October 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.

The Disposal Landscape

The search is on for upland disposal sites for dredged sediments, as the Port of Oakland gears up to deepen its waterways. Sites in the running for the most contaminated sediments include the Ninth Street Terminal (100,000 cy) and the Galbraith golf course area (one million cubic yards) in Oakland, and the proposed Leonard Ranch facility (500,000 cy) on the North Bay shore. Yet another alternative is Alameda's Bay Farm Borrow Pit - a big hole in the Bay from which developers "borrowed" fill material.

Obstacles abound. The S.F. Regional Board isn't sure it likes the Galbraith scenario. "It's an old landfill, and we don't know what's buried in it," says the Board's Tom Gandesbery, who worries that adding new dredged material could destabilize old and unknown toxic substances. Gandesbery's more enthusiastic, but also more cautious, about the borrow pit. "Bay Farm shouldn't be a quick fix solution for the port, but a carefully studied long-term, multi-project solution for the region," says Gandesbery. Further complicating pit disposal prospects is interest on the part of fisheries agencies in restoring eel grass beds at the site.

Moving on to future homes for cleaner sediments, the popular Sonoma Baylands site - which would demonstrate beneficial reuse of dredged material for wetland restoration - has hit a new snag. U.S. Fish & Wildlife is now recommending mitigation for seasonal wetlands lost when tidal wetlands are restored - rekindling debates over the relative habitat value of one type of wetland over another and sparking research proposals on how to deal with this in the future. There are currently a slew of restoration projects on North Bay drawing boards. "This really complicates most types of restoration," says Cal Fish & Game's Carl Wilcox. "Publicly funded efforts have a limited ability to mitigate."

Contact: Tom Gandesbery, S.F. Regional Board (510)286-0841; Darren Fong, USF&W (916)978-4613

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project