The developers of the proposed hanger expansion at Hanscom Field are under renewed pressure to provide further data on the potential environmental impacts of their project.
Last week, MA Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Rebecca L. Tepper, reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and its regulations and determined that it “does not adequately and properly comply with MEPA and its implementing regulations.” While Tepper’s office oversees the MEPA process, it lacks the authority to reject the project outright. However, the report notes that Tepper’s office can provide meaningful opportunities for public review and engagement to assess the project’s potential environmental impacts.
The proposed development properties include the North Airfield area, owned by Massport (Massachusetts Port Authority), and the Navy Hangar parcel owned by North Airfield Ventures, LLC (NAV) and Runway Realty Ventures, LLC (RRV), which they acquired through a government public auction. The airport reduces congestion at Logan International Airport and provides commercial services including private jets, cargo, pilot training, and air taxi operations.
One option available to Tepper is to request that the project proponents prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR). This would require further analysis of potential environmental impacts, including the proponent’s claims relating to aviation activity at Hanscom Field. Additionally, the developers would be required to identify project-related impacts and propose measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate them “to the maximum extent practicable.”
After delving into the 170-page DEIR report, Barbara Katzenberg, Lexington’s representative to the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission, said, “It is not surprising the North Airfield DEIR was found to be inadequate. It contains many logical flaws and unsubstantiated claims.” She clarified that her statement represented her personal views, not those of the Commission.
Lexington’s Senator, Mike Barrett (D) saw the report as an outright rebuke of the development’s proposed expansion. Barrett is also Vice Chair of the Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change, charged with investigating issues including carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable energies. “As I read this, the Secretary is doing much more than asking for supplementary research. This is tantamount to a no-confidence vote in the project. I doubt the developers can answer her questions without discrediting the entire enterprise. If Massport goes forward, both it and the project will join a kind of Rogues Gallery of high-profile polluters. National and international observers will be pointing to it for years,” he declared.
Katzenberg emphasizes the inherent challenges in ensuring that aviation planning considers environmental impacts from the project’s inception. She states that, “We’re at a point in history where national and state policies have finally begun to consider climate risks in regulations. Unfortunately, the agencies responsible for the aviation industry here (FAA, Massport) are decades behind in incorporating these risks into their plans and policies,” she said.
Tepper’s report noted that the DEIR received “approximately 1,500 comment letters from legislators, local officials, residents, and community groups and a petition signed by 13,000 people,” all of whom expressed their concern for the environmental impact of the project relating to its contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and impact on climate change. Tepper noted, “Most importantly, the revised DEIR must contain comprehensive well-researched analysis of the project’s expected effect on greenhouse gas emissions and the carbon footprint.”
One such group, XR Boston, drew a direct line from community opposition to Tepper’s report. “We believe that community efforts are directly responsible for this positive development,” Jamie McGonagill, Media & Messaging Director for XR Boston, explained. “The diversity of tactics has been crucial, from the comments submitted by residents online and at public meetings, to Stop Private Jet Expansion’s research distribution and ongoing stand-outs, to Extinction Rebellion Boston’s nonviolent direct action at the airfield. Every element puts pressure on the decision-makers, and every voice is valuable,” she said.
One point of contention in Tepper’s report is “ferry flights,” which originate from different base locations and stop at Hanscom to pick up passengers, transport passengers to their intended destinations, and return them to Hanscom. The developers asserted that the expansion incentivizes aircraft owners to relocate to Hanscom, thereby reducing these flights and their annual greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). However, a third-party study, independently funded by opponents to the expansion and prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) asserts that claim to be unfounded and even a misinterpretation of the flight trends and data. The IEc study presents competing analyses that suggest the expansion would create an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Notably, the planned infrastructure expansion cited in the DEIR to accommodate 40-55 aircraft or more appears to exceed Massport’s projected demand for “based aircraft” at Hanscom. Massport, which controls the land’s operations and maintenance, projected an increase of 20 aircraft by 2030 and 45 aircraft by 2040, both occurring after the project’s proposed construction in 2027. This suggests the project anticipates or intends to create demand beyond the projected numbers.
Tepper noted, “The desire to spur and attract new business to maximize profitability is the primary incentive for any private business enterprise, and I see no reason this project would be unique in this regard.”
Katzenberg argues that constructing more private jet infrastructure contradicts Massachusetts’ efforts to address climate change and would nullify individual and local initiatives to cut fossil fuel consumption. Private jet travel prioritizes convenience, and Katzenberg believes Secretary Tepper is right to ask the developers to show why this project wouldn’t induce additional demand, stating that “Massport cannot even provide data to show that these so-called’ business jets’ are important in supporting the regional economy” pointing out that many of the jet flights from Hanscom are to recreational destinations, which undermines that claim. “There are very few people in Lexington or other nearby towns whose work demands private jet travel or who can personally afford to take one of these flights. Private jet travel is a case where the price of convenience for the super-rich is paid for by everyone else,” Katzenberg says.
McGonagill, of XR Boston, was encouraged by the report’s call for more thorough research into the environmental effects saying it is “an excellent first step.” However, they cautioned that Massachusetts needs Governor Healey to be vocally opposed to the airfield expansion and take decisive action as a ‘climate governor,’ a title they believe she has not yet earned. She also warned, “It’s crucial for us to remember that the fight is not over; we have simply been given more time to strengthen our case. In the days ahead, I hope the community celebrates that opportunity by deepening our resolve and igniting our action.”
Rick Muse, Director of Operations at North Airfield Ventures (NAV) and Runway Realty (RVR), who spoke on behalf of the developers, said, “We respect the Commonwealth’s environmental review process and are reviewing the Secretary’s certificate.”
The report’s central directive was unequivocal, “In conclusion, the Draft Environmental Impact Report has serious flaws and omissions that need to be corrected. As proposed, the North Airfield Expansion at Hanscom Airport directly undermines our Town’s and State’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.”
The Lexington Observer sought comment from Governor Healy’s office; however, a response has yet to be received.
Leave a comment