The Loma Prietan
February 2002
NASA Ames Plan: Can We Do Better?
by David Smernoff, Co-Director Acterra
Prior to the arrival of Spanish missionaries, much of what we now call the South Bay, including Moffett Federal Airfield and the NASA Ames Research Center, were wetlands and upland habitat supporting a rich and abundant diversity of plant communities and wildlife. Birds were so thick they darkened the sky; clapper rails and harvest mice were thick as fleas on the coats of grizzly bears. Steelhead trout spawned in the upper reaches of the many creeks draining the wild hills above the Bay.
The Spanish brought cattle, sheep, settlers, railroads, silver mines, and eventually silicon wafers. The wild untamed land was tilled and filled into the agriculture mecca dubbed the "Valley of Heart's Delight." Wetlands and upland habitat became endangered ecosystems. The increasing burden of human
activity progressively displaced native diversity and habitat to the point that the original ecosystems are only faintly recognizable, and barely appreciated. Clapper rails and harvest mice are now endangered species, clinging to edges of legally designated wetlands around Moffett Field.
Against this backdrop of cumulative impact, we wrestle with our perceived need for perpetual growth against the legal demands of environmental regulation and the pressing need to build a sustainable future.
Enter the current NASA Ames Development Plan (NADP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) statement. The DEIS describes the five alternatives NASA has considered and presents their preferred alternative to re-develop a significant portion of this once wet and species-rich land.
The Plan
The raison d'etre for the plan is NASA's desire "to develop a world-class, shared-use education research and development campus". Having been a student and on-site
contractor at Ames since 1983, and as a proponent of effective education and scientific research, I understand the value of vibrant, modern research and education facilities.
As an ecologist and sustainability advocate I must, however, insist on the absolute finest re-development effort—a plan that is worthy of NASA's stature and that embodies the strong environmental and sustainability ethics of our local communities.
During the development of the DEIS and NADP, NASA has incorporated many of the community's concerns and put forth an alternative that embraces notable sustainable re-development elements.
These elements include completion of Ames' section of the Bay Trail, incorporating bicycle and pedestrian access to the facility, protecting burrowing owl habitat,
refraining from developing in designated wetlands, landscaping with native plants and using reclaimed water for irrigation, incorporating green building practices, developing a transportation management plan, and providing open space and recreation areas into the development plan.
I applaud their efforts to include community concerns by incorporating these elements into the plan.
Can we go further?
However, the preferred alternative still identifies three significant and unavoidable impacts. Circulation, air quality and socio-economic impacts are identified as "unavoidable", but are they truly unavoidable?
Let's start with the socio-economic impact of contributing to the regional jobs-housing imbalance. By creating more jobs than housing units, the plan creates additional vehicle trips and traffic congestion and the attendant air quality impacts. But what if the plan committed to one more important aspect? What if the plan were to provide one cot for each cubicle? For every job, a housing unit? If reserved for resident employees, students and visiting professionals, we would significantly reduce vehicle trips, traffic congestion and air quality impacts. In one fell swoop we could eliminate or significantly reduce all three "unavoidable" impacts!
Ames contends that they don't have the land area to provide sufficient housing for the jobs they plan to create. However, we know that adjacent Federal property contains sufficient area to accommodate the additional, required housing units. Although managed by other Federal agencies, this property should be blended into the mix.
The Federal government (with significant local leadership) should lead the nation in sustainable re-development. There is no excuse for increasing traffic congestion and air pollution by creating more jobs than bedrooms, especially when we can all see vacant Federal property adjoining the project area.
What You Can Do
NASA welcomes your comments. Please write and insist that our Federal property be fully utilized to ensure that the proposed project avoids significant impacts by proper prior planning.
View the plan at the Acterra Environmental Library and Resource Center or at www.researchpark.arc.nasa.gov.
Send the "one cubicle, one cot" comment ASAP to: Sandy Olliges, NASA Ames Research Center, MS 218-1, Moffett Field, CA 94035.