs primarily during-the planning period, not during
the time that an application is processed.

Frank Boerger, Chairman of the San Francisco Bay Committee on Dredging for
the California Marine Affairs Navigation Conference(C-MANC), said the committee was
formed approximately two years ago because of the problems many'-people in .the Bay
Area were having with dredging permits, technical as well as procedural problems.
The C44ANC Dredging Committee has been working in an attempt to develop a public
awareness of the problems, so pe .ople could better understand some of the implications
of the kinds of activities which were being promulgated by vaxious regulatory '
agencies at both federal and state level. For example., the Committee had a confer-
ence last February, on Pacific Coast dredging matters, in which it- identified all
the facets of the problems and tried to come up with some su'ggestions.on ways for
improvement. He distributed copies of a recent editorial in the San Francisco
Examiner which dramatized the' problems created for a private firm by the number of
agencies. It is a real problem for private firms,, for ports, marinas, and for
anyone who has to develop and maintain facilities on the waterfront. The Committee
worked very closely with Senator Marks and his staff last year on the approach that
BCDC is taking now.

BCDC Minutes
8/21/75

-5-

Mr; Boerger!said C-MANC-has reviewed very carefully Part I of the report,
.and feels that the staff is to be co ended on a report that portrays the-problems
so well; he--said 'it presents:many excellent questions which need to be answered.
He emphasized that one of the fundamental problems; alluded to by Mr. Tobin,,was
that many laws have been,passedand regulations adopted,, based on those laws,.but
legislative and administrative-people.haze not looked fully into the total implications.
These-actions have created tremendous req4rements for expenditures'of public A@d
private funds because of duplication of effort. The action the Commission is now.
.taking is an effort to retrace steps to find what can be done to eliminate some of
the duplications.*@For exa@mple-i some simple projects may be reviewed several times by
the same agency. When a permit request is made to the BCDC and the Regional.Water
Quality Control Board, all-theiother state-agencies have to look at both Permits,
The. agencies may have to look at the -sake'project again if.. an EIR is.required,,.and
very likely will-have to look at it again when the Corps of.Engineers Public Notice
is issued for a Corps permit. If the Corps of Engineers requires an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) at the federal,level,.the agencies may have to review that
statement again. In terms of time and effort, this is very wasteful.. This kind of
system bears hea;vily on the small operators of maxinas vho must go through exactly
.@the same procedure as for a major project. In summation, C-MANC agrees with the
recommendations and the questions which have been asked, and offers its full
assistance in trying to.find reasonable answers to these questions, so that se nsible
reco endations can be made to the State Legislature..

Peggy Lang, Research Aide to Senator Milton Marks, said that Senator Marks
regrets that his legislative schedule keeps him in Sacramento but had asked her to
read t@e f'ollowing.statement:, "As Chairman of the Senate-Select. Committee'.on'the
Maritime,Industry,,- last year I became aware of.the overwhelming bureaucracy involved
in obtaining dredging -permits throughout the State, As you know, dredging is essential
to the maritime industry in keeping.ourshipping channels open. Dredging is also
imortant for.c -lercial-fishing,, boating and recreation,and a variety of other.public
uses of California's vwter@ resources.

"Despite the imp Iortance of dredging, the ports, marina operators and other
applicants are faced with.&,permit procedure which is.time-consuming and repetitive,
at,best.,,and is prohibitive,, at worst. Applicants must receive approval 'from a
minim= of six state and four federal agencies, each with differing'but frequently
overlapping authority and jurisdictions and with.different requirements for technical
information,on which to judge the permit. Several of these agencies cannot act.,without
'prior approval of others, and-time limitations on these agencies are non-existent,
impractical- or inconsistent. The Senate.-Select Committee on the Maritime Industry
knows of projects that required over twoyears to process permit applications, and
cases of thirteento twenty months are not unc- on. Some smaller projects have even
been abandoned because the permitting procedure was too lengthy and costly.

"All of the agencies with permitting or reviewing authority provide us with
essential environmental protections., which we do not want to compromise. On the other
hanrl,-it seems unnecessary-for.'one department to comment on a permit application five
times.. We wanted to come up with a procedure which would consolidate the red tape
without compromising essential environmental protections. With this goal in,mind,
we sat dmm to write SB 2418 last year.

"we had hoped, at first, to write a bill to establish a standard time
limit&tion by which a.11 state agencies must act on a dredging permit application,
to establish a standard application form and to establish a single lead agency on a

BCDC Minutes
8/21/75

-6-

permanent, state-wide basis. We learned very quickly that this task was far too
complicated to accomplish within the time frame of the legislative session and that
we had better assign the job of untangling the bureaucratic ball and acting as an
interim coordinator to an existing agency. Naturally, there was some disagreement
over which agency to assign these tasks to, and the one agency upon which all parties
could agree was BCDC. With BCDC in mind, I am happy to say that my, bill, SB 2418,
was enacted.

BCDCs work as coordinator and the report before you today exemplify the
reasons for the trust in BCDC. In a very short time, BCDC developed a standard
appliction,form and began acting as coordinator for dredging permit applications.
The report on The Regulation of Dredging, Part I does a good job of describing the
permit procedures and identifying its problems. I would particularly like to direct
your attention to Chapter VI, Analysis and Findings, which,is the core of,this report.

"Now that BCDC has described and identified the problems,I am hopeful that
your next report will provide us with some solutions. I am hopeful that
our original goals of establishing a standaxd and reasonable time limitation by which
state agencies must act on permits, establishing an on-going and statewide standard
application form, and establishing a permanent and manageable coordinating process
which will cut through the red tape without compromising essential environmental
protections.

"I confess that I do not envy you this task as I know it will be a difficult
one. I hope the proposed solutions will be meaningful and effective; and I trust you
will not hesitate to recomend a solution simply because it may require state
Legislative action. I believe the Legislature and the Governor would give serios
consideration to legislAtion on which would provide us with reasonable means of cutting
through red tape without jeopardizing environmental protections. I commend you and
your staff, particularly Mr. Tom Tobin on Your first report. If this report is any
indication of the quality of your next one, the proposed solutions should be excellent
ones, and the intent of my bill will be accomplished."

Miss Lang said Senator Marks also asked her to call the Commission's attention
to the fact that the problems of red tape and bureaucracy with permit applications
apply not only to dredging. Throughout the state there are all kinds of permit pro-
cedures which are equally *complicated. Senator Marks is hopeful that this bill,and
the work that BCDC is doing, will be the first step towards solving some of the other
problems with other application procedures throughout the state. Ms. Lang added that
some sort of provision for emergency permits should be included, which could be sub-
mitted to the Legislature with a possible recmmendation for changes statewide.

Thomas G. Bertken, Chief Engineer of the Port of Oakland, said his comments
were directed to the impact of existing regulations and procedures for dredging permits
on the port industry in general and the Port of Oakland in particular. He said the
"Bay Plan" recognizes that the port industry plays a very vital role in the overall
economy of the Bay Area and accounts either directly or indirectly for a major portion
of the jobs and economic livelihood of Bay Area residents. There is no other single
industry that is more important to the Bay Area's, economic well being. Periodic
maintenance dredging of channels and ship berths is necessary for the continued
operation of the Bay Area port industry. Without dredging, ship channels and berths
would silt tip in a relatively short time and would not accommodate the ships presently
calling at Bay Area terminals.Also, to accommodate the larger cargo ships now being
built, ship channels and berths will have to be deepened and widened. Otherwise,
the area's port industry will decline, with serious consequences to the Bay Area
economy. It is not reasonable to assume that any regulations would be established

BCDC Minutes
8/21/75

-7-

that would result in a sudden' drastic restriction of such an important economic
activity. The more real danger is the gradual sapping of the economic vitality of
the industry by delay and frustration involved in the regulatory procedures. The
competitive position of Bay Area ports in relation to -ports in the northwest and
ports in Southern California has been seriously weakened as a result of delays in
dredging projects and the uncertainty of securing dredge permits in a timely fashion.
The time delays and the cumbersome procedures which presently exist with the processing
of dredging permits have resulted in the--waste of many thousands of dollaxs in 'public
and private funds. Needless to say., this waste of funds should not be allowed to
continue.

Mr. Bertken said the Port of Oakland would like to c-mmend the BCDC staff on
their fine report on the current status of the regulation of dredging., and supports
the adoption-of these findings. After adoptioni the next logical step
-would beto implement-the necessary changes which will guarantee an overall regulatory
process for dredging which is fair, reasonable, efficient and yet responsive to our
environmental needs. Mr. Bertken said the Port of Oakland pledges its continued
support and cooperation in effectuating an efficient regulatory process fot dredging
permits which will eliminate the unfortunate wasting of -public funds that occurs
with present procedures.

Michael Cheney, Consulting Engineer, said he frequently has clients who
want to dredge and he must advise them of the permit process. The clients usually
look at him in disbelief when they learn the time and cost required. Forexam-ple.,on
one small proj,ect for dredging 8,000 cubic yards, the client started applying for
necessary permits last October, and is just now getting the last -permits. The BCDC
-permit is about to expire, the client has lost the low bidder, and the project will
cost three times what it would have cost five years ago. At least half of the
increase is due to the regulatory process. He c-irended the staff for the reported
findings which -point out obvious weaknesses and -problems. He said the problems are
caused by too many laws,, too many agencies involved, a lack of clear procedures, a
.lack of coordinated processing,, inconsi.stent goals, and a lack of time constraints.
The public interest is not really being served by the permit process. Practical
solutions must be developed and implemented. The solutions will not be easy since
theywillrequire digging into well protected bureaucratic areas, but those concerned
cannot afford notto find those solutions.

Michael Giari., of the Port and Intermodal Development Office of the
Maritime Administration., said Thomas J. Patterson, Jr.,, the Regional Director of
the Maxitime Administration, was not able to appear to speak on the subject of
dredging, but had prepared.a statement which was distributed to the Commissioners.
He said he would like to emphasize a few points which are important about the BCDC
study. First, as an agency of the Department of Commerce,'the Maritime Administra-
tion recognizes that dredging is necessary-in order to maintain a proper channel bed
for shipping in and out of San Francisco Bay and other ports in the United States.
The Maritime Administration also has*a role inport development that is mandated
under the 1920 Merchant Marine Act. In this 'role it works closely with ports on
"problems nationwide.. One problem which exists with all ports, is the problem of
dredging, its regulation, and how to get it done. Here in the Bay Area and else-
where around the country., ports are concerned about the overregulation of dredging
with its lengthy and complex procedures that cause delays and increased costs.
Since SE 2418 was enacted, and BCDC started to work as a. -permit coordinator and to
study dredging regulations, the Regional office has supplied information on ports,
the operation of ports and the dredging needs of ports. Currently it is conduct.-
ing a survey with BCDC of other West Coast ports outside the State of California@

BCDC Minutes
8/Pi/75

to find out if their problems are similar to those e3cperienced here in the Bay Area,
and what solutions axe being attempted.- He said Part I of the study is excellent
and the Regional office plans to continue to work with BCDC on the completion of the
study. When the study is complete, his office'will assess the results in'terms of
impact on commercial ports, and hope to make the findings available, through the
Department of Commerce in Washington, to the ports and other interested,parties
throughout the United States.

Jerry Van de Erve.,.Assistant Chief Harbor Engineer, Port of San Francisco,
said the dredging of our waterways is vital to the overall economic well-being of
the individual ports in the San Francisco Bay Area. Whereas dredging must be regu-
lated through a permit process., there exists a general consensus among the maritime
interests, the ports, and the regulatory agencies that such regulations must be in
the interest of protecting the environment, while maintaining the economic fiber of
our c unities. This can only be done with a permit process that is a balanced one
between the-environment and the economy; that it not duplicative in nature; and that
does not take months of paper work and delays to eventually get approval of what may
constitute a routine maintenance dredging application. The Port of San Francisco is
a major applicant in the area of maintenance dredging-, dredging approximately
500,000 cubic yards a year from along our waterfront. This year, the Port has filed
its yearly maintenance dredging permit for 500,000 cubic yards at a cost to the Port
of some $910*,000. This maintenance dredging is vital to the Port's maintenance of
berthside operations.

Mr..Van de Erve said the normal permit period for-a routine maintenance
dredging application for the Fort of San Francisco is one year. This year the Port
made its initial contact with the Environmental Protection Agency and Regional Water
Quality Control-Board in April of 19IT4, for dredging to occur in 1975.. To date, the
Portt's application for this maintenance dredging is still in the process stage.
This application is similar to ones that were filed and approved by these same agencies
in 1973 and-1974. This application.must go through a network of reviews and analysis
as if it were an application for new dredging with major environmental impact. The
Port-of San Francisco- as well as other major maritime facilities or small craft
harbors- cannot afford a waiting period of one year or more, to perform this type of
routine maintenance dredging. Mr. Van de Erve said there are identifiable causes for
these long delays. In some of the c *ases, applicants submit incomplete applications
or poor dredging samples; some of the delay is on the part of the agencies due to
inadequate staff,,unclear regulations, and conflicting federal and state guidelines.
But most important, some agencies can be asked to c -mient on the project as many as
five different times in the usual four. to twelve-month period during which the
applications are considered, causing unnecessary work and allowing inconsistent com-
ments on the same project. This type of review must be stopped.

Mr. Van de Erve said the following recommendations are offered to the report
on "The Regulation of Dredging, Part V.-

"l. A State and Federal system of permit coordination should be established
for routine maintenance dredgings on a permanent basis to include:

a... a requirement that each agency required to camment,'review, or
permit a maintenance dredging permit do so only once during the
permitting process;

BCDC Minutes
8/21/75

-9-

b. the establishment of a permanent "Permit Coordinating Section"
within the Bay Conservation and Development Commission;

c. the permitting -process must combine or remove such duplicative
processes as public notices andpublic hearings on routine matters;

d.. letters of understanding be executed between State and Federal
agencies having similar responsibilities so that State agencies
axe considered the "lead agency" in judging the impact of any
project.

2. The environmental and economic impact of routine maintenance dredging
projects be studied in.conjunction with the Corps of Engineers' Composite Environ-
mental Statement so as to determine if maintenance dredging can be categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental quality Act.

3. State agencies be granted the authority through necessary legislation
to administratively approve routine maintenance dredging permits.

4. All available information relative to dredging be used to develop and
maintain an overall analysis of the economic impact of dredging upon the economy of
the local, regional, and state levels of government, end that such information be
.considered by all regulatory agencies with respect to the protection of the "public
interest" of California."

Mr. Van de Erve said Mr. Soules, Port Director, and the Port-staff agreed
that the staff.of BCDC should be ccmmended for its efforts.

Chairman Houghteling asked if there were any others in-the audience who
'wished to speak. There was no response.

MOTION: Mr. Golden moved that the pub-lie hearing be closed, seconded by
Commissio-ne-rMpeck. The motion was unanimously approved.

Chairman Houghteling asked if there was any comment by the Commissioners
on the findings of the staff. There was no response.

MOTION: Commissioner Steinberg moved that the Findings of "The Regulation
of Dredging, Part I," be adopted, seconded*by Commissioner Henderson.

Chairman Houghteling asked if there was any discussion on the -motion and
there was no response. He said he ifould like to aidd his compliments to Mr. Tobin
and his associates since everything the Commission has received in writing and in
verbal testimony has been most complimentary abotttke work done. He also noted that
AB 625, which is an attempt to coordinate various agencies., does not even touch the
problem of the overlapping local, state, and federal jurisdictions. Regardless of
.what happens to AB 625, this problem would still be before the Commission.

Mr. Wolfe said the Corps of Engineers is very concerned about establishing
both federal and state policy to which dredging applicants can respond. There is
no doubt that there is a real morass that a prospective applicant must face in
applying to both the federal and state agencies for approvals for maintenance
dredging. One of the reasons is that there is no unified policy at either federal
or state level.on what an applicant must do in order to dredge.

BCDC Minutes
8/21/75

_10-

Prospective policy is presently being "hammered out -at.the federal level, between
the Corps and the EPA, and with luck that policy will be filed in the Federal
Register soon. The.Corps is.hopeful that this BCDC report will lead to a unified
policy at the state level as well, which will streamline dredging procedures. He said
he too would like to commend the staff on the way it is preparing the report, and
as the Secretary of the Dredge Advisory Group,, was well aware of the hard work the staff
has done.

Chairman Houghteling asked if there were any other cm- en s, and there was
no response.

The motion to adopt the findings on-the regulation of dredging was unan-
imously approved.

Further Commission Consideration and Possible Adoption of Revised Staff
Recommend7tion on Procedures for Dealing with Historic Ships. George E. Reed,
Staff Senior Plann r,.said this matter was the subject of a public hearing-followed
by extensive discussion at the last meeting. There is a memorandum that summarizes
the coranents made by the public and Commissionersat the last hearing, and the staff
responses to those co ents. He pointed out that the following typographical errors
should be corrected in the staff memorandum: on page 5, the last-word in the third
.line, "or" should be "And"; in 'part 2. (a) the last word, line 2,@ "or" should be "and".

Mr. Reed said the revised staff recommendation resulting from. discussion
at the -public hearing in effect creates two classes of historic ships, where previous-
ly the staff recommended one. To do this the staff has recommended the creation of
a class which is called "Historic Ships on Display." These would be ships or proto-
types that have historic.significance through having taken part in scme@significant
event or period in maritime history. Suchaship would be on display because of -its
historical significance, and any fees charged for admission to the vessel should be
only those required to enhance the quality of the ship or the event-or period from
which the ship derived its historical significance. Commercial a6tivaties.aboard
the.ship or adjacent to it would be minor and of a nature designed to heighten a
visitor's enjoyment of the ship. The*other class of historic ships is as originally
'presented in the staff's recommendation at the last hearing, and would include
ships which were constructed more than fifty years ago and which had a specific role
as a 'prototype or as a participant in a significant event or period.in the maxitime
history of San Francisco Bay. Staff rec-amencis that these ships be permitted as
small fills for improving shoreline appearance, or small fills for improved public
access to the Bay, as provided in the McAteer-Petris Act and the,Commission's regula-
tions. Therefore the staff should be instructed to.prepare the language of the,
regulations to be presented to the Commission, and the Commission should schedule a
public hearing on the regulation changes.

Mr. Cline said he could not quite understand the reason for the two defini-
tions, historic ships on display vs.other historic ships. He asked if historic ships
on display have different rights. Chairman Houghteling said historic ships on display
WMY be there primarily fbraihistoric quality; the entire ship viould be for that theme.
Other historic ships might have a restaurant or other commercial activity aboard,
which putsthEmin a different category because a profit making activity is involved.
The first-category would be generally defined as a non-profit activity; every-
thing that might be a cash flow would go back into maintaining the ship,.or something
associated with its historic period.,

BCDC Minutes
8/21/75

MEMBERS California Legislature ANTHONY J. TAORMINA
SENATOR ALFRED E. ALQUIST Senate Select Committee CONSULTANT
SENATOR JOSEPH M. KENNICK on
SENATOR ALBERT S. RODA Maritime Industry PEGGY LANG
SENATOR NICHOLAS C. PETRIS SENATOR MILTON MARKS RESEARCH AIDE
SENATOR JACK SCHRADE CHAIRMAN
SENATOR ROBERT S. STEVENS ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO:
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
MARITIME INDUSTRY
ROOM 2044
STATE BUILDING
350 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
PHONE (415) 557-3137

SENATOR MILTON MARKS
CHAIRMAN

21 August 1975

Statement to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission on its report The Regulation of Dredging, Part I,
August 1, 1975, pursuant to SB 2418 (Marks, 1974).

Ladies and Gentlemen:

As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on the Maritime

Industry, last year I became aware of the overwhelming bureaucracy

involved in obtaining dredging permits throughout the State. As

you know, dredging is essential to the maritime industry in keeping

our shipping channels open. Dredging is also important for com-

mercial fishing, boating and recreation, and a variety of other

public uses of California's water resources.

Despite the, importance of dredging, the ports, marina opera-

tors and other applicants are faced with a permit procedure which

is time-consuming and repetitive, at best, and is prohibitive, at

worst. Applicants must receive approval from a minimum of six

state and four federal agencies, each with differing but frequently

overlapping authority and jurisdictions and with different require-

ments for technical information on which to judge the permit.

Several of these agencies cannot act without prior approval of

others, and time limitations on these agencies are non-existent,

Statement to BCDC, 21 August 1975
Page Two

impractical or inconsistent. The Senate Select Committee on the

Maritime Industry knows of projects that required over two years

to process permit applications, and cases of thirteen to twenty

months are not uncommon. Some smaller projects have even been

abandoned because the permitting procedure was too lengthy and

costly.

All of the agencies with permitting or reviewing authority

provide us with essential environmental protections, which we do

not want to compromise. on the other hand, it seems unnecessary

for one department to comment on a permit application five times.

We wanted to come up with a procedure which would consolidate the

red tape without compromising essential environmental protections.

With this goal in mind, we sat down to write SB 2418 last year.

We had hoped, at first, to write a bill to establish a

standard time limitation by which all state agencies must act on

a dredging permit application, to establish a standard application

form and to establish a single lead agency on a permanent, state-

wide basis. We learned very quickly that this task was far too

complicated to accomplish within the time frame of the legislative

session and that we had better assign the job of untangling the

bureaucratic ball and acting as an interim coordinator to an

existing agency. Naturally, there was some disagreement over

which agency to assign these tasks to, and the one agency.upon

which all parties could agree was BCDC. With BCDC in mind, I

am happy to say that my bill, SB 2418, was enacted.

Statement to BCDC* 21 August 1975
Page Three

BCDC's work as coordinator and the report before you today

exemplify the reasons for the trust in BCDC. In a very short

time, BCDC developed a standard application form and began acting

as coordinator for dredging permit applications. The report on

The Regulation of Dredging, Part.I.does a good job of describing

the permit procedures and identifying its problems. I would

particularly like to direct your attention to Chapter VI, Analysis

and Findings, which is the core of this report.

Now that BCDc has described and identified the problems, I

am hopeful that your next report will provide us wit.h some solu-

tions. I am hopeful that we can reach our original goals of

establishing a standard and reasonable time limitation by which

state agencies must act on permits, establishing an on-going and

statewide standard application form, and establishing a permanent

and manageable coordinating process.which will cut through the

red tape without compromising essential environmental protections.

I confess that I do not envy you this task, as I know it will

be a difficult one. I hope the proposed solutions will be meaning-

ful and effective, and I trust you will not hesitate to recommend

a solution simply because it may require state Legislative action.

I believe the Legislature and the Governor would give serious

consideration to legislation which would provide us with reasonable

means of cutting through red tape without jeopardizing environ-

mental protections. I commend you and your staff, particularly

Mr. Tom Tobin, on your first report. if this report is any indi-

cation of the quality of your next one, the proposed solutions

Statement to BCDC, 21 August 1975
Page Four

should be excellent ones, and the intent of my bill will be

accomplished.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

MILTON MARKS

MM:pl

STATEMENT BY TH014AS G. BERTKEN
ON THE "REGULATION OF DREDGING"i
(Presented at the Meeting of the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
on August 21, 1975)

MY name is Thomas G. Bertken, Chief Engineer of the Port of Oaklard.

It's always a special pleasure to appear before BCDC since I spent some time

here on the other side of the podium.

-My comments are directed to the impact of existing regulations and

procedures for dredging permits on the port industry in general, and IV-he

Fort of Oakland in particular.

As is recognized in the "Bay Plan", the port industry plays a very

vital role in the overall economy of the Bay Area and accounts either

directly or indirectly for a major portion of the jobs and economic livelihood

of Bay Area residents. There is no other single industry that is more

important to our Bay Area.economic.well being.

Periodic maintenance dredging of channels and ship berths is necessary

for the continued operation of our Bay Area port -industry. Without dredging,

ship channels.and berths would silt up in a relatively short time and would

not accommodate the ships presently.calling at Bay Area terminals-. Also,

to accommodate the larger-cargo ships now being built, ship channels and

berths will have to be deepened.and widened. Without th@fs, our port industry

will decline, with serious consequences to the Bay Area economy.

It is not reasonable to assume that any regulations would be

established that would result in a sudden, drastic restriction of such an

important economic activity. The more real darZer is the gradual sapping of

the economic vitality of the industry by delay and frustration involved in

-2-

the regulatory procedures.

The competitive position of Bay Area ports in relation to ports

in the northwest and ports in Southern California has been seriously

weakened as a result of delays in dredging projects and the uncertainty of

securing dredge permits in a timely fashion. The time delays and the

cumbersome procedures which presently exist with the processing of dredging

permits heve resulted in the waste of many thousands of dollars in public

and private funds. Needless to say, this waste of funds should not be

allowed to continue.

There is a growing public awareness that something has to be done

about the regulatory mess which government at all levels is creating. The

individuals who are out of work and can't find meaningful employment because

of regulatory delays in accomplishing neededpublic projects are currently

asking, ".Why?" and "Who?" Response to this increasing awareness is evident

in.recent remarks by both Governor Brown and President Ford.

We would like.to commend your staff on their fine report.on the

current status of the regulation of dredging, and we-support the adoptibn of

these findings.

After the adoption of the findings, the next logical step is to

implement'the necessary changes which will guarantee an overall regulatory

process for dredging which is fair, reasonable, efficient and yet responsive

to our environmental needs.

Asa public agency with both developmental and regulatory functions,

the Port of Oakland has experienced the frustrations and problems on both
sides of the "regulatory )fence". As final reco=endationz are being prepared,

we would like to share with your staff the insights we get through this dual

role. We also pledge our continued support and cooperation in effectuating

an efficient regulatory process for dredging permits which will eliminate

the unfortunate wasting of public funds that occurs with present procedures.

This opportunity to express views on the subject of dredging

regulation is certainly appreciated.

."Ll 00

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMNIERCE
Pilaritime Administration
Western Region
450 Golden Gace Ave., Box 36073
San Francisco, California 94102

STATEMENT SUBNZaTTED BY THOMAS J. PATTERSON, JR., WESTERN REGION DIRECTOR,
MARITUEE AUMINISTRATION, TO THE SAN FPkNLCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOP-
MENT COMMISSION AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON PART I OF A STUDY ON DREDGING REGU-
HELD BY THE COMMISSION Iii SAN FRAXLCISCO ON AUGUST 21, 1975

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to.submit this statement to

the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in support

of the Commission's efforts to study and hopefully improve drid-ing regu-

lations in California.

The Maritime.Administration, as an agency of the Department of Commerce,

recognizes the need to dredge our navigable waterways in order to insure pro-

per channel depths for shipping. The total waterborne commerce of the

United States is steadily increasing and in recent years has had a rapid

growth in terms of both tonnage and value. The value of foreign commerce

moving through the ports of California alone totaled $22.9 billion in 1974,

a 50 percent increase over the $15.3 billion in foreign trade in 1973. The

economic impact generated by this co=erce is great and affects the entire

state and nation as well as the port community through which it passes.

Without adequate dredging of our channels and harbor areas, the move-

ment of this commerce would be severely hindered.

In the past few years, growing public interest in protecting the environ-

ment, especially in our coastal areas, has resulted in far more regulation of

ac tivities such as dredging. The Maritime Administration is concerned

about the impact'on maritime industries of overly complex and.burdensome

regulations. Instances have occurred when the imposition of environmental

,-,76 191,b

-regulations alone have disrupted the smooth flow of commerce and caused

economic damage.

In July 1974, a joint Maritime Administration-port industry confer-

ence was held here in San Francisco to further develop our agency's role

in port promotion and development. At this conference, members of the

Pacific Coast port industry asked the Maritime Administration to become

moreinvolved in their dredging regulation problems. We heard from port

officials about dredging projects being unreasonably delayed and made more

costly to ports in Alaska, Washington and Oregon as well as in California.

The Maritime Administration'came to understand that,overlapping and

redundant regulations created lengthy procedures that were costly to

applicants for dredging permits and at the same time failed in many in-

stances to protect @the environment.

Thus, we were pleased in September 1974 to see the passage in

California of Senate Bill 2418. We agree with the Legislature's statement

in the bill 11 ... that the orderly and efficient processing of dredging

permits is essential to the movement of the waterway commerce of the.state

Because of the Maritime Administration's interest in improving dredg-

ing regulations, we were pleased to be asked by your Executive Director,

Charles R. Roberts, to participate in the Commission's study of dredging

regulations. Our staff has been working with the Dredging Permit Coordi-

nator to assist with research on commercial ports, their dredging require-

ments and dredging regulations in other states. We have been closely fol-

lowing the progress of the permit coordination.procedures and the study of

dredging regulations., A thorough job is being done by the Commission on

both projects.

When the projects are completed, we hope to assess.the results in

terms of their potential for improving dredging regulations in other parts

of the country. We plain to make the results available to the port industry

and other interested parties nationwide.

We are looking.forward to continuing to work with the Commission on

the completion of this study of dredging regulations.

I would like to thank the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop-

ment Commission for holding a hearing on this significant.study and allow-

ing us this opportunity to submit this statement.

-tVLANC It CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOSEPH L. ALIOTO, MAYOR
0
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO
F E RRY S U IL 0 1 N G SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 TEL.: (415) 391-8000
M

f August 21, 1975

COMMENTS TO THE BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Topic: Report on Regulation of Dredging, Part I
.Bay Conservation and Development Commission for
California Resources Agency

I wish to express my appreciation to the Bay Conservation

and Development Commission for giving the Port of San Francisco

this opportunity to comment on the recent report concerning

dredging in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Last year, the Port actively assisted in the drafting and

eventual passage of Senate Bill 2418, which has led to this

first report on regulation of dredging prepared by your permit

coordination staff.

The dredging of our waterways is vital to the overall

economic well-being of the individual ports in the San Francisco

Bay Area. Whereas dredging be regulated through a permit

process, there exists a general consensus among the maritime

interests, the ports, and the regulatory agencies that such

regulations must be in the interest of protecting the..environ-

ment, while maintaining the economic fiber of our communitiles.

This can only be done with a permit process that is a balanced

one between thd environment and the economy; that is not dupli-

-2-

cative in nature; and that does not take mon ths of paper work

and delays to eventually get approval of what may consti-

tute a routine maintenance dredging application.

The effort that went into this report, as well as the

earlier cooperation demonstrated in the passage of Senate

Bill 2418, must be continued. The goal that must be estab-

lished is to create out of the present matrix of many different

agencies, with many different considerations, a single permit-

ting process that will assist not only the orderly review of

such applications, but the processing of these applications

within a reasonable time span.

The Pori of San Francisco is a major applicant in the area

of maintenance dredging. The Port dredges approximately

500,000 cubic yards a year from along our waterfront. This

year, we have filed our yearly maintenance dredging permit

for 500,000 cubic yards at a cost to the Port of some $910,000.

This maintenance dredging is vital to the Port's maintaining

its berthside operations. Any delay in processing,and approving
this permit only 8.1+ses the Port and its tenants to suffer

major financial losses.

The normal permit period for a routine maintenanc.e.dredging

application for the Port of San Francisco is one year. This

year the Port made its initial contact with the Environmental

Protection Agency and Regional Water Quality Control in April

of 1974 for dredging to occur in 1975. To date, our applica-

-3-

tion for this maintenance dredging is still in the process stage.

This application is similar to ones that were filed and

approved by these same agencies in 1973 and 1974. Still this

application must go through a network of reviews and.analysis

as if it were an application for new dredging with major

environmental impact. The Port of San Francisco, as well as

other major maritime facilities or small craft harbors, cannot
afford a one-year waiting periodNtoterform this type of

routine maintenance dredging.

What are some of the causes for these long delays? In

some of the cases, applicants submit incomplete applications

or poor dredging samples; some of the delay is on the part of

the agencies due to inadequate staff, unclear regulations, and

conflicting federal and state guidelines. But most important,

some agencies can be asked to comment on the project as many

as five different times in the usual four to twelve-month

period during which the applications are considered, causing

-unnecessary work and allowing inconsistent comments on the same

project. This type of review must be stopped.

The following recommendations are offered to the report on

"The Regulation Of Dredging, Part I":

1. A State and Federal system of permit coordinationZ-fIVAI.-I

be established for routine maintenance dredgings on a

permanent basis to include:

-4-

a. a requirement that each agency required to

comment, review, or permit a maintenance dredging

permit do so only once during the permitting process;

b. the establishment of a permanent "Permit

Coordinating Section" within the Bay Conservation

and Development Commission;

C. the permitting process must combine or remove

such duplicative processes as public notices and

public hearings on routine matters;

letters of understanding be executed between

State and Federal agencies having similar responsi-

bilities so that State agencies are considered the

agency" in judging the impact of any project.

2. The environmental and economic impact of routine main-

tenance dredging projects be studied in conjunction with

the Corps of Engineers' ComposiW Environmental Statement

so as to determine if maintenance dredging can be categor-

ically exempt from the requirements of the'-California

Environmental Quality Act.

3. State agencies be granted the authority through neces-

sary legislation to administratively approve routine

maintenance dredging permits.

-5-

4. All available information relative to dredging be

used to develop and maintain an overall analysis of the

economic impact of dredging upon the economy of the

local,, regional, and state levels of government, and

that such information be considered by all regulatory

agencies-with,respect to the protection of the "public

interest" of California.

I once again want to thank this Commission for taking the

time to listen to our comments. I feel that the Staff of the

BCDC., Permit Coordination, and particularly Mr,. Tom Tobin.,

should be commended for their-efforts.

x x x x

Jerry van de Erve
Assistant Chief Engineer

TT/kn

PORT OF OAKLAND

BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF OAKLAND
TED CONNOLLY President
ROBERT E. MORTENSEN 1st Vice President
WILLIAM WALTERS 2nd Vice President
THOMAS L. BERKLEY Commissioner
H. B0YD GAINOR Commissioner
Y. CHARLES SODA Commissioner
PETER M.TRIPP Commissioner

BEN E. NUTTER Executive Director
July 11, 1975

Mr. Stanley R. Euston
Chief Planner
San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102

Draft Report on the Regulation of Dredging.

Dear Mr. Euston:

For the subject draft report, I wish to offer the following
comments for your consideration.

1. Maintenance Dredging

S.B. 2418 specifically singled out "maintenance
dredging" as apart from "new dredging."

The draft of the Part I report did give brief
recognition to and distinguised the two types of dredging
projects, and under its Finding No. 12 pointed out that
projects of all sizes and all types must seek approvals
in basically the same manner. Therefore, it is hoped
that the entire report will eventually treat the subject
of maintenance dredging and its special need for an
expedited permit application procedure as compared to
new projects.

2. Nature and Source of Sedimentation.

Many laypersons have the misconception that dredged
materials are a primary source of pollution of the water.
The applicant for a dredging project is, in fact, the
recipient of pollutants from sources which include regional

66 Jack London Square , P.O. Box 2064 , Oakland, California, 94607 , Phone (415) 444-3188
Cable Address PORTOFOAK, Oakland , Telex 336-334
MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PROT AUTHORITES. INC., THE AIRPORT OPERATORS COUNCIL INTERNAL, INC.
and THE INERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PORTS AND HARBORS

Mr. Stanley R. Euston July 11, 1975

sewage and storm water discharges, industrial wastes,
both past and present, and elements of heavy metals
from natural geologic processes.

The nature and source of-the Bay bottom sedimen-
tation and its pollutants are described in the draft
report in a very cursory manner. The report cites
8 million cubic.yards of sedimentation deposited each
year due to natural erosion plus re-suspended material.
due to wave and current action. Professor Krone of
U.C., Davis, in one of his reports estimated that the
amount of dredged materials in the Bay amounts to
about 1% of the natural sources.

In short, not all of the problems of evaluating
dredging permits are due to the regulatory process, but
is due to the decision maker's understanding of the
complex nature and source of the sediments being dredged
and disposed.

3. The draft report identified the domain and procedures
of each of the agencies now involved in approval of
dredging permit applications. The possibility exists
where an applicant has coordinated and Satisfied the
requirements of a local board or office only to find
that the recommendation of the local agency is overturned
or modified. Present procedures are vague on how internal
differences are to be resolved if, for example, one agency
disagrees with another agency or if the State or Federal
office differs from the local office. The loser, in all
these cases, is the applicant.

I find the draft of the Part I report very enlightening and
offer my compliments on its preparation. Please accept my appreciation
for the opportunity to review same.

Sincerely,

Ben E. Nutter
Executive Director

Save San Francisco Bay Association
P. 0. Box 925, Berkeley, California 94701, (415) 849-3053

HONORARY ADVISORY BOARD

Ansel Adams
Mrs. Harmon Bell
Mrs Murray Benedict
David R. Brower
Paul Covel Mr. L. Thomas Tobin, Jr.
Newton Drury
Mrs. Newton Drury Bay Conservation and Development Commiss
Mrs. Morse Erskine 30 Van Ness Avenue
Douglas P. Ferguson San Francisco, Ca. 94102
Francis A Filice
Mrs. Guy Gilchrist
Harold Gilliam
Paul Howard Re: "The Regulation of Dredging, Part I"
Mrs. Ralph Jacobson
T.J. Kent, Jr.
Arthur Lampert Dear Tom,
Mrs. Donald C Larson
A. Starker Leopold
Irvin Luckman I have rqead your preliminary report which is exceedingly
Martin Meyerson well done. Some specific questions and comments follow.
Robert C. Miller
William Penn Mott, Jr.
Mrs. Chester Nimitz Page 5: Suggest adding in paragraph 2: Since the ef-
Julius von Nostitz, Jr. fect on water quality and on,the biota of the
Mrs. Henry T. Read area involved varies according to the
Frank M. Stead type of equipment, regulatory procedures
Georg Treichel should also vary.
John Tuteur, Jr.
Mel Wax
Page 13: (end of paragraph 2) Question: Does the last
BOARD OF DIRECT0RS sentence reflect alternatives or mitigation?
They could be construed differently and the
William E. Siri suggestion of legal interpretation without
PRESIDENT more information is confusing. Suggest the
Barry L. Bunshoft statement be enlarged in a footnote or the
VICE PRESIDENT sentence omitted.
Mrs. Jack C. Chapman
Rodney J. Diridon Page 43: (last paragraph) Suggest the last sentence
Mrs. William Eastman end with Corps ... to read "this is evidenced
Mrs. Harold Gregory by the case-by-case determination done by
Mrs. Charles A. Gulick the Corps."
TREASURER
S. Andrew Jacobs
Miss Mary Lee Jefferds
Ralph W. Jones
Thomas S. Jordan, Jr.
George R. Kane With regard to Chapter VII, excellent and comprehensive
Mrs. Clark Kerr questions are raised in the analysis and findings.
VICE PRESIDENT Association would have choices and priorities. When is
J. Timothy Love the time to express these?
Mrs. D. H. McLaughlin
SECRETARY
Ronald Ritschard
Miss Susan M. Smith With regard to the "imprecise public interest:" would
Dwight C. Steele it be helpful to analyze this a little further at this
Mrs. David Stone time? For example, one "public" is frequently concerned
Fred H. Tarp with long-term dredging effects such as irreversible
Donald Vial changes in marsh habitat and the amount.of surface area
Mrs. J. A. Vincent. Jr. of the Bay, another "public" is concerned with recreation-
Warren B. Wilson al boating, another "public" is primarily interested in
short- term economic advantages, etc. There can be no

Page 2

Save San Francisco Bay Association Dredging

balancing of concerns between long and short.run effects, between conflict-
ing uses, etc. The decision cannot be a balance - it is eventually a choice.
Mitigation can provide the "balance" in some cases.

The multitude of public agencies exist because they represent various
public needs. In the San Francisco Bay Area the McAteer-Petris Act is an
effort, under th@ Say Plan, to establish criteria to protect the greatest
public interest. The Association would oppose procedures which would weak-
en the ultimate jurisdiction of the Say Conservation and Development Com-
mission.

With best regards,

Esther Gulick
'Advisory Board Member

RULES COMMITTEE
Leon Ralph
Chairman
W
H. Burke 10 July 1975
e Chappie
Pauline Davis
Ken MacDonald
Ernest N. Mobley
Joseph B. Montoya T
d V

ai Mr. Philip S. Weismehl
San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
6it.
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102

Dear Phil:

I have quickly gone over the draft of your
dredging report and I have the following comments:

p. 1 (Introduction) para. 2 -- "while the Bay
is a fine natural harbor, etc."...the
101 sandbar offshore the Golden Gate limits
-deep draft vessels (tankers) to 55 feet.

p. 4, para. 1 -- "However, the effect on water
quality-is not so clear," -- on page 5
'OFFICE you state that the effect on water quality
OF- varies according to type of equipment.
RESEARCH If there is a difference, then we must
know something about the effect.

p. 7, para L 2 "For this 412- year period, the
total annual volume..." Is this figure an
average? The 412- year and annual terms
are confusing.
I
Jim Hurst p. 8 Table Heading should have inclusive dates.
Director Could military dredging be included for
445-1638 comparison?
Joan Gibson Reid
Assistant Director p. 9 Note: material dredged from Mare Island/
445-0844 Vallejo area may be filling in a recently
%vian C. Nance dredged berth at Standard oil of California's
sistant to Director Richmond Longwharf. In this case, military
445-0834 projects have a great impact on the rest
of the Bay, requiring constant maintenance
dredging.

p. 13 para. 1 -- OPR resolves lead agency conflicts
where two agencies want the lead. A problem
exists where no agency wants the lead.
Room 111
1116 Ninth Street
Sacramento 95814
(916) 445-9098

Ageo. 13

10 July 1975
Mr. Philip S. Weismehl -2-

p. 18, para. 3 1 believe the authority to appropriate
funds for the ocean Dumping Act expired 30 June.
You should check current status.

p. 21, para 1 What is date of landmark case of Zabel v.
Tabb?

p. 26, (BCDC) Have you included the 15 May 1975 order
which adopts BCDC regulations re CEQA?

p. 32, para 1 A maximum and minimum time for "entire
permit process would be appropriate here.

You have done an excellent job to put this together in
such-a short period of time. In your recommendations you
might consider the role of the Department of wavigation and
Ocean Development in this area. Also consider an extended
role for OPR as coordinating body and what the passage of
Assembly Bill 2422 (Z'berg) Land Use and Environment
Commission --would mean.
incerely,
ai zw
@.JAMES W. ROTE

JWR:ls

LESLIE S ALT CO. 7200 CENTRAL AVENUE. NEWARK. CALIF. 94560

JOHN M. LILLIE
PRESIDENT

July 11, 1975

Mr. Stan Euston
Chief Planner. 'r i n.
San Francisco BCDC
&
,
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Mr. Euston:

The "Draft Report on the Regulation of Dredging" does an
excellent job of describing the morass of red tape encom-
passing the procedures for granting dredging permits. it
very properly emphasizes the financial costs and time delays
to the applicant.

I would suggest comments be expanded on the financial costs
of time delays to the ap plicants since they are often carry-
ing substantial capital and operating costs while they await
permit approval. In the case of Leslie Salt Co., we have
even come within days of having to close down operations due
to permit approvals running well beyond any predictable or
reasonable period.

You also should consider adding a section discussing the
cost of these complex procedures to the taxpayer. Substantial
numbers of unnecessary personnel, forms, etc. must be required
at significant costs to maintain the process described in the
report.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft.

Sincerely,
;WU4

JMLeaw

SAN MATEO COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.
4 WEST FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 501, SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 (415) 342-7278

OFFICERS

PRESIDENT
Robert H. Rehfeld
Wells Fargo Sank July 14,1975

VICE PRESIDENT
Frank F. Burrows
Williams & Burrows San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
SECRETARY 30 Van Ness Ave.
William E. Ryan San Francisco, Ca 94102
United Airlines

TREASURER
A. William Christopher Jr.
GTE Sylvania
VICE PRESIDENT AT LARGE Re: Advisory Committee Review on
M. Sherman Eubanks The Regulation of Dredging
Crocker Land Co.
DISTRICT VICE PRESIDENTS Gentlemen:
John S. de Regt
Holvick, de Regt & Koering
H. Joseph Frazier I apologize for not getting this to you sooner
Half Moon Bay Properties Inc. I was out of town and unable to intelligently dictate anything
Paul F. Kelly that might of of assistance.
Hessian, Creedon, Hamlin,
Kelly, Hanson & Farbstein

Bill R. Poland
Cabot, Cabot & Forbes On reviewing this Part I of the Regulations of Dredging
Budd 0. Stevenson your Analysis and Findgs correctly spell out some of the problems
Stevenson Pacific, Inc. involved. In discussing this with some of my associates in the
UTIVE VICE PRESIDENT developement field who are abit more directly related to the entire
RAL MANAGER dredging problem they expressed opinions which called for some type
y Bostwick, Jr. of cooridination in the processing of applications, a standard pro-
cedure, where the applicant could have guidelines to follow and where
one EIR would suffice as long as there is no substantial change in
any given project. The best of all possible worlds would provide for
one agency responsible for permit designations--with other state
and federal agencies designating the one responsible group. This
indeed would simplify the procedure which is now so completely com-
plicated and costly that delays are inevitable and most confusing.

This probably is of little assistance to you but it does
point up the need,once again, for coordination in local, state and
federal offices when dealing with developers anxious to invest dollars
into the economy.

Yours very truly,

Henry Bostwick Jr.
General Manager D

CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATES CORP. SHELLMAKER INC,
FRANKS DREDGING CO. HYDRAULIC DREDGING CO., LTD. UNIVERSAL DREDGING CO.
GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. PETER KIEWIT SONS' CO. R. A. WATTSON COMPANY
HEALY TIMM CONSTRUCTION CO. OLYMPIAN DREDGING CO. WESTERN-PACIFIC DREDGING

DREDGING CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION of CALIFORNIA

8105 Capwell Dr.
Oakland, California 94621

July 24, 1975

Mr. L. Thomas Tobin, Staff Engineer
San Francisco Bay Conservati on and Development Counission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102

Subject: -DRAFT REPORT ON TBE REGULATION OF DREDGING

Dear Mr. Tobin:

The Draft Report accompanying your letter of July 2, 1975 !as been reviewed.
We feel that the report is very factual and has been assembled in a factual
manner. The factor presented reflects the current conditions experienced
with the processing of dredging permits.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this report. We will be pleased to
cooperate in the future.

Very truly yours,

DREDGING CONTRACTORS
CIATION OF CALIFORNIA

J. Duda
Pre ident

JED:ss
C ION OF CAI

:@da
t
Jpid

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Division of River Basin Studies
2800 Cottage Way, Room E-2727
Sacramento, California 9582

July 25, 1975

Mr. L. Thomas Tobin, Staff Engineer
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
30. Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California
94102

Dear Mr. Tobin.

We have reviewed your draft report on The Regulation of
Dredging as requested in your letter of July 2, 1975. As
Imentioned in our verbal comments to Mr. Michael Seaman,
the report appears complete and adequate. The.Staff of
BCDC is to be commended for the professional manner in
which they are implementing Senate Bill 2418.

Sincerely yours,

Felix E. Smith
Field supervisor

cc: Reg. Dir. (RB), USFWS,
Portland, Oregon

3 6668 00002 1214