Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (opus-fddi.hpl.hp.com) by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA127666256; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:44:17 -0800 Return-Path: <bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis> Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA015826246; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:44:06 -0800 Received: from mail1.cisco.com (mail1.cisco.com [171.68.225.60]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id XAA24961 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:44:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (bdow-isdn2.cisco.com [171.70.245.179]) by mail1.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id XAA02159 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:39:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <36BFE775.8954CFDC@cisco.com-DeleteThis> Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 23:44:53 -0800 From: Bob Dow <bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis> Reply-To: bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en]C-CISCOIS (Win95; U) To: wind_talk <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis> Subject: SFO Expansion Loma Prietan Article + Map Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sierra Club will be on the case, and they were one of
a very few invited stakeholders to the recent meeting.
Bob
http://www.employees.org/~bdow/runway2.jpg
RUNWAY EXPANSION THREATENS SF BAY
>From the Loma Prietan, the Sierra Club local chapter
newsletter, Feb, 1999.
Article by Richard Zimmerman Photos and Graphics by Ted
Horsch
In the early 1960s, a San Francisco Airport expansion plan
called for scraping 200 million cubic yards of San Bruno
Mountain off and dumping it into the Bay. That plan failed,
but the Airport expansion plan is back.
The San Francisco International Airport (SFIA), owned by the
City and County of San Francisco, is pursuing an expansion
plan that would fill up to 1,332 acres of surface area in
the Bay according to the Airport's Work-in-Progress Paper #2
(WIP2). That's 2.1 square miles or an area equivalent to
over 1,000 football fields.
"We estimate the project would require as much as 200
million cubic yards of fill if the dredge and fill method of
construction is used," says David Lewis, executive director
of Save San Francisco Bay.
The San Francisco Bay Estuary, called the "most modified
estuary in the United States," includes Suisun and San Pablo
Bays as well as San Francisco Bay.
The loss of Bay lands has been extensive over the years.
Almost 50,000 acres of the Bay and Bay lands have been
filled according to the San Francisco Estuary Baylands
Ecosystem Goals Project Report (Ecosystem Report). In
addition, only about 69,500 acres of tidal marshes and flats
remain of the 237,500 acres that surrounded the Bay in 1800.
Habitat loss leads to an increase in endangered species
within the estuary. The Ecosystem Report focused on 121
"key species" that live in the Bay or Bay lands. Forty-four
of those key species made the lists of endangered or
threatened species in 1992.
Obviously a complete review of the mammoth fill envisioned
by the Airport, as well as alternatives, should be completed
before shoveling dirt into the Bay. "We can't say what the
impact of such a large project would be without more study,"
asserts Tot Heffelfinger, Bay Chapter member and National
Wetlands Committee activist.
Feasibility Study
A feasibility study on runway reconfiguration is
underway with a final report expected in January. While the
Airport foresees a significant environmental impact due to
the project, nothing in the feasibility study addresses
environmental concerns directly.
One solution for SFIA's problem is to reduce its air
traffic. Better utilization of the Oakland and San Jose
Airports could lessen air traffic at SFIA, say
environmentalists. A study by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) in 1994 concluded that the
Bay Area possessed sufficient Airport capacity.
The feasibility study touched on other methods to reduce air
traffic at SFIA. Among alternatives mentioned are high speed
rail service to Southern California; improved transportation
between SFIA and other Bay Area Airports, primarily Oakland,
which would make it easier for passengers to use those
Airports; and expanding Travis Air Force Base to include
civilian planes.
Not surprisingly, the Airport study concludes that the only
viable way to achieve its goals is by building runways into
the Bay.
No Public Information
There have been three "stakeholder" meetings, chaired by the
Airport, to discuss the expansion. Stakeholders include the
Loma Prieta Chapter, Save San Francisco Bay, airlines, and
the Federal Aviation Authority, among others. Attendance at
the stakeholder meetings is by invitation only -- the public
is not allowed. The meetings are private, Airport Director
John Martin says.
San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said he was "working busily
behind the scenes" on the project according to the San
Francisco Chronicle.
At the meeting on Dec. 11, 1998, Martin asked two
representatives of the San Mateo County Times to leave. He
announced at that time that he did not wish for participants
to be restrained by the presence of the press and assured
attendees that they would not be quoted.
Regional Capacity
At the presentation in December, Wanda Williams, SFIA Deputy
Director, discussed Regional Airport Capacity. Williams
presented capacity numbers intended tojustify expansion.
Advocates and adversaries of the expansion questioned the
data presented.
The Airport delayed release of a report after the meeting
citing "miscalculations that need to be corrected" according
to the Chronicle. "The study needs to be refined to make
sure it's consistent with other transportation studies,"
Martin said.
Advocates of the Bay questioned letting SFIA do its own
regional analysis. "There needs to be a complete regional
analysis by an independent body," said Keith Nakatani of
Save the Bay. "The MTC should be leading the analysis. We
shouldn't allow fast tracking a project just because of one
Airport's perceived need," he added.
The Airport was objective in its analysis, said Martin. He
did agree with Nakatani, in part, stating, "There needs to
be a more complete regional analysis." In addition to
problems with the current report, past reports have been
error prone. The SFIA stated as recently as 1993 that
"current runway configurations will adequately handle
projected Airport operations well into the next century."
The $2.4 billion project under way at the Airport made no
provision for runway reconfiguration.
Even as initial plans were being drawn up, the Airport
implied that as little as 300 acres of fill would be needed,
said wetlands advocate Ralph Nobles. The Airport had
"gotten considerably more ambitious." "The Airport has a
real problem with credibility," summarized Will Travis,
Executive Director of the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC).
Approval Process
Any Bay fill must be approved by BCDC. The mission of BCDC
is "to prevent the unnecessary filling of San Francisco
Bay." The Commission regulates any Bay filling or dredging
activities. Approvals for such activities must be obtained
before the project starts. The Commission holds public
hearings on "major projects" which should include the
Airport's plans.
Five BCDC members serve at the pleasure of the Governor.
Willie Brown "is optimistic that his ally, (Gray) Davis...
will appoint five new people... to the BCDC" reported the
Chronicle. In addition to BCDC approval, an Environmental
Impact Study (EIS) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
must be prepared.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an EIS
for projects that are Federal, deemed to be "major" and that
will have a "significant impact on the environment."
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an
EIR at the state level for the same reasons. Usually, since
the EIR requirements are more rigorously defined, projects
combine the two reports.
The EIS/EIR process starts with the naming of a public
agency as the "lead agency." The City and County of San
Francisco will be the lead agency for the state while the
FAA will perform that function for the Federal Government.
The lead agencies then perform an Initial Study. The
initial study is to determine if further, more detailed
environmental studies, are needed. If more study is needed,
a certainty in the case of the Airport expansion, work
begins on the EIS/EIR.
The EIS/EIR, in contrast to feasibility studies, are
disclosure documents available to the public. Public
comment is sought at a series of meetings.
"Environmentalists have learned a required public review
produces the best results," said Lewis.
An EIS/EIR provides the public, as well as state and local
agencies, with detailed information on the possible
environmental effects of a proposed project. A portion of
the EIS/EIR must list methods by which significant
environmental effects might be avoided or minimized. In
addition, alternatives to the project must be studied.
If a project is deemed to have significant environmental
impact, mitigation is considered. Denying a project is one
way to mitigate environmental effects. Another method might
be to trade off the loss of wildlife habitat at a project
site by restoring habitat in another location.
The Airport is promoting an idea put forward by Nobles to
acquire the Cargill Salt Ponds in the south Bay as a
mitigation of the expansion. Cargill·vehemently opposes the
idea.
"Any discussion of mitigation is premature" says Debbie
Ruddock, Loma Prieta Chapter Director. "Mitigation is
designed to reduce environmental impact. We don't know what
the impact of this project would be at this time."
"SFO's offer to fund an enormous wetland restoration project
is laudable, but irrelevant. Mitigation cannot be used to
buy a permit," says Travis.
Runway Rationale
SFIA, at the stakeholders meeting, stated the reasons for
the runway reconfiguration as:
Delay Reduction
The current runway configuration at SFIA consists of four
runways. The separation between parallel runways is 750
feet. While simultaneous landings can take place on
parallel runways in good weather, Federal Aviation Authority
rules for landing aircraft restrict the Airport to one
runway in bad weather which can lead to increased delays.
Instrument flight rules, used during bad weather, are in
effect about nine percent of the time at SFIA according to
the Work-in Progress Paper 1# (WIP1) distributed to the
stakeholders.
In good weather, states the WIP1, SLlA can accommodate a
maximum of 105 planes an hour; bad weather can reduce that
to as few as 65 planes per hour depending on which runways
can be used. These numbers include takeoffs and landings.
Peak demand at SFIA is 45 to 55 landings per hour said Dan
Blythe of the FAA. Because SFIA's runways intersect,
landings and takeoffs cannot occur at the same time.
The feasibility study proposes new runways separated by
4,300 feet. No current aircraft need that separation.
Noise Reduction
A primary motivation for moving runways out into the Bay is
noise reduction. Noise at Airports is a major problem for
those who live near Airport flight paths. Shifting runways
further into the Bay reduces the number of people in the
"CNEL 65 noise level region" from around 5,000 to 300,
according to SFIA.
CNEL is defined as Community Noise Equivalent Level and is
based upon the length and time of the event as well as the
actual noise level. However, according to an article in d~e
San Jose Mercury News, the noisiest airplanes are due to be
phased out by the year 2000, reducing the number of people
in the noise impact zone. A significant decrease in noise
levels at Airports is therefore expected within the next
year.
A program costing $120 million to insulate homes that border
SFIA is also under way. That program plans to reduce to
number of homes subject to excessive noise to zero by the
year 2000.
The combination of quieter airplanes and noise-insulated
homes would make moving the runways to achieve noise
reduction seem exorbitant when measured against the
deterioration of the Bay. In addition, according to the
Chronicle, environmental law specifically prohibits using
noise as a reason for building runways in the Bay. Ability
to Handle New Large Aircraft New large aircraft, carrying up
to 1,000 people, represent a future dream of SFIA. -- These
aircraft are not yet being built and no airline has ordered
one.
Besides, the modification is not a requirement for handling
the large planes. "...NLA operations could be accommodated
without building all runways to NLA standards," states the
WIP2 report.
Finally, Martin made an important point at a meeting with
Peninsula Conservation groups last fall. "This project
would meet our needs until 2020," Martin stated. The
project might take up to ten years and $2 billion to
complete, according to Martin and WIP2. That means the
expansion into the Bay only has an expected lifetime of ten
years before another solution must be found.
"We should look for the other solutions now," says Ruddock.
"The Bay should not be sacrificed for the short-term
advantage of SFIA."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:03 PST
