Bedford Minuteman
November 21, 2002

Strength in numbers

By Barbara Forster / Correspondent

Protesters, Powerpoint presentations, and politicians. Such was the stuff of a public hearing regarding an environmental study Massport has prepared about Hanscom Air Field Tuesday at Bedford High School with about 800 area residents on hand.

The hearing, held by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, was originally scheduled for Nov. 7 at Bedford Town Hall. However, the first meeting was canceled when too many people showed up. It was rescheduled for Tuesday at the larger venue of Bedford High School.

During the four-and-a-half-hour hearing that included at least four presentations and a video, more than a dozen people lined up to discuss the study. Craig Coy, Massport executive director and CEO, was also in the audience.

"I'm here to listen and to find out what is going on," he said. "I think that is part of my job."

Although Massport received one or two compliments such as additional noise measurements at the airfield, comments were generally critical.

"Deficient" was the most frequently used descriptor. Richard Canale of Lexington, co-chairman of the Environmental Sub-Committee that reviewed the study on behalf of the Hanscom communities, called the study a "rather meaningless draft.

Canale later suggested to Jay Wickersham, director of the MEPA office, that because changes at Hanscom were happening so quickly that the lapse time between review periods should be similar to Logan's time schedule which is every three years.

"MEPA thresholds don't capture what happens at Hanscom," he added. "Hanscom is one-of-a-kind. Maybe it makes sense to look at what are appropriate thresholds for Hanscom."

For Kay Tiffany of Safeguarding the Historic Hanscom Area's Irreplaceable Resources, discussing a no-growth scenario should be part of the study, too. Massport's job, she said was "to adequately describe and analyze projects and its alternatives. There are no alternatives. This is a wish list of an agency with expansion on its mind."

Politicians including Sen. Susan Fargo and Reps. Jay Kaufman and Tom Stanley also took turns at the podium along with Selectmen Sheldon Moll of Bedford and Gary Clayton of Concord. While Moll urged attendees to submit written comments to the state environmental agency reviewing the study, Clayton pointed out that the extension of commercial, corporate, and cargo operations (at Hanscom) was the communities' vision.

"Some may dismiss our concerns as NIMBY, he said. "But it is our backyard. It is our schools and it is our homes. We can shape the future if we are vigilant."

Nancy Nelson, superintendent of Minute Man National Historical Park, argued that Massport failed to "accurately identify real and predictable impacts on the park." Furthermore, mitigation for traffic issues "still point to physical changes on Battle Road."

"That should be eliminated from the final ESPR," she added.

The study, officially known as the Environmental Status and Planning Report, is designed to present an overview of current environmental conditions at the field and use that information to determine policies and programs. As a state agency, Massport is required to periodically submit a report for public review on the environmental impacts of its operations and resulting mitigations.

The Big Complaints

Massport's noise analysis was one of the most hard-hit targets. Concord's Reinier Beeuwkes, who headed the Noise Work Group, acknowledged that substantially more noise data was included in this study than in previous documents. However, important data such as year-to-year comparisons of noise increases/decreases were missing.

"Time above contour graphs are there, but they are not discussed," he said.

Anthony Galaitsis, a member of the Environmental Sub-Committee, argued that Massport's own noise metric did not "usefully represent direct and immediate effects of aircraft noise on humans" and was "misleading" because it only encompasses the airport. In other words, he continued, the current metric does not predict or show the origination of noise complaints as compiled by Massport.

Using a map that documented the source of noise complaints, the Lexington resident presented another metric that accomplished the task.

According to Neil Rasmussen of Save Our Heritage, who described the conclusions in the study as "arbitrary and capricious," Massport can use other noise metrics acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration.

"The FAA uses different (noise) standards for the Grand Canyon," he said.

Those standards, he added, are 3,000 times lower than the ones Massport uses at Hanscom.

"If you (MEPA) accept this, you will be creating a weapon for Massport," said Rasmussen.

Brenda Kelly of the Bedford Conservation Commission challenged Massport's water quality analysis.

"They didn't do groundwater monitoring," she said. "We also want trigger levels (for mitigation) and there is no quantitative information regarding wetlands."

Kelly asked that Massport map all hazardous waste sites (they are listed in the report but there is no map), locate key water resources on Massport property, and provide complete deicing disclosure. Massport was also criticized for not including information on various current projects that affect the environment such as plans to remove vegetation near the field for safety reasons.

A Source of Support?

Ford von Weise, who represents the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, stressed the importance of Hanscom's economic role.

"General aviation represents 1 percent of Gross National Products," he said.

Noting that moving general aviation activity to Logan would tie up the system, von Weise added that his group did not like the idea of commercial aviation forcing them out of Hanscom.

While residents and representatives of various groups critiqued the study, students from the Bedford High School Make A Wish Club held a fund-raiser selling lemonade and homemade chocolate chip and oatmeal cookies. Save Our Heritage and ShhAir, were in the halls, too. Both handed out literature; SOH also sold T-shirts.

What Next?

The deadline for comments to MEPA on the document is the close of business on Nov. 26. According to Wickersham, the agency will make a decision no later than Dec. 16. The decision will be available on its web site about 24 hours later.

The agency has at least three choices: accept the document as is or with modifications or reject it, sending Massport back to the drawing board.

Copyright by TownOnline.com and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems ==========
**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.** ==========