ALERT:
NAVY PLAN FOR LANDING FIELD THREATENS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 
IN NORTH CAROLINA

UPDATE :  November11, 2003 

Recent editorials from Charlotte Observer and Winston Salem Journal
<http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/7225065.htm>
CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
Posted on Mon, Nov. 10, 2003
Sen. Dole's opportunity

GOP group says better landing site can be found to meet Navy's needs
JIM DIPESO

Here's an opportunity for Sen. Elizabeth Dole, a member of the Armed Services Committee and a friend of the administration, to do a real service for her state. Let her know that you, too, would like to see this bad decision by the Navy reversed. Birds don't vote, but you do.
###

NATIONAL AUDUBON CONDEMNS NAVY DECISION TO BUILD LANDING FIELD ADJACENT TO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Bringing Pilots Face to Face with 100,000 Geese and Swans, Plan is called Bad for Birds by Experts and Likely to Cost the Public Millions in Lost Aircraft

GOVERNOR EASLEY AND SENATOR EDWARDS WEIGH IN 

Navy Announces Decision on OLF in Washington County

As the media is reporting, the Secretary of the Navy has announced the decision to build a landing field (OLF) in Washington County next to the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. It is intended to support 32,000 training flights per year for planes coming from Virginia's Oceana base and North Carolina's Cherry Point.

If you'd like to see the Navy's full "justification" go to :
http://www.efaircraft.ene.com/pdfs/ROD%20Final.pdf

Fact Sheet from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (see more below)

Just a sample of the media coverage:
http://www.reflector.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/08/14/1060837241.00100.8658.0642.html
<http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6476262.htm>
<http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6467680.htm>
<http://www.journalnow.com> see Opinions
<http://www.newsobserver.com/news/triangle/story/2742152p-2541921c.html>
<http://newsobserver.com/editorials/letters/story/2741947p-2541954c.html>
<http://www.herald-sun.com/state/6-377193.html>
<http://www.reflector.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/07/31/1059625885.15255.5044.3557.html>
<http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030730/APN/307300982>
<http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030731/APN/307310828>
<http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2741935p-2541921c.html>
<http://www.wvec.com/>
<http://www.npr.org> , search Morning Edition for July 30 or search under "Roper" for more.

Biologists question OLF's site
http://www.reflector.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/08/14/1060837241.00100.8658.0642.html

Biologists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are questioning the Navy's decision to locate a practice landing field near a national bird refuge in Washington County.

Biologists with the agency's ecological services division in Raleigh are preparing a written response to the Navy's final environmental impact statement regarding the location of 10 F/A 18 Super Hornet squadrons in North Carolina and Virginia.

The statement includes a recommendation that an outlying landing field designed to help pilots practice aircraft carrier landings be located near Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

"It is our mission to work with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitat for the continuing benefit of the American people," agency spokeswoman Patty Matteson said.

"Though the thousands of tundra swan, snow geese and Canada geese that migrate to Pocosin Lakes are not endangered species, we believe that the placement of the OLF so close to the refuge is not in the best interest of the wildlife."

The Navy released the final environmental impact statement in July, and the public has until Aug. 18 to file written responses. The information will be presented to acting Secretary of the Navy Honorable Hansford T. Johnson, who will make a final decision.

Washington County residents, angered by the decision, have asked for a 60-day extension to file comments. The request has not been granted.

Navy Atlantic Fleet Command Admiral Robert J. Natter said the Washington County location is best because it doesn't damage wetlands and is equidistant between Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in Havelock, the squadrons' proposed locations.

The Washington County site is very rural, with no municipal lighting that would interfere with nighttime practice sessions, Natter said.

Opponents say the landing field will disrupt the migratory activities of waterfowl at the refuge and possibly endanger pilots by increasing the risk of bird-jet strikes.

Natter said the Navy has plans for reducing the bird strike risk. He also points out that the Navy has air stations located near other national wildlife refuges.

Matteson said biologists are checking Natter's assertion. The two refuge's they have identified, Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge near Fentress air field in Virginia and Patuxent River Research Center in Maryland, have much smaller bird populations and small size birds, she said.

During peak migration periods, about 100,000 tundra swans and varying geese species occupy Pocosin Lakes, she said.

"We've looked at a lot of the concerns about the proposal for the OLF in Washington County, but from (the) practical sense from having other wildlife refuges near other naval air facilities we believe it is a situation that can be managed," Lt. Scott McIlnay, Atlantic Fleet Command spokesman, said.

While the wildlife service finalizes its statement, Washington County residents continue public protests.

A tractor rally is planned for noon Saturday in the town of Roper. The event, which will feature an exhibit called "Our Lost Farmers," will include speakers from the food-processing industry, farm equipment suppliers and agri-business representatives.
###

THE ISSUE:  The Navy has recommended building a jet landing field just a few miles from a National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina.  The plan threatens the refuge, its wildlife, and the surrounding community.  We only have until AUGUST 18^TH to let the Acting Secretary of the Navy know it is a bad idea and to ask him to consider other options.

The recommendation came as the Final Environmental Impact Statement on proposed basing for the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet aircraft was released July 18.  At risk is the globally significant Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge located on the Albemarle Peninsula of North Carolina.  The refuge is the historic winter grounds for 100,000 large migratory waterfowl, including Snow Geese and Tundra Swans from as far away as Alaska and Arctic Canada.  Bald Eagles, red wolves, and many other significant wildlife species call the area home.

Throughout the EIS process, Audubon and many other conservation groups, state and federal biologists, and even a senior military safety expert warned the Navy of the severe risk of birds hitting planes at the location and the massive disruption to refuge operations and wildlife the 150 low-level flights per day would cause.  To try to "manage" the risks, the Navy has now announced plans to buy-out or condemn 30,000 acres of family farms around the 2,000-acre landing field and make it unappealing to birds.  If that doesn't work, they will harass the birds and even kill them if necessary. Local citizens are in turmoil over the impacts to their communities and livelihoods.

Please contact the Navy Secretary and your congressional representatives to let them know what a bad idea this is.  For quick action, go to Audubon's automated response website:  www.capitolconnect.com/audubon/summary.asp?subject=252

Or, fax your own letter to Acting Secretary Hansford T. Johnson at 703-697-3991; be sure to also alert your senators and representatives so they can make sure the Navy does the right thing and protects our natural heritage and communities.
###
More...

August 7. 2003: The Charlotte Observer
Too noisy in Norfolk
Navy would sacrifice Washington County over jet noise
Admiral Robert Natter, commander in chief of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, has taken strong exception to an Observer editorial opposing his recommendation for a new Super Hornet jet practice landing field near the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern North Carolina.

The editorial described the recommendation as "stupid." On further reflection, we should have said it was nutty as well. It would put the outlying landing field (OLF) in the midst of the winter feeding grounds of up to 100,000 huge tundra swans and snow geese that migrate to the refuge each year. We believe a field there poses significant dangers for the birds and for the aircraft and that other alternatives would be more suitable.

In seeking to put the Navy field in Washington County not far from Norfolk, the admiral argues that it's needed for national security. But the admiral has given another reason in the past. In an Oct. 30, 2000, announcement, he noted that naval flight operations and associated jet noise are of considerable interest to residents of the Hampton Roads area. "It is precisely because of community concerns over jet noise that we are carefully exploring the establishment of an additional landing field to accommodate Super Hornet training," Admiral Natter wrote. Jet noise, eh? Hmmmmmm.

Admiral Natter erred in assuming the environmental impact statement went unread. We read salient portions of it and found it inadequate and unpersuasive. What's more, its assertion that the landing field may benefit the environment because it would alter local land use practices is a prime example of government doublespeak.

An Observer editorial writer has spent considerable time inspecting the refuge and the proposed landing field, and observing the migratory waterfowl on the waters of the refuge, on the wing and upon the feeding grounds where the field would be built. We've interviewed federal, local and state officials about the field and heard the strong objections of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others. Five area counties -- Beaufort, Bertie, Hyde, Washington and Perquimans -- and a number of area towns have opposed the OLF.

Placing the OLF in Washington County no doubt would be good for the Navy, but it's not a good deal for Washington County, the Pocosin wildlife refuge or North Carolina. That area's budding ecotourism industry would be damaged -- for the price, apparently, of the Navy agreeing to put at least two squadrons of Super Hornets at the Marine Corps Air Station in Cherry Point.

The landing field would enable fliers from the Norfolk area and Cherry Point to make a relatively short run to a field in a site relatively unpopulated by humans. But the migratory waterfowl would find their feeding grounds curtailed and their environment considerably altered.

Surely other sites in Eastern North Carolina would serve the Navy's needs -- and not threaten migratory waterfowl or the way of life in Washington County. These sites might be considerably more likely to welcome the Navy. This much is clear: The Washington County site should be off-limits.
<http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6476262.htm>
###

More...
August 6, 2003: From The Charlotte Observer
Navy's claim isn't credible
`Years of meticulous research'? Evidence belies admiral's comment
PHILIP AND MARILYN LANGE

Admiral Robert Natter's reply to a Charlotte Observer editorial, branding as "stupid" his selection of Washington County for an outlying landing field (OLF), was quite a piece of work.

For starters, his claim that the Navy's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for siting the new landing field is the culmination of "three years of meticulous research" doesn't quite hold up. Even if Admiral Natter starts his count at the end of October 2000, when he first announced his search for a new OLF "precisely because of community concerns over jet noise," as he put it then, three years is rather a stretch. Meticulous? Judge for yourself.

The FEIS tells us the Navy began to solicit information from local government leaders at 17 potential sites in April 2001. It is noteworthy that "[the site reconnaissance] surveys were limited to aerial overflights and windshield observations along existing roads which traverse the sites." They then narrowed the "candidate sites" to seven and gave public notification in January 2002. Navy contractors had barely six months for in-depth study of the seven sites before the release of the Draft EIS in July that year. This hardly qualifies as "meticulous" research over three years.

The FEIS information on the hazards of bird-aircraft collisions is also puzzling. The Navy's experts disagreed with years of field observation by local naturalists. They also took issue with the Air Force research data that led to the creation of the bird-aircraft strike hazard program. Even though Air Force bird avoidance model (BAM) expert Jeffrey Short, who developed the bird-strike program, offered his expertise to the Navy, there is nothing in the FEIS that indicates his input was sought. Why? Perhaps because, Short's unquestionable credentials aside, it would be unlikely that his input would support the Washington County Site.

We also know from the FEIS that the Navy did not include the input of the resident wildlife refuge manager or any U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Could it have been that their considerable on-site knowledge was not sought because that federal agency's strong reservations regarding the site was a matter of public record? It appears the Navy's experts declined to seek assessments of the bird-strike hazard from anyone whose view might not support the desired conclusion.

In mid-February 2003, near the tail end of the migratory season and after thousands of tundra swans and snow geese had left the refuge, the Navy contracted with Geo-Marine for just one month of radar sampling. Twenty-eight days of radar observations were averaged, extrapolated and puffed, then passed and praised as sufficient to pass for the usual years of on-site observations.

In our view, it is truly absurd to call this research "meticulous." The observational data was meager and it would seem to even the most charitable mind that the study was made by those who did not disagree with the desired answer. That answer was that the situation was "manageable."

We have no doubt that an organization as mighty as the Navy can indeed "manage" a bird population, but at what environmental and economic cost? And is it a price we and other Americans should be made to pay for Virginia Beach's "community concerns over jet noise"?
<http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6467680.htm>
###

More...
August 5, 2003: From the Winston-Salem Journal
Not Worth it
<http://www.journalnow.com> see Opinions
The Navy wants to buy 30,000 acres in Washington County to build a practice landing field that simulates the deck of an aircraft carrier. The fact that a million or so birds are in the way at least half the year is apparently a minor inconvenience. The Navy believes it can manage the problem by making the area around the landing field less attractive for the waterfowl that stray from nearby wildlife refuges along the Atlantic Flyway.

Americans have shown themselves willing to give up a lot in the post-Sept. 11 drive to make the U.S. homeland more secure. With a slight logical stretch, this proposed airfield could be construed as a part of that effort. The danger, of course, is that in our eagerness for security we wind up giving away what makes life in America worth so much sacrifice.

This project falls into that category.

Yes, the impact on most lives will be minimal and the potential serious damage to the environment is a long-term affair. This is a pretty remote area of eastern North Carolina that the Navy is talking about converting into a simulated aircraft carrier deck.

But the area is the second most important habitat for migratory waterfowl on the eastern seaboard. The first is the Chesapeake Bay, and given the press of development in that neck of the woods, No. 2 is becoming increasingly important.

The Navy is attempting to sell its project to a skeptical, even irate, local population on the grounds that the area economy will be invigorated by 400 construction jobs and the $40 million it will generate. Some 50 full-time jobs and annual spending of $1 million are part of plan.

Many local landowners don't want to sell their land. Environmentalists argue that the noise level of Super Hornet fighter jets making hundreds of touch-and-go landings on the airfield would be disastrous for the waterfowl populations. They characterize the likelihood of birds being hit and causing jets to crash with loss of pilot life as inevitable.

But what's really wrong with this project is the attitude that allows its consideration. Who does the cost-benefit analysis that justifies tearing up 30,000 acres of undeveloped land and threatening a vital waterfowl habitat while spending $40 million in taxpayer dollars to simulate an aircraft carrier deck? What about the interconnectedness of things and the adverse consequences for attempting to dominate rather than accommodate our environment?

One reason the Navy gave for needing undeveloped land was to provide adequate darkness for a ship at sea. Here's an idea. Why not use an aircraft carrier stationed a few miles offshore? No doubt there are some legitimate logistical and financial considerations to that plan. But are they greater than the cost to the environment of the Navy's plan?
###

More...
Friday, August 1, 2003: News & Observer
<http://newsobserver.com/editorials/letters/story/2741947p-2541954c.html>
The Navy, translated

As a former public affairs officer at the Pentagon I have some experience reading between the lines of military communications.

When Adm. Robert J. Natter defended the proposed Washington County location as perfect for a jet training field (July 26 People's Forum letter captioned "A vital training field"), he cited its "low population density, compatible land uses, minimal environmental impact and central location." This is what that really meant:

"Low population density" -- "people without the economic or political clout to fight it."

"Compatible land uses" -- "that is, after the Navy has bought out or condemned thousands of acres of family farmland."

"Minimal environmental impact" -- "the 100,000 swans and geese at the adjacent national wildlife refuge are a safety nuisance and can just fly somewhere else when their historic winter feeding grounds are destroyed."

"Central location" -- "it puts the jet noise far enough from the Virginia base that gets the real economic benefits but close enough to the few token planes in North Carolina that we think will buy the silence of state leaders."

All in all, this was a political recommendation unjustified by the incomplete environmental study that accompanied it.

Chris Canfield
Executive Director
Audubon North Carolina
Chapel Hill
###

More...
From WVEC, Hampton Roads, VA
visit: <http://www.wvec.com/>

It's birds versus planes as N.C. residents fight Navy's Super Hornet plan

07/31/2003

Associated Press

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- Farmers and small business owners caravanned Thursday to the State Capitol to protest Navy plans to build a practice field for jet fighters on eastern North Carolina farmland.

Farmer Ronnie Askew, who would lose about half of his family land to the outlying landing field -- or OLF, said he and his 79-year-old mother don't want to leave their land.

"When your land is not for sale, it's not for sale," Askew said of the Navy's proposal to buy 30,000 acres for the field. "It's not the American way."

Jeannine Saunders, who owns a maintenance business in Plymouth and whose family owns 1,000 acres of farmland, said the citizens want the governor to make a clear statement opposing the field and to support a congressional hearing.

"It's country and I love it," said Saunders, whose property wouldn't be taken for the field. "That land becomes as much a part of you as a member of your family."

Cari Boyce, Easley's spokeswoman, said the request was being evaluated. The governor hasn't taken a position on the practice field, originally proposed in a number of counties. He has suggested the Navy look at sites in Craven County near the base that would receive several squadrons of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets.

U.S. Rep. Frank Ballance, D-N.C., already has stated his opposition to the field in Washington County, said field representative Daniel Mallison.

"The congressman does not see where the economic benefit is," Mallison said, adding that Ballance also has questions about the effect on wetlands and a nearby wildlife refuge.

"He's not trying to dictate to the Navy. He hopes they would reconsider," Mallison said.

Admiral Robert J. Natter, commander of the Atlantic Fleet, recommended that the Navy base jets at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. He also recommended a $40 million OLF for Washington County.

Natter came to North Carolina on Wednesday and ate lunch with some elected officials from counties around the proposed air field. He said he wanted to meet with citizens of the county, as well.

He said the Washington County OLF is equidistant between the two bases and is in a rural area where it will be dark enough to simulate night carrier landings.

The site also didn't have wetland problems and would displace the least number of people, about 74 families. Another site in Craven County that had fewer people on it was ruled out because it had too many wetlands, he said.

Canfield disputed the Navy's assertion that the jets aren't a threat to thousands of swans and geese at a national wildlife refuge five miles away.

"The suggestion that they (the jets) can fly high enough and far enough away is ludicrous," Canfield said.
<http://www.wvec.com/news/military//wvec_military_073103_raleigh_olf_protest.e2248684.html>

More...
Airfield stirs up turbulence
Protesters hope to ground Navy plan

By DANIEL THIGPEN, Staff Writer

The persistent noise and air pollution from Navy fighter jets flying overhead would be infuriating enough. The loss of generations-old farm fields, and possibly livelihoods, is too much for some to fathom.

About 100 protesters, mostly from Washington County in the northeastern part of the state, gathered at the State Capitol on Thursday to voice outrage over the Navy's proposal to build a practice airfield -- called an outlying landing field -- on their land.

For nearly an hour, protesters crowded the streets around the Capitol with dozens of cars, trucks, and minivans decorated with American flags and messages of discontent.

Opponents say the Navy is taking advantage of a poor, struggling area and its people. To them, the site would offer residents only long-term environmental problems and few economic benefits.

Holding red, white and blue posters reading "NO OLF" and wearing shirts bearing the same message, community leaders, farmers and small business owners called on Gov. Mike Easley to help them fight the proposed 30,000-acre project that could force 74 families to relocate.

"Governor Easley, we will support you in defending our way of life," said Brian Roth, the mayor of Plymouth, asking that the issue be taken to Congress. "I believe if America knows, America will care."

Easley's staff met with Navy officials Tuesday and Washington County leaders Thursday about the proposed site. Easley spokeswoman Cari Boyce said that although the governor does support basing planes in North Carolina, he has not taken a stance on the proposed airfield.

Navy officials are trying to decide where to base almost 150 Super Hornet fighter jets that will replace older aircraft. As part of that plan, the Navy wants to build a remote airfield southeast of Plymouth in Washington County so pilots can practice aircraft-carrier landings.

Under the proposal, two squadrons, or 24 jets, would be based at the Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station at Havelock, and 120 jets would be based at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach.

Adm. Robert Natter, commander of the Navy's Atlantic Fleet, officially recommended the option in May and the Navy issued a final environmental impact statement July 18. The Navy is considering five Eastern North Carolina sites for the field, but the statement named the Washington County site as the preferred option.

A final decision from the Navy secretary could come as early as this month .

Ted Brown, spokesman for the Navy's Atlantic Fleet, said if the Washington County site is selected, the Navy will help displaced residents.

"Of course we are concerned for the welfare of citizens in Washington County," Brown said. "We will do everything that we can to help them throughout the process."

Plymouth resident Dennis Bowen says he stands to lose more than 200 acres.

"I've been farming this land ever since I was a little boy," he said during the Thursday rally, fighting back tears. "I want my children to have the opportunity to do the same."

Washington County is the best area for the site, the Navy says, in part because of its central location between the two bases and its low population density. Brown said the Navy will pay fair market value for the land and, if constructed, the field could yield 50 full- and part-time jobs and more than $1 million a year in revenue for the county.

Regardless, Mayor Bunny Sanders of Roper said the Navy cares little about the fate of the Washington County residents.

"Mission accomplished," she said, "we are their victims."
<http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2741935p-2541921c.html>

###
More...

More...
From Texas:

SENT VIA FAX
(703) 697-3991

July 30, 2003

The Honorable Hansford T. Johnson
Acting Secretary of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20350-1000

Re:  Proposed Outlying Landing Field in Washington County, North Carolina

Dear Secretary Johnson,

I had the pleasure of meeting you on several occasions while we were both wearing Air Force uniforms.  Prior to my retirement in 1990, I had the distinct honor of serving with General Bob Herres when he was the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Space Command and the first-ever Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It was nice to learn that one of the Air Force Academy’s first graduates was at the helm of the United States Navy.  Good for you and good for the Navy!  My transition took me to the conservation arena where I am now serving as the National Audubon Society’s state director in Texas.  As a native Texan who appreciates the country’s natural resources, this is my dream job.

I am writing to ask you to delay any decision that will finalize the Navy’s plan to build an Outlying Landing Field (OLF) in Washington County, North Carolina.  Chris Canfield, my counterpart in North Carolina, (and someone else who served as an Air Force officer), and I have discussed the proposed OLF and we are very concerned about the safety-of- flight issues surrounding the proposed landing field.  When I learned that an Air Force aviator was at the Navy’s helm, I decided to appeal to your understanding, experience and insight relevant to the extreme risks involved with the operations of jet aircraft in close proximity to thousands of birds.

During my days in the F-4, I had some interesting experiences operating in circumstances that were not nearly as “bird intensive” as the situation that will exist if an OLF is built in Washington County, North Carolina.  At Hill AFB, we had the ever-present gulls, and at Zaragosa we had the huge vultures that hung around the cliffs on the north side of the range complex.  While I was lucky enough to dodge these birds, lots of pilots were not, and the results were always very costly.  As you know, birds—whether they are 1-pound Ring-billed Gulls or 15-pound Griffon Vultures—can do extreme damage to jet aircraft, and compromise aircrew safety.

Of course, in addition to our concerns with aircrew and aircraft safety, we have serious concerns regarding the birds and other wildlife that inhabit the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.  As I am sure you have been briefed, the Refuge is home to 100,000 large migratory birds, including Snow Geese and Tundra Swans.  The Tundra Swans actually weigh just a little more than those Griffon Vultures we had to dodge at Zaragosa.  However, there is one big difference.  In Spain we were dealing with a small number of birds roosting along the cliffs; in North Carolina we are talking about aircrews having to deal with flocks of thousands of very large birds.  It’s an accident looking for a place to happen and we fear the results will be disastrous for both the aircrews and the birds.

In closing, those of us who serve Audubon are proud of several factors—we are part of a 100-year old organization with a rich heritage and legacy.  It is an organization that always attempts to make decisions based on sound science; examining what is practical, appropriate, reasonable, and possible.  Building an OLF in close proximity to the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge fails all of these tests—it is not a sound science-based decision—and it is not practical, appropriate or reasonable.

Again, I respectfully ask that you delay any decision on this matter.  Please ask the Navy to provide you with alternatives that will be safer for aircrews and be non-detrimental to our natural resources.

Thank you for your kind consideration of this request. 

Sincerely,

Terry W. Austin
Vice President, National Audubon Society                        
Executive Director, Audubon Texas

More...
July 26, 2003: