About the Environmental Review Process
2/11/09 – Boston DEP issues Technical Deficiency Letter on Variance Request
January 2009 Pittsfield Airport Commission Minutes
BEAT’s Exec Dir’s Letter to the Editor (pdf)
The Proposed Airport Expansion: Why is it bad? Who is it for?
March 28, 2008 DEP Technical Deficiency letter
About the Environmental Review ProcessThe Pittsfield Municipal Airport (PMA) wants to expand its longest runway plus add two 1,000 foot “runway safety areas”. BEAT’s Executive Director has been involved with fighting this proposed expansion since the beginning of 2002, when she first arranged a meeting of environmental leaders to discuss this project.In 2001, the PMA submitted their Environmental Notification Form (ENF) to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office, followed by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Final EIR. The Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (now Energy and Environmental Affairs) issued a Certificate outlining the scope of what needed to be addressed in further permitting.In 2007, the PMA submitted a Notice of Intent (application) to the Pittsfield Conservation Commission for a proposed expansion that would have tremendous wetland impacts. Because the wetland impacts were so great, the Conservation Commission was required to deny the application.The PMA then appealed the denial to the Western Regional Office (WERO) of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). On March 28, 2008, the DEP issued a Statement of Technical Deficiency (pdf)asking for much more information from the PMA.The DEP (WERO) then denied the appeal due to the huge wetland impacts. The PMA then applied to the Boston DEP Office of Wetlands and Waterways for a Request for Variance to the Wetlands Protection Act.On February 11, 2009, the Boston DEP sent a Statement of Technical Deficiency for the Request for Variance.
return to top |
Boston DEP issues Technical Deficiency Letter on Variance RequestOn February 11, 2009, the Boston DEP sent a Statement of Technical Deficiency for the Request for Variance. Here, in two parts is that Statement. Part I is the actual Statement. Part II is the Stormwater Attachment.Finally — DEP is requiring the PMA to provide documentation on the actual number of airport operations! (We’ve been asking for this since 2002.) Thank you DEP.- DEP is asking for documentation to substantiate the claim that the runway extension will improve safety including asking for industry design criteria, accident statistics, and other specific runway safety deficiencies particular to Pittsfield Airport.- DEP is asking about the PMA’s full build-out plans and what the impact of that would be.There are many other requests from DEP that BEAT and others questioning this expansion have been asking about for many years. We are very pleased that DEP is requiring many of our questions to finally be answered.
return to top |
January 2009 Pittsfield Airport Commission MinutesHere are the minutes of the January 7, 2009 meeting (pdf) of the Pittsfield Municipal Airport Commission. BEAT is shocked by horrible “Terminal Energy Efficiency Proposal” paragraph on page 2. Please take a look at the e-mail (pdf) we sent to Airport Manager, Mark Germanowsik (with copies to the Pittsfield City Council and Mayor among others) in response to this information.
return to top |
|
On March 28, 2008 the Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection issued a Statement of Technical Deficiency on the Water Quality Certification AND an Informational Request on the Request of Superseding Order of Conditions (the PMA’s appeal) The Pittsfield Municipal Airport (PMA) appealed the Pittsfield Conservation Commission’s expected denial of the Airport’s Notice of Intent (NOI or permit application). The PMA is seeking a Superseding Order of Conditions from the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which is also expected to be denied – the impacts are just too big. This denial is also expected to be appealed. The Statement of Technical Deficiency points out the myriad of ways that the PMA did not include enough information on which to base any reasonable decisions about this project. BEAT is disappointed that none of the required alternatives are NOT EXPANDING the runway beyond the current extent of pavement – period. We think this is a completely reasonable alternative given the climate crisis, threat of terrorism, peak oil, and any other buzz words of the day. Beyond the technical deficiencies – The Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environment’s Certificate (from the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act [MEPA] process) says that the airport commission has not demonstrated an overriding public interest, nor did they do any economic cost/benefit analysis. In fact, the airport commission states in the Notice of Intent on page 2.23 that this project is not based on an economic cost/benefit analysis. By the way precedence in airport expansion cases has already determined that economic development is NOT an overriding public interest. return to top |