I watched the ponds around the Dunbarton bridge transform in a very short amount of time. I used to do lunch rides over the bridge so I could watch the progress and it was pretty remarkable. First they brought in the dredgers to establish/reestablish the tidal canals, then they did some vegetation replanting, and before the area even looked like it was close to being complete, the wildlife began to arrive; as if they just couldn't wait any longer.
The area looks fantastic now and only continues to get better as nature takes back the controls.

From Draft Environmental Impact Statement: "Phase 2 of the SBSP Restoration Project would not result in an increase in air traffic or require a change to existing air traffic patterns. The project would not increase hazards..."
How about a lot of new birds right next to the NASA airfield?

@Geek...first tell me how many birds you expect, their size, where they will be congregating and at what hours. In all honesty, your question does not sound informed, but given your request for an answer, until I see anything different regarding specifics, I would say No, you have no reason to fear, unless you're just mining for some sort of negative to put up.

I would start by putting up the limits allowable, then suggesting that the new populations would exceed that limit.
I really don't think you're THAT concerned though...back to the mining of a negative situation.

Would you get a load of this guy? Essentially he's saying "let's just try it and see what happens".

No study. No planning. Just wants to fail to plan, which is a plan to fail.

geek is damn right that birds can be a problem this close to an airfield. My brother is a pilot and his engine ingested a seagull at Alameda Naval Air Station and only luck and his quick thinking saved him. I strongly suggest this angle be studied before any such action is taken.

Or close the airfield.

Oh please, he just asked for data. Anyone can ask an open ended question based on an ignorance of the actual issue and then run with it, inventing all sorts of scary what-ifs.
First define the problem for us with some numbers...FAA guidelines? Anything?
Looks like the straw-graspers who don't like the airfield staying open are running out of ammo.
Replies with actual data as it pertains to this particular area, it's bird life and the percentage of increase expected would be a good start.

Anyway, regardless of the pet issue brigade, the actual issue here, the restoration of the salt ponds, it tremendous.

For people who care to gripe about the airfield, start another topic instead of high-jacking this one. This restoration is an A+.

@well...@Nope, nopt buyin' it.
The funny thing is, the same report on a different page says:
"the recommended 10,000-foot distance a project should be from an airport. The southeast corner of the Mountain View Ponds is approximately 2,500 feet from the end of the Moffett Federal Airfield runway. However, since, under Phase 2 actions, the Mountain View Ponds would be converted from open water ponds to tidal marshes, the Phase 2 actions are not expected to increase the risk or hazard associated with bird strikes. For this reason, bird strikes are not exhaustively assessed in this Draft EIS/R."

"...the Phase 2 actions are not expected to increase the risk or hazard associated with bird strikes."
Repeat: They are not expected to increase any risk of bird strikes. Good. Issue resolved by the people with the data.
I guess they don't expect global warming or possible comet strikes to be an issue so I'm glad they didn't waste any time on that either.

Love these environmental restorations going on lately. Nice work.

@Bailey Park
As an engineer, I got used to a precise definitions. When one page of the document says "would not increase hazards" and another "are not expected to increase the risk or hazard" and at the same time those hazards "are not exhaustively assessed", it really undermines the document's credibility.

@Geek is in the right ballpark IMO. How to kill a turbofan, how to blow up a Space Shuttle. A 'little "blowby" anyone? O-ring erosion is acceptable, though not designed for? The Geek identified some very disturbing non-analytical buzzwords.
There are some interesting and similar Challanger disaster risk analysis stories in Richard Feynman's book "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" But then again - he just had a Nobel prize in physics.
BTW, I'd love for the airfield to stay open - keeps 'the Google boys' here?

We could try to put things back like before the bay was a booming mega city, or we could see there is no going back and make it useful to the humans that live here.

How about we turn it into playing fields. We need more parks!
Or a school!

@Geek, Oh, I'm also an engineer. Actually I manage a team of 14 engineers. I'm used to being bogged down in meetings by stubborn "I know it all" engineers who think that because they are wonderfully smart engineers, it by default makes them an expert in other areas.
They'll even continue their "pet" arguments into other areas, that are not even involved with the original topic.
I've let 2 of those types go over the past 10 years.
When you have to grasp an minutia just to try and make a (non) relevant, off topic point, rethink your position. You also need to learn about the importance of "Place" when you begin to bang your drum: is it the appropriate place to do so?
[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment]

You know we are talking about a water environment right?

@Bailey Park "Actually I manage a team of 14 engineers"
I pity your team. And your company for that matter.

You are pitying one of most successful companies in this area(for the past 35 years or so) as well as the team who gets about 25 internal inquiries per year to join, but we stay humble ;) Good for your newest opinion though. Good for you!
4 or my team are also reading this right now and they say Hi, but unfortunately we do not think you would be a good fit for our group. Good luck to you in your future endeavors.

Sounds like there are already birds living there, there will continue to be birds living there, and people who have studied the likely impacts of this project do not believe the probability of bird strikes will increase if they restore the ponds to something more closely resembling their original state.

I noted that several options for the Mountain View ponds in particular would improve flood control and benefit the humans who live here, too, as well as wildlife. Hopefully those options are pursued.