As NSW and federal governments prepare to push ahead with the third runway for Sydney airport, PAUL FITZGERALD examines the environmental objections that are still unanswered.
The supplement to the Third Runway Draft Environmental Impact Statement, released at the beginning of October, is like the draft: it is too big, has no logical flow of information, has misleading presentation of data and draws biased conclusions from fraudulent arguments.
Allowing for public comment is obviously nothing more than a PR exercise if the documents to be commented on are intimidating and bamboozling.
The main requirement of an EIS is to be clear about the environmental impacts of the proposal. The Third Runway Draft EIS failed that requirement, and the supplement makes things as clear as the water in Botany Bay would be during the dredging.
One example has to do with the effects of aircraft noise on health. Hidden away in the draft, in a chapter far from where the issue was dealt with, is an admission that the type of study used to analyse the effects of aircraft noise on health is "a comparatively weak way of examining this issue" (p29-11).
In the supplement there is an attempt to disown these words and replace them with "comparatively limited" and "not as rigorous". Far from advocating that thorough tests be carried out, it claims that these "comparatively limited" tests are sufficient.
The methodology of the EIS is questionable, and so is the motivation of its authors, Kinhill Engineers. On page 8-23 of the supplement, Kinhill state that "the Draft EIS had to make assumptions that would result in conservative estimates of noise effects". Had to? What could the compulsion be, other than a belief that Kinhill's responsibility was to produce a favourable EIS, no matter what?
The number of people to be affected by aircraft noise is still contentious. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the supplement revised downward by 20% the number of people who will be "seriously" affected by the third runway. But in fact the supplement repeats the number given in the draft — 26,900. And opponents of the runway say that this is a vast underestimation.
There are a couple of issues about which the supplement is more decisive than was the draft. For example, it states that the fill for the runway would come from dredging in Botany Bay. The supplement also decrees the route and structure of the Mill Stream diversion. But the ecological and hydrological effects of these proposals are no more adequately addressed than they were originally.
In a sop to concerns about the effects on the ecosystems of Botany Bay, the supplement proposes that the Federal Airports Corporation and the NSW Department of Planning be responsible for implementing an environmental management plan for Botany Bay. That's like putting n anti-smoking campaign.
Most opponents are advocating the building of an airport at Badgerys Creek together with "better management" of Kingsford Smith. By these means, they say, Kingsford Smith could cater for the predicted increase in passenger numbers (up to 29.5 million per annum by 2010) without the third runway.
But there is a growing body of opinion, which includes several local Green parties and the Nature Conservation Council, which is not prepared automatically to endorse Badgerys Creek.
The Greens say that the impact on road traffic in the area of Kingsford Smith will be as horrendous whether we cater for the predicted passenger increase by building the third runway or by other means. If active traffic management is implemented at Kingsford Smith, Badgerys Creek will be used only by small planes, allowing the number of big jets to double at Kingsford Smith. Big jets of course are noisier and more polluting and pose a more severe threat to safety.
The Greens are calling for a public inquiry which should have demand management in its terms of reference.
Some extraordinary statistics emerge when you look at the demand side of the question. For example, 27% of the air passenger movements at Kingsford Smith are accounted for by people who are there only to change planes. They never leave the airport by surface transport! And tax deductible business travel accounts for 45% of the domestic airlines' passengers. Business air travel increased by 207% in the four years to 1990.
****************************************
Concerns about the effects of the third runway on the ecosystems of Botany Bay include:
- Habitats which function as fish nurseries and which are vital to the fishing industry would be obliterated.
- The altered wave regime would ruin the Towra Point Nature Reserve;
- The northern shoreline habitats are frequented by at least 30 bird species of high conservation status, including many waders whose habitats are supposed to be protected under international migratory bird treaties. The runway would be built over their roosting and feeding areas, as well as a breeding area for the endangered little tern.
- Even if all the rare birds have been exterminated, the gulls will remain. The runway would intersect with at least two known flight paths of seagulls. Most mid-air collisions of birds and aircraft involve seagulls.