August 1995 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.

A Seaport Strategy for 2020

It was only a few years ago that planners thought the Bay shore's closing military bases, or any large flat area with deepwater access, would make perfect sites for new ports. But since the Bay Commission began updating its regional Seaport Plan last year, it's found that the majority of new cargo coming in will be via container, and that most of the defunct bases are poorly located to handle it - many lie on islands or peninsulas far from the major rail lines and highways that convey containers from ports to inland markets.

While the future emphasis on container shipping remains clear, less data is available on growth in non-container bulk cargo (newsprint, coffee, cars, etc.). "We got confusing signals about bulk commodities," says the Commission's Jennifer Ruffolo, referring to regional differences between San Francisco's underutilized bulk cargo piers and Oakland's request to close its Ninth Street bulk terminal and growth in bulk processing in Richmond and Redwood City. Ruffolo says more data is needed on trends in the bulk sector - data there are currently no funds to collect. Existing data, meanwhile, suggest that the Bay Area will need as many as 27 new container ship berths but only 9 new bulk carrier berths by the year 2020.

To meet such needs, the Commission had already designated certain areas of the shore for future port priority use. But the current staff report suggests that not nearly as much land is needed as is designated for port use and recommends removal or reduction of the designation from 13 shoreline areas, a large measure of which lie on the Hunter's Point, Alameda and Mare Island bases.

Commission staff are now undertaking an environmental assessment of the impacts of the recommended changes in port priority use designations throughout the region. Ruffolo says potential impacts range from Bay fill to build new marine terminals and dredging to accommodate more deep draft container ships to disturbance of nearby fish and wildlife habitat. The 220 acres designated for future terminals at Alameda Naval Air Station, for example, lie near endangered California least tern nesting grounds and offshore eelgrass beds, which might require buffer zones between them and any new port development. Commission staff hope to have the assessment completed soon and to present it to the Commission's Seaport Committee this October.

Contact: Jennifer Ruffolo (415)557-9893

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project