Con Com Refers Airport Tree Plan To Cape Cod Commission

CHATHAM – The plan to remove trees to improve safety at the Chatham Municipal Airport would benefit from a review by the Cape Cod Commission. That was the opinion of the town’s conservation commission, which unanimously made the referral last week.

“This is a much larger policy issue than the regulatory questions that we’re dealing with,” con com Chair Janet Williams said. By statute, the conservation commission is charged with reviewing those parts of a project around designated wetlands, and this phase of the airport’s vegetation management plan. That includes a small buffer zone around Bearse’s Pond and a vernal pool and its buffer zone near the southwest end of the runway; and the area around a cranberry bog and Emery Pond on the other end of the runway.

Though additional areas will come under con com review later, the initial notice of intent covers just 1.83 acres of land.

“At its heart, this notice of intent and the vegetation management plan that accompanied it proposes activities that are designed to bring the airport into compliance with existing Federal Aviation Administration safety standards for the aircraft that currently use the Chatham Airport,” Williams noted. The plan, which would be implemented over many years, would remove trees and other vegetation from within 10 feet of the mandated “approach surface,” the glide path at either end of the runway. The con com is holding a series of meetings to consider the request, and visited the site to get “a better understanding of its topography and ecology and what is being proposed,” she said.

Not surprisingly, the con com received a large number of comments about the vegetation plan, which will ultimately include the trimming or removal of some trees on private land. Some have raised concerns that the airport could be seeking to expand its runway or invite larger aircraft to town – something the airport commission denies – and something that’s well beyond the con com’s purview. “It’s not a question that we are going to resolve or even inquire into,” Williams said. The vegetation plan is part of a 2021 airport master plan update that is not before the con com for review.

“So the commentators who expressed the views could be right, could be wrong, we don’t know,” she said. “It’s not relevant to the decisions that we are going to be making here.”

The vegetation plan has been cleared by the state Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and an environmental assessment done by the FAA. Engineer Mark Ottariano of aviation consultant Gale Associates said the project team has been working with the Cape Cod Commission, which advised them to seek a minor modification to their 2005 review rather than seek a new designation of the project as a Development of Regional Impact, or DRI.

“We’ve been on top of this the whole time with the Cape Cod Commission,” Ottariano said.

Williams said the con com has been urged to refer the full vegetation management plan to the Cape Cod Commission, something local boards have the ability to do when projects don’t meet the standards for a mandatory referral. Given that the vegetation plan is widespread and encompasses 53 acres away from wetlands “that we are not reviewing, it’s been the view of this body that somebody other than us should take a look at this plan,” she said.

“It does bother me that our scope is very small when you consider the size of the project overall,” con com member Karen Lattin said. The proposed tree clearing affects a much larger area “than what we have jurisdiction over. But that’s our scope, so we’re stuck,” she said.

The con com voted unanimously to make a discretionary referral to the Cape Cod Commission for the project. Procedurally, the recommendation goes to the select board next, which may choose to hold a public hearing on the matter. The regional commission will ultimately vote whether to accept the referral; if it does, it will hold its own hearings.

The con com vote does not automatically pause its own review, Williams said, “so we will power on in our schedule.” The hearing will continue on Feb. 28, when commissioners will consider the actual impacts of tree trimming in the buffer zones and will discuss the methods proposed for doing the work. Airport critic Michael Tompsett also asked to make a presentation.

Commissioner Eric Hilbert said he has particular concerns about tree trimming around the vernal pool, which is close to the southwest end of the taxiway.

“It needs a canopy in order to survive,” he said.

Consultant Adrienne Dunk of GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., agreed that the location is unfortunate.

“Unfortunately, airports were sited where people didn’t want to farm,” she said. “Many airports in Massachusetts have had upwards of 100 acres of vegetated wetlands cleared for airport management,” Dunk added.

“It was not the vernal pool which was unfortunately located,” Commissioner Elise Gordon said. “Nature put it there.”

Commissioner Mary Sullivan asked what would happen if the con com denied permission for the tree removal.

“Obviously we’re a very small part of this whole process,” she said. “What does the FAA do, and what is the bigger impact to the community?”

“The airport and the town have promised to follow through with these certain [grant] assurances when they take money from the FAA,” Ottariano said. “They would have to pay back the money.”