Tommy Bonds
03-22-2007, 05:50 PM
contact your representatives. we all have a stake in this.:mad:
Navy's Outlying Landing Field (NC)Navy's refusal to reconsider alternative sites for jet landing field threatens wildlife refuge
©Juan Pons
"..we are concerned that the conclusions the Navy has drawn are more definitive than the data can support."
Dale Hall, Director of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, attending a public hearing in North Carolina, March 19. Proving that it will never take an objective look at the environmental impacts of its proposed fighter jet training field, the Navy has once again chosen a spot in rural Washington County, NC, adjacent to a national wildlife refuge for the Outlying Landing Field (OLF). The decision came in a supplemental environmental analysis of the project, ordered by a federal judge as a result of legal action by SELC and others, released February 23.
The Navy is now holding public hearings on the draft analysis, and will accept public comment through April 24 (see schedule).
Following the release of the analysis, NC Governor Mike Easley has taken a strong stand against the Navy’ plans. He has called on Congress to withhold funding, urged hunters across North Carolina to oppose the project, and denounced plans to use poison to control migratory waterfowl and other birds at the site.
“It is important to note that this cannot be characterized as a local issue, the harm will not be limited to the area surrounding the OLF,” Gov. Easley wrote to state leaders. “Because these migratory populations come from as far away as Alaska and western Canada, wide swaths of North America will be affected.”
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is winter home to more than 100,000 tundra swans, snow geese and other waterfowl. The Navy's proposed landing field is just a few miles from the refuge and within feeding areas of the winter birds. The area is also habitat for the world’s only wild population of endangered red wolves. Not only does the project threaten wildlife, the pilots conducting the practice flights – an average of 32,000 a year – would be at tremendous risk from bird strikes.
Calling the impacts of the OLF on waterfowl "moderate" and the impacts on the Pocosin wildlife refuge "minor" - conclusions not supported by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Navy is pressing ahead with the Washington County site. In the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS), the Navy said that local farmers will be prohibited from growing corn, soybeans or wheat - economic staples of local farmers - from 25,000 acres surrounding the site in an effort to force the birds elsewhere. It also outlined plans to use poison, dogs and guns to control the birds.
In 2004, SELC sued the Navy for failing to do an objective review of the need for a new OLF and the environmental impacts of the project, as required by law. Instead, the Navy decided to build the OLF near the Pocosin refuge and only later, according to documents that SELC uncovered, "reverse engineered" the process to justify the location. A year later, US District Court Judge Boyle issued a permanent injunction against the Navy until it complied with the requirement for a comprehensive analysis, a decision upheld by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2005. Those rulings led to the DSEIS.
The presence of the red wolf population – including one pack that has made the proposed site its home - and endangered bald eagles in the area came to light between the original environmental study and the DSEIS. (See red wolf map.) Moreover, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service says the Pocosin refuge saw a record number of tundra swan and snow geese this past winter. In December 2006, during the Navy’s first-ever flyover of the proposed OLF, the Super Hornet pilot had to bank away from a flock of large birds, just missing a collision. Despite the mounting evidence against plans for the OLF, the Navy refuses to change course.
SELC is working harder than ever to stop the Navy from siting the landing field in Washington County near the refuge, one of the most critical habitats for these migratory birds. We are representing the National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation on the issue.
Navy's Outlying Landing Field (NC)Navy's refusal to reconsider alternative sites for jet landing field threatens wildlife refuge
©Juan Pons
"..we are concerned that the conclusions the Navy has drawn are more definitive than the data can support."
Dale Hall, Director of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, attending a public hearing in North Carolina, March 19. Proving that it will never take an objective look at the environmental impacts of its proposed fighter jet training field, the Navy has once again chosen a spot in rural Washington County, NC, adjacent to a national wildlife refuge for the Outlying Landing Field (OLF). The decision came in a supplemental environmental analysis of the project, ordered by a federal judge as a result of legal action by SELC and others, released February 23.
The Navy is now holding public hearings on the draft analysis, and will accept public comment through April 24 (see schedule).
Following the release of the analysis, NC Governor Mike Easley has taken a strong stand against the Navy’ plans. He has called on Congress to withhold funding, urged hunters across North Carolina to oppose the project, and denounced plans to use poison to control migratory waterfowl and other birds at the site.
“It is important to note that this cannot be characterized as a local issue, the harm will not be limited to the area surrounding the OLF,” Gov. Easley wrote to state leaders. “Because these migratory populations come from as far away as Alaska and western Canada, wide swaths of North America will be affected.”
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is winter home to more than 100,000 tundra swans, snow geese and other waterfowl. The Navy's proposed landing field is just a few miles from the refuge and within feeding areas of the winter birds. The area is also habitat for the world’s only wild population of endangered red wolves. Not only does the project threaten wildlife, the pilots conducting the practice flights – an average of 32,000 a year – would be at tremendous risk from bird strikes.
Calling the impacts of the OLF on waterfowl "moderate" and the impacts on the Pocosin wildlife refuge "minor" - conclusions not supported by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Navy is pressing ahead with the Washington County site. In the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS), the Navy said that local farmers will be prohibited from growing corn, soybeans or wheat - economic staples of local farmers - from 25,000 acres surrounding the site in an effort to force the birds elsewhere. It also outlined plans to use poison, dogs and guns to control the birds.
In 2004, SELC sued the Navy for failing to do an objective review of the need for a new OLF and the environmental impacts of the project, as required by law. Instead, the Navy decided to build the OLF near the Pocosin refuge and only later, according to documents that SELC uncovered, "reverse engineered" the process to justify the location. A year later, US District Court Judge Boyle issued a permanent injunction against the Navy until it complied with the requirement for a comprehensive analysis, a decision upheld by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2005. Those rulings led to the DSEIS.
The presence of the red wolf population – including one pack that has made the proposed site its home - and endangered bald eagles in the area came to light between the original environmental study and the DSEIS. (See red wolf map.) Moreover, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service says the Pocosin refuge saw a record number of tundra swan and snow geese this past winter. In December 2006, during the Navy’s first-ever flyover of the proposed OLF, the Super Hornet pilot had to bank away from a flock of large birds, just missing a collision. Despite the mounting evidence against plans for the OLF, the Navy refuses to change course.
SELC is working harder than ever to stop the Navy from siting the landing field in Washington County near the refuge, one of the most critical habitats for these migratory birds. We are representing the National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation on the issue.