"Study downplays effects on bay from San Francisco runway plan"

Saturday, June 21, 2003

Study downplays effects on bay from S.F. runway plan
By Paul Rogers
The San Jose (CA) Mercury News


A four-year study of San Francisco International Airport's proposal to
build new runways into San Francisco Bay has concluded that the project
would have minimal effects on fish and wildlife, and almost no impact
outside construction areas on erosion, water quality or other measures
of the bay's health.

The findings of the 5,000-page report were obtained by the Mercury News
on Friday. They represent a setback for opponents of new runways, who
cheered last month when the airport shelved the project because of the
region's economic woes.

But for business leaders and other supporters who say new runways are
crucial to expanding Silicon Valley's global reach, the findings
represent a ray of hope that the project can be revived once the economy
bounces back.

``Until now, these environmental questions have been debated largely in
a vacuum,'' said Michael Cunningham, transportation director at the Bay
Area Council, which represents large private employers. ``It sounds like
there are going to be some modest short-term impacts and little to no
long-term impacts.''

More details due

The full report is set to be released next week, and reviewed by a panel
of 19 scientists at a Wednesday news conference.

For five years, environmentalists have blasted the proposed runways,
which would fill up to 851 acres of San Francisco Bay's open water, as a
boondoggle that would needlessly fill a section of the bay more than
twice the size of Treasure Island, causing significant environmental
harm.

Hammered by the bad economy, terrorism, United Airlines' bankruptcy and
opposition from environmental groups and San Francisco supervisors,
airport director John Martin announced last month that the airport was
halting the $3.5 billion project for the foreseeable future and laying
off runway planners.

Friday's report, paid for by the airport, was the centerpiece of the
airport's $75 million effort to study the impacts of the project.

It was written by URS, an Oakland consulting firm, with the assistance
of dozens of biologists, hydrologists, geologists and other experts, and
reviewed by teams of independent scientists.

Among its findings:

The runways would result in the loss of up to 1.2 percent of the
sub-tidal soft-bottom habitat in the South Bay. Animals that rely on
these areas include English sole, starry flounder, surfperch, Pacific
herring, northern anchovy, California halibut, Dungeness crab.

Computer modeling showed that the runways would not cause erosion
elsewhere in the bay.

Construction would kill crabs, worms, clams and other invertebrates at
the South San Francisco site and one near San Leandro that would be used
to dredge sediments for the project. But based on studies after heavy
East Bay dredging from the 1940s to the 1960s, ``recovery of the
disturbed areas is expected to begin almost immediately,'' and within
two years, invertebrate levels in those areas would return.

Marine mammals such as harbor seals would not be harmed because they
don't haul out of the water or mate within five miles of the airport or
San Leandro.

Most bird species in the bay, from Canada geese to shorebirds, would
have 1 percent to 2 percent of their population lose habitat. The
largest impact would be on a type of duck known as the bufflehead, which
would see 5 percent of its population affected.

Migration routes for steelhead and salmon would remain open.

Digging up decades of mud would release mercury, lead, nickel and other
hazardous compounds. Dissolved copper levels would rise above
recommended levels for wildlife within 1,000 feet of the airport and San
Leandro. Other compounds would remain below levels of concern.

Environmentalists remained unswayed.

David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay, in Oakland, noted that
the runway project would fill 10 times more bay water than the largest
fill of the bay in the past generation, an 84-acre project in 1968 as
part of an Oakland airport expansion.

Since the gold rush, San Francisco Bay has shrunk by one-third because
of diking, filling and dredging. The bay has lost 80 percent of its
tidal wetlands, heavily cutting the numbers of fish, birds and other
wildlife that once existed.

The filling reached a heyday in the 1950s, but has stopped almost
entirely because of strict state and federal laws.

``The bay has been reduced in size by one-third,'' Lewis said. ``Certain
species have been wiped out or are on the brink of extinction, and there
are serious water quality problems. We ought to go the extra mile to
avoid additional impacts.''

Omissions cited

Lewis, who did not question the accuracy of the report, said other
factors weren't included. He noted that the runway project would involve
moving 68 million cubic yards of dredge materials. That would involve
six years of work with huge barges belching diesel soot. And the report
shows that although harmful levels wouldn't be surpassed in most cases,
more than 200,000 pounds of PCBs, copper, mercury and other toxins would
be stirred up.

Instead of new runways, the airport could improve performance with
better radar, coordination with other airports and requiring small
planes to land elsewhere, he said.

When the airport withdrew the runway project, officials said it would be
put on hold until the facility sees 33 million travelers per year. Now,
there are about 30 million. In 2000, there were 41 million.

Airport spokeswoman Kandace Bender said airport officials have not yet
seen the report.

``The consultants worked long and hard on the studies. We think the
results will speak for themselves,'' she said.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dc/dcboard.php

*****************************************