Concord Journal
August 23, 2001

Activists group criticizes timing of airport reports
By Barbara Forster, Correspondent

The timing of the proposed vegetation management plan for Hanscom Field
caused a short but fiery exchange between Massport and Save Our Heritage
representaives Tuesday night in Bedford.

After noting that in March 2000, the Federal Aviation Administration
acknowledged reviewing the obstruction analysis report prepared by Massport,
Marty Pepper Aisenberg of Save Our Heritage argued that the agency could and
should have presented the vegetation management plan much earlier.

"The analysis was completed; the draft could and should have been done last
year," he said.  "Then we could have had (public) hearings in a reasonable
timeframe."

Aisenberg pointed out that two sets of public hearings are scheduled for
August and September, one on the vegetation management plan and the other on
the scope of the Environmental Status and Planning Report for Hanscom Field.

"These are both detailed and complex issues that we (the communities) are
being asked to coment on and it's all being crammed together," he said.

Comment periods for both issues are at the end of September.

According to Richard Walsh, Massport had the analysis and the FAA's response
in March 2000 but nothing else, including plans on how to do the work.

"The process isn't as cut and dry as it seems," said Walsh.  "Preparing
complex documents like this takes time.  It includes a lot of components. .
. . In the period between the analysis and the preparation of the document
was field work and discussions within Massport.  Then it was reviewed
internally."

Moreover, going public in 2000 would have meant a year of no answers to
questions about the status of the project.  "A year ago we wouldn't have
identified 21 project areas," added Walsh.

Instead the agency decided to take the next steps internally first and then
bring everything to the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission.  "We didn't want
to bring this piecemeal to the communities," said Walsh.  "It's confusing
because people believe that Massport is not telling them everything."

Walsh cites the 1995 GEIR (Generic Environmental Impact Review) as an
example of the problems caused by bits and bites of information.  "We
presented that a chapter at a time and it caused confusion," he said.

The next GEIR-type project which is just getting started will be presented
to the communities in a more complete format so that the entire draft
documen can be reviewed at one time.

"We're trying to find a way to bring as much information as possible to the
communities so that we can answer as many questions as possible."

Aisenberg remains unconvinced, however.  The public hearing crunch, he
argues, is happening only because Massport delayed getting their act
together.

==========
**NOTICE:  In accordance with 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.**
==========