MOFFETT WETLANDS CRITIQUE

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

CALIFORNIA CRITICIZES MOFFETT "SWEA"

The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), a state natural 
resource trustee, has prepared a letter critical of the station-wide 
ecological assessment (SWEA) prepared for the U.S. Navy as part of the 
cleanup process at the former Naval Air Station at Moffett Field, in 
Mountain View/Sunnyvale. Moffett Field contains recognized wetlands 
adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, and if the drain-and-pump system 
known affectionately by the Navy as Building 191 were ever shut down, a 
large fraction of the base would soon be wet as well.

Since (as far as I know), Moffett is the first Bay Area Navy base to 
reach this stage in the process, the cleanup strategy for the Moffett 
wetlands could set a precedent for other Bay Area Naval bases. That is, 
the Navy appears to be seeking approval for less toxic remediation in 
the wetlands area than the state believes is required by law.

In a June 6, 1997 letter, Senior Biologist Patricia Velez tells the 
Navy that the Department wants more stringent cleanup standards. Velez 
writes:

"The principal result of a 'remedy' or 'remedial action' is to 'prevent 
or minimize the release of hazardous substances so that they do not 
migrate to cause substantial danger... to the environment' AND 'protect 
and restore (natural) trust resources.' This latter overarching and 
equally important aim of the hazardous waste cleanup or remediation 
becomes the minimum standard or remediation goal to be attained in the 
select[ion] of a remedial action. With that guidance and as the 
principal State trustee for fish, wildlife, biota, and their habitats, 
DFG can only recommend remedial actions which restore trustee resources 
to 'baseline' or 'conditions that would have been expected at the 
assessment area HAD THE DISCHARGE OR RELEASE OF THE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL 
NOT OCCURRED.' Consequently, this guidance (Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, CERCLA, law and regulations) 
clearly does not allow cleanup goals that would allow continued 
toxicity to natural resource populations, for example. The HQ's [hazard 
quotients] which are derived from 'low' TRV's [toxicity reference 
values] must be used to establish risk or the likelihood of adverse 
effects from contaminants to trust natural resources. These HQ's should 
protect the most sensitive species, as they use lowest no observable 
adverse effect levels or NOEALs. If one did not employ these lower 
values to estimate risks and drive the remediation, it is intuitively 
obvious that full protection of fish, wildlife, biota, and their 
receptors can not be achieved. Any resultant remedial action, based 
upon the high TRV will, more likely than not, cause continued injuries 
to State trust resources."

In addition, "DFG does not agree with the elimination of metals from 
consideration for the purposes of identifying remediation areas." 
Moffett sediment contains metals concentrations above background levels.

In response to the suggestion, in the Navy draft document, that cleanup 
would destroy habitat with little benefit, Velez writes, "DFG believes 
that remediation of hazardous waste in wetlands is feasible, is cost 
effective, and can be accomplished without destroying the wetland for 
'uncertain benefits.'" Later she writes, "DFG believes that there are 
engineering and ecological techniques available to mitigate/minimize 
impacts from those remedial treatments."

Echoing a debate that is beginning to emerge at military installations 
elsewhere, she writes, "As a part of the remedial action, there should 
be an analysis and evaluation of how [the] Navy intends to compensate 
the state for the injuries to its natural resources and related 
services lost to the public that occur during remediation and 
post-remediation."

In evaluating the alternatives in the Station-Wide Feasibility Study, 
Velez writes, "DFG disagrees with the statement that Alternative 2 
(institutional controls through fencing, signs, and ecological 
monitoring) may meet that threshold criteria of overall protection of 
human health and the environment. DFG believes long-term ecological 
monitoring is not protective of fish, wildlife, biota, and their 
habitat and would fail to meet DFG's stated ARARs [Applicable or 
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements] if subsequent monitoring 
determined that adverse impacts to ecological receptors have occurred 
or continue to occur.

"Moreover, DFG believes Alternative 2 does not meet the strong 
statutory preference for remedies that provide long-term effectiveness 
and permanence or that reduce toxicity, volume or mobility of 
contaminants that would be met by selection of Alternatives 3-7."

In response to the Navy contention that Moffett wetlands habitat will 
restore itself naturally, Velez argues for "active re-vegetation and 
other mitigation measure."