April 1994 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.

Port Upgrade Impacts

"A dribble here, a dribble there" is how the Port of Oakland's Jim McGrath describes port plans for disposal of 5.8 million cubic yards of sediment to be dredged during its 1994-1996 deepening project. In the environmental impact analysis released this March, the preferred alternative ("B2") combines disposal to the ocean, Oakland's Galbraith golf course and Sonoma Baylands, where dredged material will be used to elevate subsided lands to tidal levels and restore wetlands.

It's not that McGrath's unhappy. "I'm glad to be doing wetland restoration," he says. But the combination of disposal methods means the logistics are complex and the costs are high. Physical characteristics and degrees of contamination will dictate which sediments go where.

The project's EIS/EIR examined 23 disposal sites around the Bay, in the ocean and on surrounding uplands. Analysis narrowed the field down to eight sites, none of which could take the full volume of material. The port came up with 12 alternative combinations, and settled on B2. Cost estimates ranged from $80- $169 million, with B2 coming in at $143.4 million. Adding Sonoma Baylands to the disposal ticket increases the price tag by over $27 million. But the baylands project is politically popular. And McGrath thinks costs will come down once the details are worked out.

The Sierra Club's Jim Royce doesn't like the Galbraith component. "Why are we improving golf courses when we could be enhancing the shoreline?" he says. McGrath says "it all boils down to what do you do with the bad stuff. And no one outside Oakland has the economic interest to take it." McGrath agrees that Galbraith isn't perfect. "In a world that wasn't quite so polarized, and where the agencies and special interests all trusted each other, we could probably be much more creative, pay less for disposal and build habitat," he says. Comments on the EIS/EIR are due May 2.

Contact: Jim McGrath (510)272-1174

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project