The Loma Prietan
August/September 1999
Refusing Alternatives: Why SFIA Still Wants to Fill the Bay
by Louise Auerhahn
At a recent Airport-Community meeting, a Sierran asked, "Rather than devote ten years and 2.2 billion dollars to expansion that could seriously damage the Bay, why not fund research and development of technical alternatives?" She rattled off a series of delay-reducing air traffic control advances. The Airport officials stared at her, and several began whispering urgently to each other. Finally one said, "Well, we weren't able to write down all of what you said, but we'll definitely look into it."
This incident epitomizes the airport's devotion to the philosophy of "build at any cost" and its failure to consider whether its proposal - which would eliminate 2 square miles of the Bay, use as much as 80 million cubic yards of fill, and cost $2.2 billion dollars - is the right solution for the Bay Area.
SFIA gives three goals for the expansion: reducing delays, accommodating New Large Aircraft (NLAs), and lessening community noise exposure. These may all be laudable goals, but is destroying our Bay the only way to accomplish them?
The Airport has given only cursory attention to alternative solutions, as demonstrated by the community meeting. This cavalier approach is unacceptable. SFIA's proposal would have serious environmental consequences, and every effort must be made to avoid or minimize these consequences. By law, no project can propose Bay fill unless every other possible option has been considered and found unacceptable.
The Problem with Fill
Why all the fuss about filling the Bay? After all, there will still be plenty of water left, right? Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The Bay's hydrology is complex; scientists are still unable to accurately model all of it. Any change in the shape of the Bay would alter its hydrology in possibly unpredictable ways.
As no hydrological study of the expansion has yet been done, its specific effects remain unknown. We do know that the runway, as a long protrusion into the Bay, would act like a dike. Sediment would build up in front of it, and erode away behind it. This is particularly troublesome because "downstream" from the proposed runway lies Bair Island, where restoration efforts are just beginning. If the erosion due to the runway were to extend that far, it could rob Bair Island of the sediment necessary for restoration.
In addition, marine life and even the main shipping channel could suffer from hydrological shifts. Coyote Point would be cut off from the rest of the Bay, destroying recreational uses like windsurfing as well as diminishing the South Bay's volume. Finally, shifting waterflows might stir up some of the worst pollution in the Bay, deposited decades ago before laws forbidding it were passed and now buried beneath layers of sediment. Erosion caused by the project could release these toxins.
Besides these local impacts, the fill would affect the South Bay as a whole. The reduction in volume could slow "flushing" of the Bay, in which old water flows out of the South Bay to the ocean and new water replaces it. Since waste treatment plants discharge huge amounts of treated sewage into the South Bay, flushing is crucial to prevent the build-up of pollutants.
Of course, much of this is conjecture -we can't predict the expansion's hydrological effects with any certainty until studies are done. But should SFIA and San Francisco really be going full speed ahead before the impacts are known?
Poor Planning
The Airport claims that even with these negative impacts, its proposed runway expansion is the only feasible way to solve the delay problem and address its other concerns. Is that really so? The expansion would eliminate intersecting runways and increase separation between runways, so planes could land side-by-side even in poor weather. In good weather conditions, it would not add any new runway capacity. SFIA's own study estimates that good conditions occur 84% of the time.
As for NLAs, none are currently ready for commercial operation, and only a tiny percentage of planes will be NLAs by 2020. Finally, though the expansion would reduce noise for some communities, it could increase it for others. SFIA has not shown much concern for noise impacts in the past, except when citizens have forced the issue; it's hard to believe that it would suddenly make noise reduction a top priority.
And that's not the only part of the plan that's hard to swallow. Though the expansion would require up to 80 million cubic yards of fill, the Airport has yet to reveal where it plans to get all this dirt, or how it would transport it to the construction site (at 10 cubic yards per truckload, that's 8 million trucks.) How can the public properly evaluate environmental impacts with no data whatsoever on a potentially significant source of those impacts?
In view of these and other considerations, SFIA's plan seems poorly conceived. The environmental review process is just beginning; no doubt new information and new alternatives will come to light as it progresses. We must ensure that the review process addresses all possible environmental concerns, lest we end up allowing incalculable damage to the Bay and its neighbors for very little long-term gain.
No Means No!
By Ayse Inan
How many times do we have to go through this? In the 1960s, the people of the Bay rebelled, demanding that Bay fill stop. If not for their efforts, the Bay would no longer be a bay, but a narrow shipping lane. The rest of the water would be covered with concrete, dikes, fill... pollution. Well, that's what San Francisco International Airport is planning to do. So, yes, we have to wage the battle yet another time.
An estimated 80 million cubic yards of fill will be dumped into the Bay if SFIA's expansion plans are approved. What about the voice of the people? What about the McAteer Petris Act, passed as a result of the '60s grassroots efforts, that recognizes the Bay as "the most valuable single natural resource of an entire region"? It seems that SFIA is ignoring that, forging ahead with their fill plan, and completely disregarding the mandate of the people.
We must make sure that the Bay Area remains true to its name. Under the Petris Act, no fill can be dumped into the Bay unless all other alternatives have been considered and ruled out. This has yet to happen. SFIA proposed bay fill without taking a closer look at less environmentally damaging and less costly options.
Feasible options exist. What they require, however, is a degree of cooperation within the region, a willingness from SFIA to look beyond its own interests and consider how we can use the resources of the entire Bay Area to solve delay and noise problems.
Region-wide collaboration is necessary so that solutions to the problems of one organization (SFIA) do not cause larger problems and irreparable damage to the entire Bay Area. This kind of cooperation, in conjunction with advances in air-traffic-control technology, can very possibly achieve the same goals of the expansion project-reducing delay and abating noise-as well as or better than SFIA's proposal.
SFIA's projections indicate that demand for the Airport's services will exceed capacity (new runway included) around 2020, merely 10 years after the fill project is complete. So, what is the Airport going to do in 2020? Propose more fill? Or adopt the technical and regional solutions it presently disdains? If the latter, why not implement these alternatives now and save 20 years, $2 billion, and two square miles of the Bay?
Louise Auerhahn and Ayse Inan ("No Means No!", above) are summer interns from Stanford University.
TALKING POINTS
- The McAteer Petris Act recognizes the Bay as "the most valuable single natural resource of an entire region" and mandates that filling the Bay not be considered an option unless all other alternatives have been considered and ruled out. SFIA's proposal would be the largest fill project since the act was passed.
- The environmental analysis must include studies of all possible environmental impacts resulting from hydrological alterations of the Bay, including (but not limited to) changes in sediment deposition on Bair Island, impacts on Coyote Point, effects on marine life, exposure of toxic buried sediments by erosion, and effect on flushing of the South Bay. Hydrology should be analyzed for the winter and summer months.
- SFIA has yet to reveal where it plans to obtain and transport the up to 80 million cubic yards of fill the project would need. They say the information will be public by the end of September - after the scoping meetings, which are supposed to be the public's opportunity to give their input on the environmental permitting process. How can we properly evaluate environmental impacts with no data whatsoever on a potentially significant source of those impacts?
- SFIA projects that even with the new runways, demand will exceed capacity by 2020 - only 10 years after the expansion is complete. What does SFIA plan to do in 2020? Will we see a plan to fill more of the Bay? Or will the Airport implement the technical and regional solutions which it presently disdains? If the latter, why not implement them now and save 20 years, $2.2 billion, and two square miles of the Bay?
- Rather than devote ten years and 2.2 billion dollars to the expansion, why not fund R&D to complete and implement the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) and Closely Spaced Parallel Approach Procedures? This could solve the poor-weather delay problem sooner, more cheaply, and without Bay fill.
Advocate No Fill at FAA Scoping Meetings
The City of San Francisco Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will be holding scoping meeting for the project. More formal than the community meetings held earlier this summer, these meetings will produce a written record of citizens' comments and concerns about SFIA's plans. You can either voice your concerns at the meeting, or you can submit a written document to the panel for further review.
The scoping meetings are currently scheduled for:
August 4, 1999, 7-10PM
S. San Francisco Conference Center
225 S. Airport Blvd.
So. San Francisco, CA
August 7, 1999, 12-4PM
San Mateo City Council Chambers
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
August 10, 1999, 7-10PM
San Francisco City Hall, Room 250
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA
Sierra Club encourages you to attend and be an advocate for our no-fill position.