[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Charlotte Observer Editorial
- To: carolina birds <carolinabirds@duke.edu>
- Subject: Charlotte Observer Editorial
- From: Len/Esther Pardue <eljeep@mindspring.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:57:46 -0400
- Delivered-to: pardo@metalab.unc.edu
- Sender: carolinabirds-owner@acpub.duke.edu
Knowing Carolinabirders' love of controversy, I wanted to call
attention to The Charlotte Observer's bird-based opposition to
construction of a Navy landing field in eastern NC. Folks with views
on this issue may want to write their local newspapers. The
Observer's second editorial on the subject is copied below.
Len Pardue, Asheville NC
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.