Guest opinion Guest opinion (August 10, 2001)

Moffett Field's wetlands must be cleaned Moffett Field's wetlands must be cleaned (August 10, 2001)

By Lenny Siegel

It might not be obvious from Bayshore Freeway, but several hundred acres of Moffett Field were once part of the San Francisco Bay and its wetlands. Today that former tidal marsh is divided primarily among the northern end of the runway, the eastern and western diked marshes, and the vast storm water retention pond.

The future of the diked marshes and storm water pond is now tied up in deliberations over the Navy's Superfund cleanup of the former Moffett Naval Air Station. With the support, thus far, of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Bay Area Water Quality Control Board, the Navy proposes a "cleanup" of those areas that would prevent restoration of the tidal marshes.

NASA, the current owner of most of those wetlands, seems prepared to support the proposed plan, but Bay Area environmental organizations and the Mountain View City Council, among others, are calling for a cleanup that would allow eventual tidal flow into the wetlands.

The government agencies fail to recognize that the condition of the San Francisco Bay is a key element of the quality of life in the Bay Area. People here view the closure of military bases as an opportunity to undo over 150 years of environmental damage, and wetlands restoration projects are moving forward at several former military bases, such as the Presidio of San Francisco's Crissy Field and Hamilton Field in Marin County. For the birds

The process that led to the Navy's proposed plan is somewhat complicated. In fact, I've made a career out of explaining the cleanup decision-making process to communities from Puerto Rico to Alaska.

A few years ago, the Navy carried out an ecological assessment to determine to what degree the various contaminants in the Moffett wetlands -- including PCBs, DDT, lead, and other heavy metals -- would damage a number of designated "ecological receptors." It originally considered three bird species: the great blue heron, the black-necked stilt and mallard duck.

When initial studies suggested that making the sediment safe enough for the great blue heron might increase the cost of cleanup, the Navy and the environmental regulatory agencies decided to exclude the heron as a receptor. Their logic: As long as there are no fish in the pond, there is no major pathway through which the herons will be exposed to the contaminants.

When the agencies first made this suggestion, more than 2-1/2 years ago, to the Restoration Advisory Board, community representatives protested. (The RAB is a community-based group that meets regularly to advise on the cleanup.) We wanted a cleanup program that would eventually allow the Bay's waters, including fish and great blue herons, to return to the Moffett wetlands.

The Navy originally proposed a list of possible remedies including excavation and in situ (in place) treatment, but its regulators, EPA and the water board, convinced them that excavation was necessary if the cleanup were to address heavy metal contamination effectively. Still, they didn't even consider making the cleanup protective of the heron. In fact, they have proposed institutional controls -- land use restrictions -- to prevent any opening to tidal flow. Plenty of models

No one is prepared to recommended a specific plan for tidal marsh restoration at Moffett Field. Study is needed, but there are plenty of models. For example, at the neighboring Stevens Creek Tidal Marsh in Mountain View's Shoreline Park, two forty-eight inch culverts allow the muted flow of water from Stevens Creek. At Hamilton Field, in Marin County, a partnership of agencies proposes to cover the runway with clean soil, raising initial sub-surface elevations.

NASA, for now, insists that the storm water pond and diked marshes need to remain unchanged to prevent flooding of the Ames Research Center. But there are ways simultaneously to restore habitat and control flooding. In fact, I'm still not sure whether the existing dikes are designed to keep water in or keep it out.

When the cleanup remedies are resolved, the next step on our community's agenda should be to encourage NASA to meet with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State Department of Fish and Game, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (which owns a corner of the storm water pond), and the community to consider the future of the Moffett wetlands. This is an ideal location to bring back tidal marsh because we, the taxpayers of the United States, already own the property. Unlike other proposed restoration properties in the South Bay, we won't have to buy the property. Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Use

The Superfund process dictates that the agencies consider the community's viewpoint in considering cleanup remedies. Furthermore, EPA policy states that remedies should be based not only upon current land use, but on reasonably anticipated future land use. The local community is supposed to help figure that out.

We have the opportunity, during the public comment period through Aug. 22, to influence the determination of possible land use and thus the cleanup decision. There's even a public meeting Aug. 16, 6:30 pm, at Mountain View City Hall, where we will have a change to be heard.

We don't have to insist that the Navy promote tidal marsh restoration. We don't even have to promote a specific cleanup remedy. All we have to do is tell the Navy that its existing alternatives are really not alternatives, because they all would prevent tidal restoration.

We must ask the Navy and the regulatory agencies to develop and evaluate genuine alternatives, options that would not prevent the restoration of the tidal habitat that both the public and scientists consider essential to the South Bay ecosystem. Those alternatives might include additional excavation, capping with clean fill, or even a contingency plan to conduct further studies and remediation, should a decision be made to complete tidal restoration.

These new approaches needn't necessarily delay the existing, limited plan for excavation. In fact, the remediation of the areas now proposed for cleanup should generate data and thus lessons for future action.

The federal government -- and I'm not saying everyone else was innocent -- destroyed the tidal marshes at Moffett Field. Then it contaminated the property. Now, it has proposed to use that contamination as a reason never to restore the marshes.

That's wrong. And there are better alternatives. It's our job to make sure that they're considered. Lenny Siegel is the executive director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight and the secretary of the Alliance for a New Moffett Field.