The Loma Prietan
May/June 2000
SFIA Runway Full Steam Ahead
by Richard Zimmerman
Da Mayor fires up da steamroller
Mayor Willie L. Brown, apparently impatient with San Francisco International Airport's (SFIA) rapid attempt to fill San Francisco Bay with runways, has "moved the project into his office." Brown said, "This is to speed up the process … because the decisions are basically political …"
The announcement caught Airport staff off guard. In a meeting with San Francisco Boardsailing Association members on March 27, two weeks after the announcement, John Martin, Airport Director said he "did not know what the move would mean."
"In fact, the process is going as fast as it should, given the proposal's massive scope and the enormous impacts it would have on an already degraded Bay," said David Lewis, executive director of Save The Bay.
Burton oils up steamroller
State Senator John Burton (D-San Francisco), President pro Tem, introduced two bills that would ease the environmental and permitting requirements for the Airport.
The first, SB1562, would apply when a public agency proposes to mitigate the impact of a proposed project by funding a wetland restoration sponsored by a state or federal agency. Under provisions of 1562, the required analysis of the mitigation by the public agency in the Environmental Impact Report, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirement, would be limited.
Burton indicated to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) that he would amend the bill so that it would only apply to San Francisco International Airport's proposed runways.
At a public hearing held by BCDC, Will Travis, executive director, said SB1562 "would limit the amount of information available" to the commissioners during crucial permit hearings.
One aspect of the bill, says Totten Heffelfinger of the Bay Chapter, is that a fill permit might be applied for before the responsible agency had completed impact reviews of the proposed mitigation. "Restoration projects, such as the one proposed by the Airport, need good science," said Heffelfinger. "And the CEQA process helps to insure that. We need that review."
After a contentious discussion, BCDC voted to oppose SB1562 against its staff's recommendation, which was to take no position.
The second bill, SB1610, would allow the Airport to apply for a permit to fill land that it does not own. This applies to SFIA since part of the proposed runways would be on state owned land. This bill is headed for legislative backroads since BCDC and the Airport reached an agreement that would make the bill unnecessary for the Airport to proceed.
Airport takes cynicism to new heights
In a remarkably cynical statement, SFIA added the environmental improvement of San Francisco Bay to its reasons for expanding runways into the Bay.
In the resolution by the Airport Commission, passed in September 1999, SFIA says it " … will only adopt a runway configuration plan if it clearly demonstrates significant net environmental gains to the Bay … " Since that time, SFIA includes improving the environment along with bad weather delay reductions, reduced noise and ability to handle new large aircraft in large numbers to its list of reasons to fill the Bay.
One problem with this is that there is no definition of "net environmental gain." In public statements, Martin implies that net gain would be based on area. Thus, taking him literally, if the Airport destroys two square miles and offers to mitigate that loss with 2.01 square miles, there has been a "net gain."
But what constitutes a net gain? A panel of eminent scientists, convened by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last fall, listed 93 areas of concern about the health of the Bay.
The NOAA report mentions sedimentation in the Bay, changes in tidal flows, the south bay flushing action, and potential changes in contaminant distributions as areas that might be impacted by new runways. Biological impacts of concern would include effects on birds, fish and mammals such as harbor seals.
The Airport resolution mentions none of these areas. Which, if any, of these would be used to measure a "net gain" in the health of the Bay?
A second problem with the resolution is that there is no way to enforce it. If the project were to proceed and the Bay does not improve, what recourse is possible? Mea culpas do little for the health of the Bay.
Scientific studies
So what studies are being performed for the environmental impact reports by the Airport? In a response to the NOAA panel of scientists, the Airport's airfield development team rejected or minimized many of the NOAA panel recommendations.
For example, the panel recommended a comprehensive research program "designed to advance basic understanding of the natural processes of the Bay. . ." The Airport rejected any such program because "the CEQA/NEPA compliance and permitting does not require a comprehensive research program." Several times, later in the same document, the Airport says, in response to a NOAA panel recommendation, "[I]t is not possible to accurately estimate long-term future effects." This implies a long term research program is exactly what is needed.
Mitigation no panacea
Even the massive mitigation-approved destruction of habitat-dangled in front of wetlands activists by SFIA is not a guarantee of increased Bay health. One problem is that the region that would be destroyed is "shallow bay" and not wetlands. [See "Side Effects" sidebar]
Experts agree that the long term effects of massive mitigation are difficult to predict. "The more degraded a wetland, the more difficult it would be to restore," says John Callaway, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science at the University of San Francisco. The salt ponds are severally degraded says Callaway. "It would be unrealistic to expect them to be functioning marshes soon," he added. The long-term, over 20 years, is an unknown quantity according to Callaway. Little data exists that would allows cientists to predict what would happen he said.
Michelle Orr, Senior Associate for the hydrology consulting firm Philip Williams and Associates, says, "While there is a general consensus that large-scale restoration would be good for the Bay, there are impacts associated with it that have yet to be adequately addressed or understood. Large-scale restoration of the type being considered for the airport may take significantly longer than most people realize, may jeopardize existing natural or restored wetlands, or may fail if attempted too quickly. The availability of sites suitable for rapid restoration is limited."
Sediment availability and dynamics are one concern according to Orr. Opening a large area of salt ponds to the Bay would create a large demand for sediment. Other wetlands might serve as a sediment source, creating problems for restorations in progress at such places as Bair Island says Orr.
The San Francisco Bay Wetlands Ecosystem Goals project says, "Engineered tidal marsh and non-tidal wetland and salt pond restorations have unpredictable outcomes. In fact, this field is very young and few restorations have been deemed to be successful."
The Airport response to the NOAA panel indicates a heavy reliance on computer modeling to study the potential impacts of the runways. But Professor Stephen Monismith, Director of the Environmental Fluid Mechanics Laboratory at Stanford and a computer modeling specialist, says, "Numerical models probably can't predict changes[in the Bay] with much accuracy."
Monismith, who was a member of the NOAA panel, says the problems with the models are a lack of data. Basic research is needed, adds Monismith.
Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, says science has its limitations. Pope said, " … any project of this scale posing these kinds of risks to the Bay would be very hard for us to sign off on regardless of how thorough the studies were, because the science is imperfect and risks would remain."
Finally, in a response to those who say breaking the dikes will return the Bay to the way it was in 1850, the Goals project says, "The San Francisco Bay ecosystem has been altered, and we will not be able to return it to historic conditions, nor is that necessarily desirable."
Alternatives rejected
A recent status report, issued by San Francisco's Office of Environmental Review and the FAA, reduced the list of alternatives that would be studied. The list of alternatives that will be carried on are:
- No action. This includes some of the new technology that would reduce delays without building runways. Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA), a technique that could make new runways unnecessary, would be included in this alternative as would several other new technologies.
- System management and technological improvements. This alternative would include the "no action" fixes and add such things as voluntary implementation of access and noise restrictions. In addition, a Joint Powers Board, a regional airport authority, would be investigated. The Joint Powers Board would manage operations at all three major Bay Area airports.
- Runway A3. This is the same as previous runway proposals but with an alternative, now called 3B, which would reduce the amount of fill slightly over the original A3, now called 3A.
The other alternatives, BX and F2, remain unchanged. The BX refined alternative is now A4 while F2 is A5.
Alternatives that will not be studied in the environmental documents include upland/inshore runways. One reason given for not studying these alternatives is "substantial environmental damage."
The status report rejects additional Bay Area or Central Valley airports because it "would be unlikely that any noticeable reduction in delay or noise would occur at SFO as a result." The status report cites "past studies" as the source for this conclusion.
The report, citing past studies again, also rejects high-speed rail for the same reasons, plus the anticipated costs of "$21 to $29 billion." High-speed rail would benefit all Californians while the runways, now said to cost over $3.5 billion, might benefit a relative few who happen to land at SFIA during bad weather.
Fill sites identified
The Airport also finally announced sites for the fill material in the same report. Four sites within the Bay are being investigated:
- Point Knox Shoals, just west of Angel Island.
- Presidio Shoals, just off City Front in San Francisco
- The San Francisco Bay entrance channel, on the north side just outside theGolden Gate bridge.
- East Bay Shoals, just off Alameda.
In addition, sites at the Columbia River and Vancouver, B.C. are under consideration.
And the winners are …
The Airport contest to find new ways to build the runways passed its first milestone in March. The Airport Commission awarded $250,000 contracts to: Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc.; a joint venture between T.Y. Lin, Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. and Han-Padron Associates; Parsons Brinckerhoff; a joint venture between The Dutra Group, Hydronamic and Bean Stuyvesant; and AGS, Inc.
While one stated reason for the contest was to avoid environmental damage, the proposals only focused on minimizing environmental damage during the construction process. T.Y. Lin says, "Most civil construction projects have a negative impact on the environment. This project is no exception, particularly as a significant area of San Francisco Bay will be affected by it."
T. Y. Lin adds that one advantage of their proposal is "that it will require the least amount of wetland reclamation to control the overall construction cost."
Only a synopsis of the proposals is available at this time. Two companies, AGS, Inc. and Parsons Brinckerhoff, propose using piles to support the runways in a bridge-like structure. Peratrovich and Dutra are proposing projects using fill.
The remaining contestant, T.Y. Lin, proposes using a combination of techniques including pile-supported, fill, and floating a portion of the runways. T.Y. Lin also proposes building a part of the runways elsewhere, then floating it into position and sinking it; the "Titanic" approach.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Join the Chapter's SFIA Task Force. Meetings are held the third Tuesday of the month at the Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto. Contact windrider@ProtectOurBay.com (415) 397-2769 for more information or the Chapter Office. To be included on the Task Force email list, go to SFIATaskForce.listbot.com or send email to SFIATaskForce-subscribe@listbot.com.
SB 1562 will be the subject of hearings in the Environmental Quality Committee of the Senate. Write to: Senator Bryon Sher, Environmental Quality Committee Chair, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 (650) 364-2080 (916) 445-6747 opposing the attempt to weaken the California Environmental Quality Act. Contact your local legisator and oppose SB1562 also. The telephone book should help you find the address for the State Legisators from your area. Senate Member List or see www.leginfo.ca.gov.
More Information
The Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals report is available at www.sfei.org.
The NOAA Panel report is available at ceres.ca.gov/bcdc/airports/SFIO.htm.
The Airport's response to the NOAA Panel is available at ProtectOurBay.com/level2/NOAAPA.html.