C.A.R.E. Citizens Against Runway Expansion

All of the Broward County Commissioners that voted in favor of the south runway expansion have at one time espoused the preservation of the environment in Broward County. I may be wrong, but this seems to be a direct contradiction of terms. In fact, the entire concept is riddled with contradictions.

You can't expand the runway and protect the environment at the same time because you must destroy part of the environment to effect the expansion. Not only are 15 acres of sensitive wetlands directly affected, but another 151 acres of land would need to be excavated to a depth of 25 feet to provide the necessary fill, possibly affecting even more wetlands.

This lake would eliminate land that the developers are already fighting for to build houses for the people that the proposed runway is anticipated to bring to Broward County.

In view of the fact that there is no land area of this consequence within reasonable trucking distance of FLL, these guardians of the environment have taken it upon themselves to decimate the marine environment of the Intracoastal Waterway by dredging the section from Port Everglades to the north side of Las Olas Boulevard to obtain the fill necessary to build a runway that has yet to be proven to be necessary in the first place.

If the fill is to be drained and dried in-situ, the salts and toxins that will leach out of the wet fill will pose a definite threat to our potable water supply, but even if the fill is to be trucked in, which presents another set of problems, the compaction process will still leach out some salts and toxins that didn't leach out during the drying process.

There is some conjecture as to dredging the entire fill from Port Everglades, but the same conditions apply no mater where we dredge it from. Port Everglades has its own unique environment as well as any other area and if we damage the wildlife or the habitat, the whole eco-system suffers. This dredging would add nearly six feet to the overall depth of the port which will change the mix of marine life that inhabits the port, particularly in regard to bottom dwellers.

If any thought has been given to the wildlife or its' habitat that will be irreparably damaged in the process, it was quickly pushed aside in favor of the possibility of advancing personal goals. The Commission has decided that the runway is to be built, and that is to be the end of it. It seems to me that the FAA is about to toss a billion dollars in the air, and everyone is poised to grab as much of it as possible.

I fail to see the need for any expansion, when increasing efficiency at the airport will solve more problems than airport expansion ever will. It defies logic to expand the runway system when the FAA has said in an earlier report that the runway expansion would increase airport capacity 0%, yet the FAA is solidly behind the proposed expansion. Yet another contradiction.

The necessity of any expansion has yet to be demonstrated, but if expansion were proven to be necessary, where is the logic in opting for the alternative that will affect the most citizens, the most endangered habitat, is the most costly in terms of time as well as money, presents the highest risk to the safety ofpeople and equipment, is the most vulnerable to terrorism and unnecessarily enlarges the footprint of the airport?

Gary Boettcher, the president of the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations said in addressing safety concerns put to him in regard to the south runway, "We land commercial a/c on runways only 5500 feet long with varying degrees of slope on both ends."

It seems to me then, that the north runway option would be far more viable in that it:

• Would present a runway well longer than that deemed safe by Mr. Boettcher and within the scope of the intended aircraft use.
• Would not require the tremendous amount of fill that, if we must appropriate it, would be far better used in the current Everglades Restoration Project to fill in canals that were dug with absence of forethought.
• Would present a ground level runway.
• Would not increase the present footprint of the airport.
• Would be far less costly because the bridgework over US1 would not be necessary.
• Would affect far fewer people with respect to noise and air pollution.
• Would not affect the ever diminishing, already threatened wetlands and wildlife habitat.
• Would be less stressful to wildlife and people in nearby parks and in neighboring towns and villages.
• Would not present any higher security risks than are already in existence.
• Would be far less costly in terms of time and money.Would not force the dangerous combining of civil and commercial aviation onto one runway which would be caused by the closure of the south runway during several years of construction.
  

The argument has been presented that land acquisition to move the affected businesses on the north side of the airport would be too costly, but no mention has been made as to the comparison of such acquisition with the cost of relocating hundreds of families or soundproofing their homes affected by the proposed south runway expansion.

I believe that to be a moot point anyway, because I have it on good authority that some forty acres of land on the south side of the airport is available within the existing footprint.

At a time when the necessity to conserve every drop of available water in the south Florida aquifer is paramount, the compaction of the fill required for the runway substrate will consume a minimum of 234,000,000 gallons of water that we just do not have. True, this water will eventually find its' way back into the aquifer, but so will the salts that didn't leach out of the fill in the drying process; so will the water that we are being told that we cannot put on our plants and lawns. Prohibiting lawn watering while wasting water in compaction, mixing 70,000 + yards of concrete and rinsing 7,000 + concrete trucks is another glaring contradiction.

Broward County already ranks in the top 20% of counties in the US, and 4th in Florida in existing air pollution. If this fill that is to be purloined is stockpiled and allowed to drain off site, 300000+ truckloads will have to be transported to the runway site, This alone will dump 3000 tons of toxins, pollutants and greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, and with the anticipated increase in air traffic, FLL will put an additional 5,000 tons of pollutants into our already hazardous atmosphere each year, and this does not include the emissions from the ancillary construction equipment used in the project.

The lifetime cancer risk from diesel soot in Broward County presently exceeds the risk of all other air toxics tracked by EPA combined. The average lifetime diesel soot cancer risk for a resident of Broward County is 1 in 3,142. This risk is 318 times greater than EPA's acceptable cancer level of 1 in a million, and it affects all of Broward County because of our varying winds that are indiscriminate in where they carry gasses and particulate matter

This airborne pollution will contribute to the ground ozone and will have a disastrous effect on the habitat of numerous wildlife species, including the endangered native mangroves, many marine and terrestrial animals, and avian species.

It will also cause extreme damage to the parks, such as Anne Kolb Nature Center, Brooks Park, and JU Lloyd State Park and the blue-ways, which include the New River Loop, a National Protected Area. The increased air traffic will dump untold amounts of pollution on the waterway system we have fought to preserve, preventing proper oxygenation in an already weakened marine environment.

The destruction of breeding habitats will be irreparable and eternal, affecting the hatching and nursery area of countless fishes and birds. This is not protecting the environment.

I ask you and all citizens of Broward County to join together in opposition to this waste of our precious resources, this destruction of our environment, and this threat to our health and well-being.