|
|
|
At What Price Progress?
Measuring the environmental costs of airport expansion and a cross-Sound power cable
|
Business New Haven
3/18/2002
By:
Linda Mele
|
With today's growing interest in environmental issues, nothing ought to be taken for granted. That's why the powers that be need to take another look at the 20-year plan for Tweed-New Haven Airport, prepared by the Manchester, N.H.-based airport planning firm of Edwards & Kelcey Inc.
It may never become a reality and may never, in fact, even get beyond Phase I, which addresses encroachment on inland and tidal wetlands as well as the amount of tarmac run-off from existing and proposed runways (see “Will Tweed Fly?,” BNH, February 4).
Another high-profile plan - the cross-Sound cable project - may face the same fate because of unbending opposition to it, including that of state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and, in the person of Mayor John DeStefano Jr., the city of New Haven.
Both projects have components that deal with the environment and how each will impact diminishing wetlands and ecostructures that cannot easily be replaced once they are compromised. How will these projects affect the groundwater, wetlands, harbor and, eventually, the human population?
According to the 20-year airport plan, at least one runway needs expansion and “a number of objects (primarily trees) in the vicinity of the airport penetrate the imaginary surfaces and impact the instrument approach minimums…”
In addition, it says, “The airport has already submitted permit applications to local, state and federal agencies to implement the projects” and obtain the necessary environmental permits and approvals.
So, “the airport has submitted applications” and the plan calls for starting Phase I as soon as possible and “some or all of Phase II may be started before Phase I is completed.”
Does that mean they will begin this expensive construction without the proper permits?
And, since Phases III and IV “will create additional wetlands impacts in order to accommodate the proposed runway and taxiway extension,” will they, too, be started without the proper permits? And, what will happen to the project as a whole if Phases I and II are begun, but wetlands approval to complete the job is denied?
The report seems to shake it off by saying that “those [environmental] impacts can be mitigated through a variety of techniques, including wetlands replication…” Also, “based on the process established in the Safety Area, wetlands replication can be implemented on a 4:1 basis, which means that for every acre of wetlands impacted, four acres of wetlands will be replicated. The amount of replication will be determined through coordination with Connecticut DEP.”
Where will the property to “replicate” the wetlands come from? Will additional homes and families have to be disrupted and/or relocated? Will even more money have to be spent to purchase that property? How long will it take to make the replicated wetlands mirror the ones already there for thousands of years - or at least since the airport was built?
The report further states that “There are sensitive environmental resources, including both tidal and inland wetlands, in the vicinity of the airport.”
When the report says that a new plan needs to be developed “prior to implementing the runway extension” and that “extensive coordination” will be required with “local, state and federal permitting agencies in order to develop an effective environmental mitigation program,” it simply means that the plan has to be approved by the DEP and, perhaps, the Inland Wetlands commissions of both New Haven and East Haven based on exactly where the expansion will take place.
If approved as proposed, the airport improvements will impact 22 acres of surrounding land, much of which is protected wetlands.
The cost of acquiring these parcels could exceed $60 million, according to officials, the bulk of which would be reimbursed by the federal government.
But mustn't local and state environmental regulations be adhered to whether the plans are for a regional airport expansion or a deck in the back yard? To begin without such permission is seemingly to defy the regulations and could be a reason for a cease and desist order (already made against those working on the cross-Sound cable), a contempt citation and, further, a jail term and/or heavy fine.
Why, then, spend time and money on a 20-year plan that may never come to fruition (like the 1993 and 1995 plans) before these wetlands and other environmental issues are resolved?
While the cross-Sound project is a semi-private venture, it still needs approval by the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC).
The state legislature gives the CSC “jurisdiction to objectively balance the statewide public need for adequate and reliable services at the lowest reasonable cost to consumers with the need to protect the environment and ecology of the state.”
Anstress Farwell, president of the New Haven Urban Design League, sent written testimony to the CSC.
“What is most compelling about the cable issue is that it has brought both traditional environmental advocates and business interests together to fight the powerful, but narrow, interests of the electricity industry,” Farwell asserts.
“It's a bad idea because it means New Haven gets the pollution and Long Island gets the clean power,” adds engineer and resident Stewart Hutchings.
“Information I obtained from the Long Island Power Authority said the purpose of the cable was to produce more 'off-island' power,” Hutchings says, “and do it so there is no additional pollution impacting Long Island.
“If every resident of Long Island were to buy one of the new, energy-efficient refrigerators that are [twice] as efficient as any other previously manufactured, that would offset the need for so much power,” he adds. “There are other solutions - solutions that won't cost as much money [as a 24-mile electric cable].”
East Haven Mayor Joseph Maturo says he would support a regional airport in Hamden, North Haven or Orange - well removed from the coastal wetlands.
“I find it disingenuous when others would be in favor of Tweed when they are against [similar development projects] in their own community,” Maturo says, “like the proposed [Quinnipiac University] parking lot in Hamden, Stew Leonard's in Orange and an underground pipeline and power line in Branford. If they are all against these in kinds of things in their communities, why are they so careless about the wetlands in my community?”
“I support the airport project as long as the damage to the wetlands is minimized,” says Farwell. “It's something that will help the city's and the region's economy, and there are ways any impact can be minimized.
“Of course, there are still questions about noise and light pollution and their impact on the neighborhoods and wildlife near the airport,” she adds.
The airport report acknowledges that “as aircraft traffic increases, potential impacts from noise will have to be addressed and a land use/noise mitigation program (likely involving both soundproofing and acquisition) will be developed.”
And, further, “Participation in the program by property owners is strictly voluntary.”
So, soundproof your house or move. Some choice.
|
Go FirstGo PreviousGo
NextGo LastGo
to Index
|
|
