Airport Tree Removal Defended; Select Board Backs Plan As Necessary For Safety

CHATHAM – Even critics of Chatham Airport and the town’s airport commission acknowledge that trimming trees around the facility makes sense from a safety perspective. Whether there is further motivation behind the trimming project, however, remains a point of contention.
That led some members of the select board to consider the need to improve communications between the commission and community, perhaps through a citizens advisory committee.
“Over the course of years I’ve seen people dig their heels in on both sides and not really be able to come to any sort of agreement or understanding,” select board member Shareen Davis said at the board’s Jan. 27 meeting. “An advocacy group would not be a bad thing to have, but it can’t be completely critical.”
“There’s a huge mistrust issue,” said resident Paula Lofgren, a former airport commissioner. “We need to make this work going forward.”
That’s something the select board should take the lead on, said member Stuart Smith. 
“This has been going on since skydiving,” he said, referring to the activity that galvanized many residents against the airport commission more than a decade ago, “and it doesn’t appear to be coming to any satisfactory conclusion.”
During last week’s discussion, airport commission members defended the obstruction removal project, which calls for the selective trimming and removal of trees on 6.5 acres around the airport. The project was thoroughly vetted by local and state environmental agencies and was required by the Federal Aviation Administration mandate that the town maintain safe approaches to the runway, they said. 
Critics, however, characterized the project as a pretext to expand airport operations by making it easier for larger aircraft and commercial charter services to land and take off at the George Ryder Road facility. Resident Michael Tompsett charged the commission with being “disingenuous” in its reasoning for the “nonsensical” tree cutting program. He asked the select board to end the “rogue airport commission” project that “primarily benefits jets contrary to the safety and the will of the citizens as expressed at town meeting.”
Voters at last May’s annual town meeting endorsed a bylaw that would have limited use of the airport to aircraft with wingspans of less than 49 feet; the bylaw was later rejected by the state Attorney General as being contrary to state law, which rests regulation of public airports with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Voters also rejected $59,175 to cover the local share of the cost of the tree project, but the finance committee later voted to provide the money through its reserve fund. Chair Stephen Daniel said there was unanimous support among finance committee members for the “critical safety maintenance project.” The town could face liability should it fail to maintain a safe approach, he added later.
State and federal funds cover most of the project’s $900,000 cost. Delays in the project increased the cost by $29,000 over the original estimate, said airport commission chair Huntley Harrison.
“This project is focused solely on clearing what is necessary to maintain the airport’s existing visual approach and instruments approach procedures,” Harrison said. The project was approved by the conservation commission, the Cape Cod Commission, and the state Department of Environmental Protection, while last month the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office rejected a petition by several residents for a “fail safe” review of the project.
While critics charge that the airport commission plans to “clear cut” 60 acres of trees, Harrison said the target area covers a total of 6.5 acres on both ends of the runway and will not include clear cutting. Trees will be selectively removed or trimmed based on a vegetation management plan that was approved by the environmental review agencies. Adrianne Dunk of consultant GZA said trees below the target height will remain in place.
Harrison likened the project to dredging harbor channels or plowing snow from roads to maintain access and safety.
“We are committed to the safe and efficient airport operations now and into the future,” he said. “The obstruction removal project is designed to ensure the continued safety of flight approaches, maximizing protection for pilots, passengers and, I’ll repeat, the people in the surrounding community.”
Tompsett said while safety required trimming trees within the current approach, he charged that the tree cutting will allow straight-in instrument landing approaches, which he claimed were more dangerous than the visual approach currently used by aircraft. But the commission has dropped that approach plan, said consultant Matthew Caron, which would have required more clearing, including on Great Hill. 
Instrument approaches have been in place at the airport for many years, Harrison said. The commission is discussing with the FAA whether a straight-in instrument approach under the current plan would be allowed, he added. 
DeeDee Holt of the Friends of Trees was concerned that the tree work be done responsibly and in compliance with a tree bylaw recently passed by town meeting. 
“Whether the acreage is six or 60, our same concerns apply,” she said. The bylaw does not prohibit tree removal but requires that tree work be done with “the utmost care,” she said, and be monitored by the tree warden. The town has lost hundreds of trees to development in recent years.
“Chatham should protect and preserve every acre of woodland it can,” she said.
Trees around a vernal pool within the project area will be hand cut, and for each tree removed $70 will be contributed to a fund to plant trees elsewhere, Dunk said. An environmental monitor will keep tabs on the project and reports will be filed with the conservation commission as required under the notice of intent issued for the project, she said.
Holt said she was satisfied that the concerns were addressed, although she was “disappointed” by the $70 per tree replacement fee, which is low for trees of substantial size.
Select board vice chair Jeffrey Dykens supported the project but wanted to “make sure it’s done right.” He asked the commission to consider trimming and topping rather than removing trees. “I think we have to be careful in our work,” he said.
The board should consider the overall relationship between residents and the airport, he added. Other board members shared the concern; Cory Metters called for a “clear plan” for better communications among the board, the commission and residents to “collectively make a better process.”
It’s incumbent on the select board to take the leadership role beyond the tree issue, said Smith. Chair Dean Nicastro agreed, saying a citizens advisory committee would be “constructive.”
But he was also firm that the town has a legal obligation to maintain a safe airport and expressed concern for the town’s liability should there be an accident related to the failure to trim trees.
While the select board did not take a formal vote, there was a consensus that members supported the obstruction removal project. A start date for the project has not yet been scheduled, according to Harrison, but it could tentatively begin in November.