December 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.

Costing Out Rehandling

Using sediments scooped off the Bay bottom to cover landfills, build roads or grade golf courses is more than a matter of dredge, haul and dump. In dredge-speak, the sediments need to be "rehandled" before reuse, and rehandling typically means dewatering. Why bother going through the expensive process of handling material twice? Because Bay Area dredgers, planners and regulators - plagued by a lack of environmentally sound disposal sites - like the reuse idea.

"It reduces the amount that we have to dispose of on a permanent basis," says the Army Corps' Karen Mason. "It also makes more material available for wetland enhancement."

Development of rehandling facilities that can process large volumes of various materials is a priority for those agencies, ports and other interests cooperating to develop a long-term management strategy for dredged material disposal regionwide (LTMS). Past Bay Area rehandling endeavors have been limited to small volumes generated by and slated for specific projects. But a report due out this December and prepared by Gahagan and Bryant Associates for LTMS promises bigger and better rehandling options.

The report focuses on two sites. It says the Leonard Ranch in Sonoma County could process up to 783,000 cubic yards of material per rehandling episode (12-18 months) and would cost $2,007,000 to construct. The second site, the Cargill crystallizer ponds in Napa County, could process almost twice as much and would cost a few thousand dollars less. The report (see Now in Print) also proposes conceptual designs for the two facilities, assesses necessary permitting, evaluates potential mitigation options and costs (as well as operating costs) and concludes that from an engineering standpoint, establishing rehandling facilities at the two sites is both feasible and practical.

Contact: Steve Goldbeck (415)557-3686

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project