FAA clears wildlife hazard report; airport environmental review reduced to documented CATEX

The airport commission heard on Tuesday that the Federal Aviation Administration confirmed it had no comments on the airport’s draft wildlife hazard report and that, under new federal guidance, the project’s environmental review will be changed from an Environmental Assessment to a documented Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). The commission was told the change will shorten the review period and remove the requirement for a public involvement process. Why it matters: the change could speed project approvals and reduce cost and time needed to move forward with vegetation and wildlife mitigation near the airfield.

Commissioners were told the draft wildlife hazard report was forwarded to MassDOT and the FAA on Aug. 11 and that monitoring comments were provided on Aug. 25; the FAA confirmed it had no comments on Aug. 27. The commission was also briefed that GZA Environmental conducted wetland delineation work Aug. 6–8 and that a draft wetland report was due to airport staff by Sept. 5. Airport staff said they will incorporate the wetland data into the project plans when the report is finalized.

Under the CATEX determination explained to the commission, a responsible FAA official must decide whether the proposed action fits within categorical exclusions listed in FAA environmental orders and whether it would have no significant individual or cumulative impact on the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Commission members were told that, despite the change in review level, the project will still include a structure study to identify vegetation within protected surfaces on and off airport property and will require selecting preferred alternatives for tree clearing and installation of wildlife fencing.

Discussion, direction and decisions were separate in the update. Staff described the sequence of submissions and the FAA’s response; commissioners did not vote on any ordinance or funding at the meeting. Staff said “no action required” at this time because the work will continue as the reports are finalized. The commission also received an update that only a handful of editorial comments (about six to eight) remained to be incorporated into the final wildlife hazard report before staff circulates a final copy to commissioners.

Next steps listed by staff included incorporation of the wetlands data into project plans, finalizing the wildlife hazard report edits, and preparing the preferred-alternatives analysis for tree clearing and wildlife fencing. The commission did not set new deadlines at the meeting; staff said they would report back at the next monthly meeting when final documents are available.