Navy plan for jet landing field imperils
planes, birds, and national wildlife refuge
Washington, DC, July 28— A senior Navy official’s
recommendation to build a jet landing field adjacent to a national wildlife
refuge in North Carolina puts at risk planes, 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 Fri., Admiral Robert J. Natter, commander
of the US 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.
Source: Audubon North Carolina
Residents concerned about logging in
Woodfin
By Bridget Nelson
Asheville, North Carolina, July 29 (AGR)— The Woodfin
Sanitary and Water District (WSWD) recently unveiled plans to sell the
timber from their watershed. The watershed is an 1,844-acre tract of
heavily forested land that abuts the Blue Ridge Parkway at the headwaters
of Reems Creek in northern Buncombe Co. It is classified WS-1 by the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR).
This is the most protection offered to a public water source. It restricts
all development and discharge.
The WSWD proposal includes extensive helicopter logging on 710 acres
that drain into the reservoir. This is the source of drinking water
for about 3500 homes. Another 593 acres would be conventionally tractor
logged. The timber sale was set to occur this summer with operations
to begin as early as October and continue for up to seven years. Dave
McGrew, the forester responsible for the logging proposal stands to
make a very large commission from the sale. McGrew is also responsible
for the ongoing logging in the 700-acre Mars Hill watershed. He will
receive $164,250 in commissions over the course of that project. Residents
in Mars Hill say they were unaware of the sale until operations commenced.
If the WSWD sells the watershed timber as planned, McGrew will make
$325,200. The water district stands to make about $4 million, minus
McGrew’s commission. The district will also have to purchase a
piece of property below the reservoir to achieve right of way to remove
the timber. The timber appraisal is based on the removal of every tree
above 15” diameter at breast height, reducing the basal area from
130 ft2/acre to 75 ft2/acre. Basal area is a measure of the cross section
of tree trunks at ground level.
Residents in the Reems Creek valley have raised concerns about heavy
logging traffic. Flooding as a result of lost water retention capacity
in the watershed is also likely. Woodfin residents are asking to be
included in the decision making process. The voters in the water district
technically own the watershed. Together, citizens from both of these
communities have formed a grassroots coalition to stop the timber sale.
Charles Rector, director of WSWD, says that the timber proceeds are
needed for replacing 75-year old waterlines in the district. A citizen
committee has been formed to locate alternate funding sources for the
WSWD infrastructure project. These could include community development
or block grants. Tommy Wyche of Naturaland Trust, a successful, non-profit
conservation organization, has notified the WSWD that the watershed
is a prime candidate for conservation easement money. This money comes
from sources such as the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust
Fund. This agency recently posted a $62 million funding allotment for
FY 2003-2004.
Many people in the community feel strongly that the WSWD should defer
any decision until all of the financial options have been considered.
Informational hearings have been scheduled for Sun., Aug. 3 at 5pm at
the Woodfin Fire Department, 20 New St. and Fri., Aug. 8 at 7:30pm at
the Woodfin Community Center, 14 Penley Ave.
