thedrifter
02-24-07, 07:51 AM
Easley Wants Airfield Funds Withheld: Navy Won't Back Off Plans to Locate a Jet Landing Strip Near Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
By Wade Rawlins, The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C.
Feb. 24--Gov. Mike Easley on Friday expressed disappointment that the Navy proposed again to build a jet landing strip beside a national wildlife refuge and for the first time urged Congress to withhold money for the project.
Easley said the Navy's new environmental study shows the Navy remains unwilling to fully consider "reasonable alternatives" despite efforts by his administration to find another site.
"I believe this matter can be resolved, but spending millions of dollars to build the proposed outlying landing field next to a world-renowned wildlife refuge for migratory birds is not an acceptable resolution," Easley said in a letter to North Carolina's congressional delegation. "Congress controls the purse strings for this project, and Congress should withhold funding until the Navy is willing to consider reasonable alternatives."
The Navy has begun assembling 30,000 acres at the site straddling Washington and Beaufort counties to build the $231 million runway. Earlier this month, it submitted a request to Congress for $10 million to continue acquiring land and planning for the site.
The site is about five miles from Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge hosts about 100,000 migratory waterfowl each winter, including flocks of tundra swans and snow geese, plus a small population of endangered red wolves.
Opponents have argued that the aircraft noise would harm wildlife and expose pilots to the risk of bird-plane collisions.
A court-ordered supplemental environmental study, released Friday by the Navy, reaffirmed that the site remains its choice for training pilots to land on aircraft carriers.
Squadrons of F/A-18 Super Hornets based at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia and at Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station in Havelock would use the runway to practice the landings.
Environmental groups and the two counties had successfully challenged the plan in court, arguing that the Navy's initial study did not adequately consider the environmental harm of the airstrip. A federal court ordered a more thorough environmental study.
The Navy's new environmental report acknowledges that since its earlier studies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has documented increases in the red wolf population. Wildlife biologists recorded eight red wolves using the proposed landing field site and 32 more wolves on lands bordering the site. The Navy said it would work with Fish and Wildlife officials to lessen the harm to animals.
The study said the aircraft activity would bring some unavoidable run-ins with waterfowl inhabiting the area, but they would be minor. It said the aircraft noise would cause only minor disturbance to waterfowl, because they would get accustomed to it.
The Navy's plan calls for using approximately 2,000 acres in the core area that includes an 8,000-foot runway and a five-story traffic control tower. The remaining 28,000 acres would serve as a buffer. Rather than buying all 30,000 acres, the Navy may buy land use rights and allow some residents to continue living there. The airfield would have about 31,650 military aircraft operations a year.
The new study said the Navy would convert cropland in the 2,000-acre core area to turf grass, reducing its attractiveness to waterfowl.
Nearly 17,000 acres of the surrounding area are now planted in corn and soybeans. The Navy would also control what crops are planted on that land to remove the food supply and foraging habitat that attracts wildlife.
"Winter wheat is a key attraction for the waterfowl," said Dan Cecchini, a biologist for the Navy. "That is the attraction for swans."
Cecchini said the Navy might allow farmers to grow corn and soybeans but require them to plow under the stalks after harvest to avoid leaving food in the fields.
With proper land management, the study predicted, waterfowl would use other areas for foraging and potentially modify their flight patterns to avoid flying across the airstrip.
The Navy said the land management plan would minimize the risk of collisions between birds and aircraft.
"There is certainly enough foraging habitat elsewhere around the refuge to support the birds," he said.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it was unclear whether the increased noise and loss of foraging habitat would cause a decline in the waterfowl population at the refuge.
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING
The Navy's position drew a variety of responses from residents, state leaders and environmental groups.
"I think the bottom line here is greed more than need," said Fred Howell of Pinetown, a farmer who would lose up to 2,000 acres of farmland to the airstrip. He said farmers have been concerned that the Navy was not examining alternative sites. He said the Navy's request for money for the Washington site showed its lack of objectivity.
"I'm certainly disappointed with the decision, and I'm deeply concerned that the Navy continues to resist fulfilling its obligations to engage in a clear, full, fair and objective process carried out in the light of day," Congressman G.K. Butterfield, whose district includes Washington County, said in a statement. Butterfield said the Navy fulfilled its court-ordered obligation to conduct more analysis of the site but also chose not to re-examine the original screening process or consider sites beyond the five in North Carolina it originally evaluated.
"I am very much aware of the concerns North Carolinians have expressed about the Navy's proposed OLF, and I will closely review and assess the draft study," Sen. Elizabeth Dole said in a statement. "I urge North Carolinians to present their views during the public comment period, and I call on the Navy to thoroughly consider the concerns of my constituents."
'I will be working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress carefully scrutinizes this proposal and the risks it may hold for our sailors and Marines and for the state of North Carolina," said Congressman David Price. "I have yet to be convinced that the Navy is willing to work in good faith with the state on its OLF site selection process."
"Today's release of the Supplemental Environmental Impact survey is one more step in the process to determine the proper site for the Outlying Landing Field," said Laura Caudell, press secretary for Sen. Richard Burr. She said Burr recognized the importance of the Navy's ability to train pilots as long as it followed the law in pursuit of a training site. He also recognizes the need to protect the rights of citizens in North Carolina and for environmental stewardship of our state, she said.
"This document, once again, proves the Navy will never take a serious or objective look at the environmental impacts of its landing field or suitable alternative sites," said Derb Carter, attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represents the environmental interests in the case against the Navy's proposal. "North Carolinians must turn to their elected officials to end this foolishness once and for all, and spare this area an unnecessary project that is environmentally and economically damaging."
'The only reasonable solution is for this Congress to not only remove funding for any OLF in Washington and Beaufort counties, but to provide the funding and directive to the Navy to construct an alternative facility elsewhere," state Senate leader Marc Basnight said in a letter to the congressional delegation. "As I have stated many times in the past, North Carolina is a proud military state that would welcome an OLF at a more suitable location."
Staff writer Wade Rawlins can be reached at 829-4528 or wrawlins@newsobserver.com.
Ellie
By Wade Rawlins, The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C.
Feb. 24--Gov. Mike Easley on Friday expressed disappointment that the Navy proposed again to build a jet landing strip beside a national wildlife refuge and for the first time urged Congress to withhold money for the project.
Easley said the Navy's new environmental study shows the Navy remains unwilling to fully consider "reasonable alternatives" despite efforts by his administration to find another site.
"I believe this matter can be resolved, but spending millions of dollars to build the proposed outlying landing field next to a world-renowned wildlife refuge for migratory birds is not an acceptable resolution," Easley said in a letter to North Carolina's congressional delegation. "Congress controls the purse strings for this project, and Congress should withhold funding until the Navy is willing to consider reasonable alternatives."
The Navy has begun assembling 30,000 acres at the site straddling Washington and Beaufort counties to build the $231 million runway. Earlier this month, it submitted a request to Congress for $10 million to continue acquiring land and planning for the site.
The site is about five miles from Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge hosts about 100,000 migratory waterfowl each winter, including flocks of tundra swans and snow geese, plus a small population of endangered red wolves.
Opponents have argued that the aircraft noise would harm wildlife and expose pilots to the risk of bird-plane collisions.
A court-ordered supplemental environmental study, released Friday by the Navy, reaffirmed that the site remains its choice for training pilots to land on aircraft carriers.
Squadrons of F/A-18 Super Hornets based at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia and at Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station in Havelock would use the runway to practice the landings.
Environmental groups and the two counties had successfully challenged the plan in court, arguing that the Navy's initial study did not adequately consider the environmental harm of the airstrip. A federal court ordered a more thorough environmental study.
The Navy's new environmental report acknowledges that since its earlier studies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has documented increases in the red wolf population. Wildlife biologists recorded eight red wolves using the proposed landing field site and 32 more wolves on lands bordering the site. The Navy said it would work with Fish and Wildlife officials to lessen the harm to animals.
The study said the aircraft activity would bring some unavoidable run-ins with waterfowl inhabiting the area, but they would be minor. It said the aircraft noise would cause only minor disturbance to waterfowl, because they would get accustomed to it.
The Navy's plan calls for using approximately 2,000 acres in the core area that includes an 8,000-foot runway and a five-story traffic control tower. The remaining 28,000 acres would serve as a buffer. Rather than buying all 30,000 acres, the Navy may buy land use rights and allow some residents to continue living there. The airfield would have about 31,650 military aircraft operations a year.
The new study said the Navy would convert cropland in the 2,000-acre core area to turf grass, reducing its attractiveness to waterfowl.
Nearly 17,000 acres of the surrounding area are now planted in corn and soybeans. The Navy would also control what crops are planted on that land to remove the food supply and foraging habitat that attracts wildlife.
"Winter wheat is a key attraction for the waterfowl," said Dan Cecchini, a biologist for the Navy. "That is the attraction for swans."
Cecchini said the Navy might allow farmers to grow corn and soybeans but require them to plow under the stalks after harvest to avoid leaving food in the fields.
With proper land management, the study predicted, waterfowl would use other areas for foraging and potentially modify their flight patterns to avoid flying across the airstrip.
The Navy said the land management plan would minimize the risk of collisions between birds and aircraft.
"There is certainly enough foraging habitat elsewhere around the refuge to support the birds," he said.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it was unclear whether the increased noise and loss of foraging habitat would cause a decline in the waterfowl population at the refuge.
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING
The Navy's position drew a variety of responses from residents, state leaders and environmental groups.
"I think the bottom line here is greed more than need," said Fred Howell of Pinetown, a farmer who would lose up to 2,000 acres of farmland to the airstrip. He said farmers have been concerned that the Navy was not examining alternative sites. He said the Navy's request for money for the Washington site showed its lack of objectivity.
"I'm certainly disappointed with the decision, and I'm deeply concerned that the Navy continues to resist fulfilling its obligations to engage in a clear, full, fair and objective process carried out in the light of day," Congressman G.K. Butterfield, whose district includes Washington County, said in a statement. Butterfield said the Navy fulfilled its court-ordered obligation to conduct more analysis of the site but also chose not to re-examine the original screening process or consider sites beyond the five in North Carolina it originally evaluated.
"I am very much aware of the concerns North Carolinians have expressed about the Navy's proposed OLF, and I will closely review and assess the draft study," Sen. Elizabeth Dole said in a statement. "I urge North Carolinians to present their views during the public comment period, and I call on the Navy to thoroughly consider the concerns of my constituents."
'I will be working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress carefully scrutinizes this proposal and the risks it may hold for our sailors and Marines and for the state of North Carolina," said Congressman David Price. "I have yet to be convinced that the Navy is willing to work in good faith with the state on its OLF site selection process."
"Today's release of the Supplemental Environmental Impact survey is one more step in the process to determine the proper site for the Outlying Landing Field," said Laura Caudell, press secretary for Sen. Richard Burr. She said Burr recognized the importance of the Navy's ability to train pilots as long as it followed the law in pursuit of a training site. He also recognizes the need to protect the rights of citizens in North Carolina and for environmental stewardship of our state, she said.
"This document, once again, proves the Navy will never take a serious or objective look at the environmental impacts of its landing field or suitable alternative sites," said Derb Carter, attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represents the environmental interests in the case against the Navy's proposal. "North Carolinians must turn to their elected officials to end this foolishness once and for all, and spare this area an unnecessary project that is environmentally and economically damaging."
'The only reasonable solution is for this Congress to not only remove funding for any OLF in Washington and Beaufort counties, but to provide the funding and directive to the Navy to construct an alternative facility elsewhere," state Senate leader Marc Basnight said in a letter to the congressional delegation. "As I have stated many times in the past, North Carolina is a proud military state that would welcome an OLF at a more suitable location."
Staff writer Wade Rawlins can be reached at 829-4528 or wrawlins@newsobserver.com.
Ellie