Petition response from William R. Keating Member of Congress

DECEMBER 2024 UPDATE:  We have reached out to the EPA and they have not had any communications from the airport since their letter regarding the problems it identified in the airport’s filing. EPA has yet to receive a request for a Sole Source Aquifer review from the FAA or the airport; the Sole Source Aquifer Review will be required before this project can move forward because it involves federal funding.

Thank you for your continued interest and we will keep you posted on any developments at the federal level.

Good Morning-- 

Thank you for contacting my office to express your concerns regarding the proposed runway and facilities extension at Plymouth Municipal Airport. The Ninth Congressional District

is the most naturally beautiful areas of the Commonwealth, if not the nation, hosting hundreds of miles of coastline and countless lakes, ponds, marshes, wetlands and other natural resources.

As required by state and federal laws, the Airport submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Environmental Assessment (EA). In response, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the proponents did not provide sufficient information regarding the protection of the sole source aquifer located under the Airport property. The Plymouth-Carver Sole Source Aquifer is the second largest in Massachusetts, covering 140 square miles and containing over 500 billion gallons of fresh water. 

It is a critical water resource for residential, commercial, and agricultural uses in the area, and provides drinking water to over 200,000 people in the towns of Plymouth and Carver. 

The EPA also pointed out that the proponents had not provided an adequate protection plan for storage of chemicals and other substances on the airport site or an updated Spill Prevention and Control Counter-Measures plan. I commend the EPA for its thorough review of the Draft EIR/EA and for prioritizing the safety of our precious natural resources. At this point, it is incumbent upon the airport to demonstrate that this project can move forward with zero impact on our environment. In its proposal, the Airport states that the expansion is necessary for economic development in the region.

It is also inarguable that any potential contamination of our Sole Source Aquifer represents a serious threat to economic development and to our physical health and quality of life.

I will continue to work with federal agencies to ensure that no federally-funded project will impose a burden on our environment and our safety. Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue.

 Sincerely,

William R. Keating

Member of Congress

General Comments

The noise from the airport is constant and debilitating. My four year old covers his ears, it wakes up the entire house early and ruins beautiful days. We love our neighborhood and wanted this to be our forever home, but the noise is becoming unbearable.

Plymouth Airport Neighbor

Having read the pdf, it seems like there should be a class action suit against the airport owners, the administrators, and everyone associated with the operations  and approval process of this airport. 

 Even before the conversation on expanding, which history will surely prove a disaster for residents, the current operation is clearly violating several established rules.  Property values will plummet if this goes through, and it appears obvious that the health and welfare of the tax paying citizens has already begun. All should be addressed by the courts, with financial pain for the people who are responsible. 

Unfortunately, most likely, the only thing that will get their real attention is if it hurts their wallets! 

Carol Sharpe

Hi I am responding to the issue of the Plymouth Airport Expansion subject. I missed seeing the email in time to respond by Dec 9th. Hopefully I can still get my voice in. I live a few miles down the road from the airport and have been here since 1972. I have noticed in the last 10 or so years how much more air traffic goes by. Even more disturbing is the size of the jets now flying into the airport. I am opposed to them expanding, loud enough now as it is. Can't imagine how it must sound to those even closer than I. This section of Plymouth is a quiet woodsy area, I love it and all the wildlife that I get to see. The wildlife has already been displaced because of all the building going on. I live here because I love the area, the beautiful trees and all the wildlife. Expanding the airport will not be a good thing for us.

Marial Riley, Plymouth MA

EEA #/MEPA ID16692 PUBLIC COMMENTS 12/2024

  • Extensive experience living in the shadow of the Plymouth Airport makes clear that this application should be denied. The airport and its managing bodies have shown insufficient interest in abating the noise pollution, air pollution, and all other environmental impacts of such expansion. Current degradations to property values and quality of life have been ignored by airport management and the government of the Town of Plymouth. With the systemic failure of the Plymouth Airport to responsibly manage its current impact on area communities, demonstrable improvement is required before raising the potential of the facility to more greatly damage the environment.

    Brian Fitzgerald, Plymouth, MA

  • To all it may concern, Yes the airport has been here before these homes. However, the airport has continued to grow and extend runways, and traffic has increased immensely over the last 40 years. There is very little control by the town and the management over commercial and private jets. With an extension of the runway, this will allow for an increase in air traffic, encouraging 24/7 traffic…increasing air and noise pollution, increasing sleeplessness and ill health effects on neighbors. The concerns that stuck out to me about this environmental study are that neighbors have asked about soil testing in the residential areas for lead and we have been continuously denied. We have read studies from the EPA on lead containing aviation fuel and residential impacts of said fuel. Airports in other states have found large amounts of lead in the soil in surrounding neighborhoods and our airport opts to do nothing, to ignore the situation. We want lead testing of soil and the population. Another largely concerning issue is this impact study is done using studies that are greater than 20 years old! In my line of work, studies are considered obsolete after 5 years. We are asking for studies conducted in the last 5 years. We would like the neighborhoods studied for air, lead and noise pollution. Private wells shoud be tested as well. Thank you for your time

    Jena Hanlon, Plymouth, MA

  • We represent over 1000 members with an interest in birds and their habitats. Comment on Plymouth Airport extension. We are the Brookline Bird Club which hosts bird walks to the Plymouth airport property during the breeding season. We monitor and enjoy the rare grassland birds which the airport property supports currently. Our efforts are reported to the Cornell University ebird data base. Several of our over 1,000 members also enjoy the property on their own. We are concerned with the expansion project altering the current property and effecting the species which require the unique environment the Plymouth airport property provides currently. This relates to size of proper habitat, placement of this habitat, flora in the habitat, the food and forging ability in the habitat, and the disturbance during critical times of the habitat. The Upland Sandpiper, the Vesper and Grasshopper Sparrows have critical size of proper habitat to begin usage. When conditions are ideal, usually more than one bird are present. For example, with the current configuration Plymouth airport property has 4 Upland Sandpipers during the breeding season; two pairs. Any smaller, there would be none. Upland Sandpiper is listed as Endangered in Massachusetts (see: https://www.mass.gov/doc/upland-sandpiper/download) Vesper Sparrow and Grasshopper Sparrow are both listed as Threatened in MA and their overall populations are declining nationally. The impact study states some of these large habitat areas, which are different for each species, will be eliminated in some cases and broken up in others. We are particularly concerned about the proposed mitigation of these areas. The proposal shows areas which are congruent, but not contiguous. The three aforementioned species require contiguous habitat and this plan will likely result in a net taking of these species which is not acceptable. Of the four options presented the only one which we support would be the first option which is not to expand at all. Reality this expansion is only useful to a handful of individuals who may or may not have interests locally. The current usage and carrying capacity of the airport supports the population of the Plymouth/Carver area and Plymouth County as well.

    Glenn d’Entremont Recording Secretary, Brookline Bird Club Member of conservation committee Leader of bird walks for this club and others annual held at the Plymouth airport property

EEA #16692 - View Admitted and Accepted Comments FEIR

EEA #/MEPA ID16692 PUBLIC COMMENTS 12/2024

  • Section of Entire Comment submitted to EEA#/MEPA ID 16692: The Airport’s current operations have created conditions that cause daily harm to the health and well being of residents due to noise, vibration, air pollution and hours of operation. The FEIR does not address the public concerns raised in comments on the DEIR about the current Airport operations and the ongoing daily harm to residents from noise, vibration, air pollution and hours of operation of non-essential aircraft. The Plymouth Airport is a municipal airport established under Mass. Gen. Laws c. 90, § 51D. It is operated by a 7-member Airport Commissioners appointed by the Town’s Selectboard. As a municipal airport it is authorized to make rules and regulations for the airport’s operation subject to approval by the state aeronautics board yet the Commissioners allow the Airport to operate causing daily harm to residents and the environment. The General Laws of Massachusetts prohibit aircraft from flying so low that it interferes with residents’ use of their homes or that is a manner that is “imminently dangerous” to people in their homes and on their property. The state law, Mass. General Laws, c. 90, § 46 provides: Flight of aircraft over the lands and waters of this commonwealth, within the navigable airspace as defined in section thirty-five, shall be lawful unless at such a low altitude as to interfere with the then existing use to which the land or water or space over the land or water is put by the owner or occupant, or unless so conducted as to be imminently dangerous to persons or property lawfully on the land or water beneath. Yet, residents are documenting the regular, ongoing harm they suffer from the Airport’s operations. This includes incessant “circling” by flight schools over their homes, including flights that are imminently dangerous to people and property and cause ear splitting noise and homes to shake and windows to rattle. Examples of excessive circling aircraft are shown below of flight school planes “buzzing” residents in their homes. These are taken by flight trackers on Apps. Despite calls and complaints to the Airport under its “voluntary noise abatement” policy, the intolerable conditions continue harming both elderly residents in the over 55 mobile home parks around the Airport and the very young children who reside directly under the jets, planes and helicopters flight paths.

    Save the Pine Barrens, Inc./CLWC, Margaret E. Sheehan, environmentwatchsoutheasternma@gmail.com

    Save Massachusetts Forests, Janet Sinclair

    Jones River Watershed Association, Pine duBois, Executive Director, pine@jonesriver.org

    Carver Concerned Citizens carverconcernedcitizens@gmail.com

EEA #16692 - View Admitted and Accepted Comments FEIR