Originally Posted by Bill Harris
Years ago under "mid-2000's" Wetland Regs you could "exchange" wetland areas-- if you had a wetland area that you needed to develop, you could rehabilitate or "adopt" another wetland of equal value through a complicated Federal tapdance. So they are not locked into having to not use the protected wetlands and there is way out. And if the neighboring cities objected, which they could reasonably do, the objection could be overruled on the basis of safety concerns at this airport demonstrated by this incident. I'm all for saving Bugs and Bunnies, but I'm more for saving human lives.
First of all, the area in question is outside the airport boundary. Second, you are not talking about a little wet area, but a river and associated marshy areas. Where would you propose to put the
adopted wetland? Also consider that this area feeds municipal wells that provide public drinking water.
When the runway was lengthened many decades ago, there were much fewer protections against wetlands areas and that was as far as anyone could realistically go even at that time with few environmental protections. If there are truly safety concerns, the local towns of Lincoln Lexington Bedford and Concord would be happy to support closing the runway, or at least closing it to jets and/or aircraft in excess of 12,500 lbs gross. If you say that the needs of $40 million jet owners outweigh the local needs of the town and environment, please be prepared for a very long/strong fight by the local towns (and remember they are your opponent, not me).
Remember these are the same towns that objected and nearly succeeded in preventing tree toppings/removal of trees situated
on airport property that were infringing on the flight path to Runway 23.