August 1993 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Inside the Agencies

BITTERN BEGS QUESTIONS

"Dilution is the solution to pollution" were long-outdated watchwords of water quality management until recently, when the problem of what to do with the bittern on the bottom of some old San Pablo Bay salt ponds may have resurrected this pre-1950s approach. Bittern - what's left behind after bay water has evaporated and sodium chloride crystallized off salt producing ponds - may contain contaminants. And whether the owners can simply add some fresh water to the bittern and discharge it back into the Bay is the issue now confronting the buyer, seller and regulator of a $10 million deal to buy the 10,000 acres for wetland restoration.

The buyer is the Shell Oil Litigation Settlement Trustee Committee (established to administer the mitigation fund paid by Shell after the 1988 Martinez oil spill), the seller Cargill, and the regulator the S.F. Regional Board. The bittern issue was recently handed over to the Board. "We've now got a process that's outside the control of the trustee committee, Shell and Cargill," says chairman Will Travis of the BCDC. "This way an independent agency will be making the decision."

The Board's Steve Ritchie is now exploring his options which include upland disposal or discharge. "If there's a dilution scenario, it'll be a matter of how you achieve it," says Ritchie. Contact: Leslie Ferguson (510)286-0428

STATE PROBES 404 OPTIONS

With a new options paper under its belt, the S.F. Regional Board is making steady progress in a move to gradually increase the Board's involvement in the federal Clean Water Act section 404 permitting program. The 404 program governs wetlands protection nationwide. The options paper - slated to be circulated for public review and discussed in public workshops this fall - outlines alternatives for increasing the Board's wetland management expertise, improving interagency coordination, and making the permitting process more efficient. Contact: Lynn Suer (510)286-4268

SONOMA SECURES PERMIT

The 300-acre Sonoma Baylands project got its permit to reuse dredged material for wetland restoration purposes approved at the July 21 S.F. Regional Board meeting. The permit lays out limitations on placement and discharges of dredged material at the site, and maps out a self-monitoring program for the project. The project got a second boost when the Army Corps came up with $350,000 for preliminary engineering studies. Contact: Tom Gandesberry (510)286-0841

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project