New Bedford Airport Extension
For more information on the expansion: www.airport-technology.com/projects/bedford/index.html
An article, "Airfield of Dreams", by Heidi Roddis, Policy Specialist for Mass. Audubon, Sanctuary Sept/Oct. 1995.
New Bedford Airport is surrounded by wetlands. The 1,100-acre Acushnet Cedar Swamp abuts the airport to the north, and another large swamp, the Apponogansett, surrounds the southern portion. Acushnet is a National Natural Landmark, managed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and is one of the largest Atlantic white cedar swamps remaining in Massachusetts; it is considered a Unique Resource Zone. The swamp provides habitat for several different plant and animal species listed as rare or threatened by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program.
Apponogansett Swamp is home to the spotted turtle, a species of special concern, and also a threatened plant - swamp oat - so rare in Massachusetts that only three other remaining locations are known, all on Cape Cod. Both swamps are headwater areas of the Paskamansett River, which supports an anadromous fish run and feeds an aquifer providing public water supply to the town of Dartmouth.
The New Bedford Airport Commission has proposed expanding the main runway 3,000 feet, for a total length of 8,000 feet to accommodate large jet aircraft. The proponents of the project are hoping that building such a facility will spur economic revitalization for New Bedford and the surrounding area.
The likelihood that this huge construction project will actually achieve an economic turnaround is uncertain. What is certain is that the New Bedford project would have huge impacts on the environment, including the largest wetland fill proposed since the state wetlands protection regulations were promulgated in their present form in 1983. The Massachusetts Audubon Society, Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club, Green Futures, Friends of the Freetown State Forest and other organizations across the state and in southeastern Massachusetts oppose this project. This position was taken not to thwart New Bedford's efforts to rebuild its economy but to prevent destruction of critically important natural resources.
The original construction of the New Bedford Airport and surrounding roads and industrial facilities involved considerable wetland filling. But that was before we knew the important values of wetlands for protecting water quality, preventing flood damage, and preserving the integrity of whole natural systems. The current proposal for the runway extension would thrust right through the center of the Apponogansett Swamp, directly filling 58 acres of red maple wetlands, up to bank of the Paskamansett River. In addition, trees in another 180 acres would be removed, and the areas would be permanently managed to prevent regrowth of tall vegetation that might pose a hazard to airplanes landing or taking off from the airport. The Apponogansett Swamp system would be virtually cut in half and would receive large increases in stormwater runoff from the enlarged runway. While the project would not directly alter the Acushnet Cedar Swamp, planes would be flying over it, and drainage and water quality from surrounding areas into the swamp might be affected.
The airport's consultants have proposed creating a replacement wetland in a gravel pit adjacent to Acushnet Cedar Swamp, installing a drainage control system at the airport, and restoring surrounding wetlands affected previously by filling or pollution. Massachusetts Audubon believes that this will be inadequate at best. Wetlands are highly complex systems, developed over long periods of time and involving an intricate relationship among hydrology, soils, and vegetation. It is not possible to simply pick up a wetland in one location, move it to a different part of the watershed, and expect it to continue to perform the same functions for flood control, water quality and wildlife habitat. A 1989 study by the US Army Corps of Engineers found that 40% of wetlands creation or "replication" projects fail in Massachusetts. Also, in regards to the drainage system which may reduce the direct pollution reaching the remaining wetlands, there will still be more pollution from roads and secondary developments. And there is really no practicable way to replace the lost flood storage capacity within the same portion of the Paskamansett watershed system. Not only are these ideas inadequate, they are inappropriate anyway because of the lack of a clear showing of project need or an analysis that would avoid the wetlands.
"We need wetlands,
not a runway" by Tim Bennett.
(New Bedford Standard Times article 1/7/99)
As an environmental group based in Southeastern Massachusetts, Green Futures is committed to preserving the Apponogansett Swamp and other local wetlands. Wetlands are sources of food that support fish and wildlife populations, storage basins for flood waters and providers of habitat for species that are becoming increasingly threatened here in Southeastern Massachusetts.
Most importantly, our wetlands are sources of clean water downstream. Many communities in this region have already learned about the high cost of cleaning up wetlands, rivers, and estuaries once they are polluted. The Apponogansett and other wetlands in the vicinity of the New Bedford Airport are more valuable to our communities than an extended runway.
Extension of the runway is not needed or justified. The airport's existing 5,000 foot runway can accommodate passenger planes and small cargo transport planes. What it currently cannot accommodate is jumbo jet service. Jumbo jet service for cargo and passengers is available at Logan Airport and at Green Airport in nearby Rhode Island.
To convince us that the proposed runway extension could work, Jason Cotrell and Associates (the city's consultants) identified an overly broad "market area" to supply air cargo. This area included Rhode Island, as well as communities around Route 128.
Why include areas that already have easy access to existing air transport service? The answer is obvious. Without diverting business from other airports, New Bedford Airport will not attract enough cargo to keep a single 737 cargo transport plane running daily. In fact, even with Rhode Island cargo, the consultants' report predicts only 1 to 2 planes departing daily.
Even with a runway shortened to 6,300 feet, portions of the Apponogansett Swamp will be altered and water quality downstream in the Paskamansett River will be compromised. New Bedford should not destroy natural resources for a purely speculative venture.
Wetland destruction is not allowed by the Clean Water Act. The federal guidelines for review of permits to alter wetlands prohibit activities which will "cause or contribute significant degradation." No filling is permitted if there is an alternative which "would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem."
The practicable alternative in this case is clear: Continue to utilize the existing facilities at Logan and Green. At the same time, make a thorough investigation of ways to enhance the use of New Bedford Airport utilizing the existing runways, such as expanded service to the Cape and Islands and adding service to Newark or other destinations.
It is time to concentrate on economic development projects for New Bedford and surrounding communities that enhance the area's quality of life index and which leave our environment healthy and intact.