Appendix E – Logan Airport (Boston) – Bird Island Flats Project
| Mode | Aviation, Highway |
|---|---|
| Ownership | Public Authority |
| Commodity Type | Various |
| Location | Urban, East |
| Lead Federal Agency | FAA |
| Cooperating Agencies | Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort) |
| Review Agencies | U.S. EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOTC), Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). |
| State or Local Agencies | (As above) |
| Air Quality |  |
|---|---|
| Cultural Resources |  |
| Land Use |  |
| Local Transportation | |
| Natural Resources | |
| Noise/vibration | |
| Hazardous Waste | |
| Socioeconomics | |
| Water Quality | |
| NEPA, including agency consultation | |
|---|---|
| Use of structured process | |
| Integration of NEPA and state processes | |
| Timing of environmental review initiation | |
| Effect of process on project design and alternatives | |
| Multi-agency review | |
| Public involvement | |
Project Description
The Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort) wished to expand its air cargo facilities at Logan Airport by constructing new air cargo buildings and a new dual taxiway. The project area is located in the southwest corner of the airport, on a reclaimed area known as Bird Island Flats. This area adjoins an older residential neighborhood (Jeffrey's Point) established long before the airport. Logan is built largely on reclaimed and filled portions of Boston Harbor, and is severely land constrained because it is surrounded by active harbor channels and by the historic neighborhoods of East Boston.
The 90-acre project area was originally envisioned as also receiving limited office development, and the dual taxiways were envisioned as also providing access to a potential new runway.
The project is now effectively completed and includes the air cargo buildings, several office buildings (including one housing most of MassPort's staff), and a large hotel. Only a single taxiway was built and a successful linear park (the "walk to the sea") was included in the project.
Environmental Issues of Concern
The aviation facilities, other buildings, and taxiway were all constructed on Bird Island Flats, a former wetlands area that had been filled several decades ago. Therefore, many potential concerns related to wetlands, natural resources, endangered species habitat, and historical resources had been previously addressed and were not an issue in this project.
Air Quality, Noise/Vibration: Some original (conceptual) versions of the project would have placed dual taxiways and air cargo facilities within a few hundred yards of a neighborhood that pre-dated the airport.
A substantial mitigation strategy was developed to address this potential impact. All formally considered alternatives included only a single taxiway, rather than the dual taxiways originally contemplated, and a scaling back of air cargo buildings. Further, a substantial commercial/office building component was added to the alternatives. Reaching agreement with the community that "good fences make for good neighbors," the project in effect included a series of strategically placed and designed buildings that would act as noise and view buffers. One of these buildings is a 100-plus foot high Hyatt hotel with a rooftop restaurant, despite explicit restrictions in the state environmental impact review (EIR), and FAA safety regulations that limit buildings in the applicable area to 70 feet (in case of missed landings). Many in the region (including some in government, media, and the public) believe that the hotel was built at this location to ensure that an additional runway could not be built. Therefore, the surrounding neighborhoods would receive no additional flight patterns and no new sources of aircraft noise.
Local transportation: There was at least some concern that the project might affect access to some airport parking facilities and lower the level of service at certain local intersections. MassPort's initial analysis of the issue proved inadequate and the project was delayed for about two months by the EOTC until the analysis was redone. Nevertheless, in the end, no significant impact was found regarding local transportation. Additional highway and local access issues later arose due to the shift of the Ted Williams Tunnel portal to the project area. However, these issues were addressed under the EIS for the Central Artery/Tunnel project.
Land Use, Socioeconomics: The adjoining neighborhood was concerned about the compatibility of the proposed development with the neighborhood and the possible adverse impacts to the host community. In addition to noise and vibration impacts, the community was concerned by the prospect of a view dominated by air cargo warehouses.
The development of more attractive office buildings and the hotel, with restaurants and other amenities, was deemed more compatible with existing land uses. The linear park further helped shift the project's image from that of an eyesore to an improvement to the community. Finally, the development and jobs that came with the constructed alternative were viewed as being a greater local benefit than the air cargo facilities. The cargo facilities were designed primarily for the small package express carriers and were considered primarily to benefit the metropolitan region and not the local area.
Environmental Review Process
NEPA, including agency consultation, and integration of NEPA and state environmental review processes: An early conceptual version of the project envisioned dual taxiways serving new air cargo hangers and possibly access to a new runway. Although an expedited federal review of this version was possible, state environmental review requirements made federal review alone, expedited or not, insufficient to allow construction.
The federal EA was conducted at the level of an EIS for the purpose of maintaining a review process parallel to the state EIR. MassPort believed they had to comply with both regardless. At least two factors made MassPort focus more closely on the state process. First, MassPort believed they would likely be sued under state law, and therefore decided to follow the state process most closely for defensive purposes. Second, the state process explicitly would permit MassPort to progress to 30 percent of project design before permitting, minimizing the net delay to the project by continuing preparations while resolving permitting and litigation issues.
MassPort still ended up making considerable efforts to get the state EIR approved, as the Massachusetts EOTC denied approval and delayed some elements of the process (such as the approvals for the local transportation analysis, as discussed above). Local political considerations also affected this process in complex ways. For example, the EOTC was concerned that the project might preclude or constrain future transportation investments in the area. At one point, MassPort was subject to litigation from both a citizen group opposing the project, and from the Massachusetts EOTC.
Effect of process on project design and alternatives: As soon as it became apparent at the conceptual level that airport expansion might occur, Jeffrey's Point and East Boston were prepared to mobilize. A citizen's group called Airport Impact Relief, Inc. (AIR, Inc.) was organized to work on this and other airport impact issues. As a result, from the start of the project design and planning process, the airport was proactive in incorporating citizen concerns into the project and in formulating alternatives.
Public involvement: Community concerns regarding the project existed for years prior to the projects formal initiation due to previous impacts to the neighborhood from the airport operations. MassPort staff recognized that the community did not trust them and that they would be sued regarding this project, regardless of how they proceeded. To gain credibility with the community and to better ensure a legally defensible environmental review, MassPort provided the community with several hundred thousand dollars prior to the definition of alternatives (although at least one conceptual vision of the project had been informally "floated" prior to this formal community involvement). This money was to be used to hire noise, air quality, and land use consultants, approved by MassPort, but selected by the citizens' groups, to directly participate in developing the alternatives. MassPort's planning staff forcefully pursued this strategy with the Authority's leadership, arguing "it would be better to pay for participation and consultants now than to have to pay for lawsuits later." Establishing this substantial community joint ownership of the project early on was highly effective in precluding the re-examination of issues. For example, once the primary citizens' group had spent considerable effort helping to design the office buildings to provide noise mitigation barriers, they could not credibly oppose the project based on insufficient noise reduction.
previous | next
