[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fw: NAVY Actions - Update



Howdy!

I was very upset when I read the newspaper articles that Juan posted
earlier, especially since there was NO mention of the harm to birds.
Below you'll find an email I just received from Chris Canfield, Director
of Audubon NC. Come on Carolina birders (actually, all birders!), let's
rally around this issue to protect our birds!!

Joe and I, along with many other Triangle area birders, are going in
search for kites tomorrow.

Happy birding!! Karen Bearden
Raleigh, NC
chickadeebirders@earthlink.net


Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 5:50 PM
Subject: NAVY Actions - Update


Just so you know what is going on with Audubon to stop the Navy plan for
a landing field right next to Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in
NC:

We are working on all fronts right now.

*Monday I did a long interview with NPR that may be part of a piece on
Morning Edition or All Things Considered early next week. (Latest word
is that birds/safety will now be minimal if any of this piece -- they
will focus on environmental justice issues, but perhaps a mention).

*Today we dropped the below national news release out of the DC office
to every major national and state outlet, taking on Admiral Natter's
recommendations and justifications pretty directly.

*This release will be a feature on the national web page, it will go out
on chapter e-news across the county, and to all Audubon staff.

*Then I'm preparing an advisory, with action steps (probably comments to
Sec Nav and congressional reps), for the Aug 1 Audubon Advisory that
will go nationwide. I'll share with all sources in NC, too, and ask it
be passed along.

*And NY office is preparing an op-ed on this for either John Flicker or
the head of the DC office to sign.  This will be marketed to national
newspapers.

*I'm in Plymouth, NC, tomorrow with a 2-state Roanoke River Basin
Association meeting to rally them around the issue.

*We are reviewing legal challenges with the Southern Environmental Law
Center and our national Audubon legal staff.  We will be looking for
compatible organizations to join in the suit if it comes about.

*And we will be working Congressional contacts to challenge this from a
political level.

It is by no means over.  We have only just begun to fight.  Stay tuned.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris Canfield
Executive Director
Audubon North Carolina
410 Airport Rd.
Chapel Hill, NC  27514
919-929-3899/fax: 919-929-4599
email: ccanfield@audubon.org
*****************************************
AUDUBON

Contact: Chris Canfield
919-929-3899
ccanfield@audubon.org

NAVY PLAN FOR JET LANDING FIELD IMPERILS PILOTS, BIRDS,
AND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Final EIS Insufficient for Admiral's Recommendation, Audubon Charges

Washington, DC, July 25, 2003 - A senior Navy official's recommendation
to build a jet landing field adjacent to a national wildlife refuge in
North Carolina puts at risk pilots, birds, and a national treasure, the
National Audubon Society stated today.  Audubon also found insufficient
grounds in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of the plan to
justify such a recommendation.

Citing the "Global War on Terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom" in a
letter released to media last Friday, Admiral Robert J. Natter,
commander of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, said an Outlying Landing Field
(OLF) was necessary to support new F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet aircraft
proposed for bases in Virginia and North Carolina.  Admiral Natter
recommended the OLF be placed in Washington County, North Carolina, just
three miles from the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

The Pocosin Lakes Refuge is home to as many as 100,000 large migratory
birds, including snow geese and tundra swans.  These birds flock to the
refuge each winter to feed and rest before migrating back north to
places as far away as Arctic Canada and Alaska.

Throughout the EIS process, biologists, wildlife managers, and even a
senior military safety expert stressed to the Navy the extreme risks of
these birds to pilots and the distress to refuge populations the jet
field and activity would cause.   Yet Admiral Natter failed to mention
the issue, instead praising the Washington County site for its
"compatible land uses [and] minimal environmental impact."

"There is nothing compatible between a fast-flying military jet aircraft
and thousands of 17-pound tundra swans," said Audubon North Carolina
Executive Director Chris Canfield.

The Navy proposes buying or condemning up to 30,000 acres around the
2,000-acre landing strip.  The Final EIS asserts that birds can be
banished by eliminating feed crops and by using radar, noisemakers, and
lethal means to predict and control the movements of the flocks.

"The Navy spent only a few days here at the peak season and set up radar
tracking for less than a month as the flocks were on the way out,"
Canfield said.  "The biologists who have decades of experience with
these birds tell us that trying to predict and control their movements
is not possible.  Swans are notoriously unpredictable and fly as far as
20 miles to feed in a day, right in the proposed paths of the Navy
planes."

In April, one of the military's leading safety experts, retired Air
Force Colonel Jeffrey Short, warned the Navy that placing the field so
close to the wildlife refuge could have "disastrous results." The
"father" of the computer-based Bird Avoidance Model used by the Navy in
justifying its siting, Short stated that "in 25 years of dealing with
military BASH [bird-aircraft strike hazards] issues, I cannot recall a
worse place to situate an airfield for jet training."

"Our military deserves the best and safest opportunities for training,
but neither Admiral Natter's inflated language nor the final EIS justify
risking a national wildlife treasure and the lives of pilots to put a
field at this location," said Bob Perciasepe, Senior Vice President of
Public Policy for Audubon.  "The Navy has other options that are safer
for their pilots and less damaging to America's great natural heritage."

Almost three years earlier, Admiral Natter initially justified the
building of a remote landing field to answer the noise complaints of
Hampton Roads, Virginia, residents who live near Navy bases and fields.
In an October 2000 letter to a local group, Citizens Concerned About Jet
Noise, the admiral stated that "It is precisely because of community
concerns over jet noise that we are carefully exploring the
establishment of an additional outlying field to accommodate Super
Hornet training."

"This earlier letter calls into question the reasons for the Admiral's
current recommendations," Canfield said.  "It now appears that politics
may be holding sway over true military needs and safety, not to mention
the safeguarding of a national wildlife refuge."

Audubon is requesting Acting Secretary of the Navy Hansford T. Johnson
to delay his decision and look for better solutions than the OLF
proposed - sites and approaches not considered in the EIS.   North
Carolina Governor Michael F. Easley made a similar request in a May 2003
letter to the secretary.

Audubon and other conservation groups are exploring legal challenges to
the plan and the EIS should the recommendations be acted upon.

Audubon is dedicated to protecting birds and other wildlife and the
habitat that supports them.  Our national network of community-based
nature centers and chapters, scientific and educational programs, and
advocacy on behalf of areas sustaining important bird populations,
engage millions of people of all ages and backgrounds in positive
conservation experiences.

#   #   #