NO!!!! to the OLF (Outlying Landing Field)

NAVY CONTRACT SCIENTIST REVEALS GREAT CONCERNS OVER
PROPOSED LANDING FIELD NEXT TO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Whistleblower Finds His Research on Severe Safety Issues
Was ‘Minimized’ and Conclusions Are ‘Erroneous’ in Final Study

http://www.audubon.org/news/press_re...ttNavyJet.html

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Tuesday, October 14, 2003 – An expert on bird and aircraft safety issues, contracted by the US Navy to perform studies at a site proposed for a new F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet jet training field, has revealed serious concerns about the use of his research in the Navy's final decision-making. The revelations corroborate National Audubon Society objections to the plan to construct a field within a few miles of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Washington County, North Carolina.

Ronald L. Merritt, former head of bird aircraft strike hazard (BASH) programs for the US Air Force worldwide, worked for the consulting firm contracted to conduct safety studies as part of the Navy's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In addition to personal visits to the six finalist sites, Merritt's team also did a one-month radar survey at the Navy's preferred site in Washington County. This preferred location had received wide criticism among knowledgeable wildlife managers for its proximity to the refuge, winter home for some 100,000 swans, geese, and other large waterfowl.

On September 10, 2003, the Navy issued its decision to base new squadrons of Super Hornet jets at bases in both Virginia and North Carolina and to share training runs at the remote field in between. Audubon, numerous other national conservation organizations, federal and state wildlife experts, and political leaders consistently objected to the Washington County location as destructive to the environment and dangerous for pilots.

In a letter sent to the secretary of the Navy, Merritt notes, “the bird strike issue was minimized in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. … There are very few places in the United States where this level of threat exists.” The text of the letter is attached.

When Audubon and others raised similar concerns, the Navy responded publicly that the research conducted by Merritt and others assured safe operations at the chosen outlying landing field (OLF). Merritt calls that conclusion “erroneous.” “This OLF cannot be operated safely without the use of a sophisticated bird detection system – yet nowhere in the United States is such a radar system operational on a daily basis.”

In his letter to the secretary, Merritt says that “in light of the extraordinary concentration of large flocking birds in close proximity to the Washington County site, and the very limited studies that have been conducted there…the bird strike risk should be revisited and…a safer location considered.”

“It is clear that, unfortunately, the Navy secretary based his decision on incomplete and misleading information,” said Audubon COO Bob Perciasepe. “Given these revelations, Audubon is asking the secretary to review the data and look for a more suitable location for the landing field.”

The National Audubon Society board is considering legal action to contest the decision. Lawyers from Audubon and the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) are already developing arguments in the case.

“The Navy has a duty to fairly characterize the risks and impacts of its decisions, and to honestly disclose those to the public,” said SELC Senior Attorney Michelle Nowlin. “The Navy has failed in the exercise of this essential duty.”

“While a legal case is bolstered by this new information, we'd much rather have the Navy work with our governor and congressional delegation to find a safer field site,” said Chris Canfield, executive director of Audubon North Carolina. “Audubon continues to support necessary training for our troops – just not under such a risky and destructive plan.”

# # #

TEXT OF MR. MERRITT'S LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AND THE GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA

Gordon R. England
Secretary of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20350-1000

Dear Secretary England,

I am writing to you to express my concern with the US Navy proposal to construct and operate an outlying landing field (OLF) near Pungo Lake in Washington County, North Carolina. The recent signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) underscores my conclusion that the bird strike issue was minimized in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. I know that there are many elements that are considered in site selection and that there will always be impacts that cannot be avoided. However, the potential for a catastrophic bird strike at the proposed site near Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge has not been fully addressed. The following should be considered:

The Bird Avoidance Model (BAM), a risk model developed by the US Air Force, forecasts severe bird strike potential for the Washington County site for 50% of the year. There are very few places in the United States where this level of threat exists.

The radar study at the proposed site near Pungo Lake was conducted late in the wintering season when bird populations would be declining. Even so, over a 12-day survey period, the vertical scanning radar detected over 450,000 birds moving through the 24-degree beam. Of these targets, over 40,000 were flocks of large birds, and over 70,000 were identified as large birds. This represents a serious threat to aircraft safety during a twelve-day period at the end of the winter.

The ROD suggests that bird detection radar would be considered as part of the bird strike mitigation program. This OLF cannot be operated safely without the use of a sophisticated bird detection system – yet nowhere in the United States is such a radar system operational on a daily basis. The US Navy does not have operational procedures to integrate bird detection radar into air traffic control.

I have been aware of the severe bird strike hazards facing military pilots flying in this region since 1988 when I was assigned as Chief of the Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Team at the Environmental Engineering Division, Headquarters United States Air Force, at the Pentagon (my resume is attached). To address this concern I worked with the Air Combat Command to conduct a two-year study at the Dare County Bombing Range in 1994. The results of that study resulted in an area-specific bird avoidance model (BAM) to assist aircrews in identifying periods of time when bird activity at the range could be hazardous. During that study, the biologists who were assigned the task of tracking birds and developing the risk model became familiar with many of the factors that contribute to the complex dynamics of bird movements in the region. Daily changes in weather patterns as well as the seasonal and yearly changes in agricultural practices made forecasting daily bird movement patterns nearly impossible. The Dare County Bombing Range BAM assisted Air Force pilots in planning periods of time when the range would be safe, but long periods of time still were identified when the range could be plagued with unacceptably high concentrations of birds moving through the area.

In January 2003, I was an employee with Geo-Marine, Inc., an environmental services company that was contracted by the US Navy to review BASH issues at each of the six proposed OLF sites. We also were contracted to conduct a radar survey of birds at Site C, near Pungo Lake, part of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. It was my group that designed and built the mobile radar system that was deployed to the site in February 2003. Additionally, I was responsible for developing the survey protocol for the radar study and preparing the draft report. When initially contacted about this study by the Geo-Marine staff at Newport News, Virginia, I was concerned with how late in the wintering period the study was to be conducted, as well as the short duration of the surveys (4 weeks). I explained that the study would not be indicative of bird numbers or movement patterns throughout the winter and would serve only to show that the radar system was capable of detecting bird movements in the region.

The project also included a detailed review using the US-BAM as well as on-site evaluations. The BAM study indicated that Site C was severe 50% of the year. Only Site D, near Lake Mattamuskeet, had longer periods of severe ratings (58% of the year). Sites A and B each were severe 49% of the year, while the two sites that were not located in the immediate region indicated a dramatically lower bird strike risk with Site E being severe only 1% of the year, and Site F never reaching a severe rating. The ROD suggests that a severe rating 58% of the year was unacceptably high, and yet considered the 50% severe rating at Site C comparable to the severe ratings at NAS Oceana (31%) and NALF Fentress (36%).

The purpose of the on-site assessments was to identify potentially hazardous conditions that would further exacerbate the bird and wildlife strike hazard concerns. Site D (deemed unacceptably risky) is situated close to Lake Mattamuskeet. Site C is situated within five miles of Pungo Lake (a major wintering area for tundra swans and snow geese). None of the other sites in the study were situated close to such habitats. And yet, only Site D was determined to have unacceptable bird strike risk potential.

The Record of Decision (ROD) and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Introduction of the F/A 18 E/F (Super Hornet) to the East Cost of the United States on which it was based concern me greatly. The written decision suggests that the bird strike risk at the Washington County field site (Site C) is similar to other sites in the area and that a standard Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Plan can be developed to mitigate this concern. This conclusion is erroneous. It completely ignores the data that show that Sites A, B, C, and D are forecast as Severe at almost half of the year and that two sites (D and C) are situated extremely close to areas known to support large populations of wintering waterfowl. The decision also ignores the recommendation that radar should be used if Sites A, B, C, or D are selected and that the use of radar for real-time bird avoidance is still in development and not currently part of naval air operations anywhere in the world.

I understand that there are many factors that are considered in selecting a new OLF and that BASH concerns are only one. I do think, however, that in light of the extraordinary concentration of large flocking birds in close proximity to the Washington County site, and the very limited studies that have been conducted there, that the bird strike risk should be revisited and that a safer location considered. Additionally, a detailed assessment of bird detection radar systems should be conducted to determine the capability and reliability of the systems commercially available.

Sincerely,



Ronald L. Merritt
President, DeTect Inc.


Cc: Governor Michael F. Easley





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.

http://www.wdnweb.com/articles/2003/...ews/news01.txt

http://www.wdnweb.com/articles/2003/...ews/news02.txt

Interior seeks OLF re-evaluation

By BILL SANDIFER Staff Writer
The Daily News has learned that U.S. Interior Department officials have apparently taken heed of concerns expressed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a bureau within the department, regarding the Navy's preference to construct an outlying landing field in Washington County.

In an unexpected 11th-hour move, the department has notified the Navy that it prefers that an OLF not be built in Washington County.

In a Nov. 25 letter from Willie R. Taylor, director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, to Fred Pierson, Atlantic Fleet environmental manager, Taylor says, "The Department of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has concerns with the preferred alternative and believes impacts to National Wildlife Refuge-related waterfowl wintering habitat and certain refuge operations are underestimated by the Navy. We could accept any of several alternatives not currently preferred by the Navy and offer suggestions for a particular alternative."

The letter goes on to cite three points of concern to the agency:


impacts on wildlife, wildlife management and conservation actions at Pocosin Lakes NWR.


compatible land uses, including issues stated above and impacts on ecotourism.


the rejection of sites deemed more compatible with an OLF operation, including Open Grounds Farms in Carteret County.

The letter cites federal guidelines under which North Carolina officials have considered challenging the Navy, according to state officials.

"We are requesting these items be analyzed through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to give the public a better understanding of the alternatives analysis."

Regarding segments of the FEIS, Taylor "acknowledges that (while) some site-specific impacts to waterfowl in the vicinity of the OLF may occur, we believe the summary ... suggesting that birds and wildlife at PLNWR 'would not be affected' by operations at OLF site C is far too conclusive."

Taylor also suggests that noise impacts on waterfowl and other wildlife need to be "better evaluated."

The letter goes on to note the importance of surrounding farmland as "an important foraging area" for migratory birds.

In addition, Taylor underscores concerns expressed by wildlife biologists regarding flight patterns that "occur both during the day and at night and are unpredictable."

Taylor requests that the Navy study the waterfowl database of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to "evaluate noise impacts to waterfowl and wildlife," adding, "We believe the historic record puts the limited data from the Navy's recent observations in their appropriate context. Use of our larger database would improve the accuracy and precision of noise impact modeling. This is particularly important given the addition of holding patterns and approach path locations, both of which are now shown to occur within 0.2 miles of the PLNWR boundary (a change from the Draft EIS to the Final EIS). The Final EIS indicates that, although these flight tracks are represented by single lines on the map, a band would be a better representation since many factors affect the actual flight path. This seems to indicate that approaching aircraft and aircraft in the holding pattern will likely routinely fly over PLNWR."

Regarding land use compatibility, Taylor states, "Since the early stages of this project, the FWS has maintained that the wildlife management land uses adjacent to refuges and other areas managed to attract migratory birds and other wildlife are not compatible with increased low-level air traffic. The site includes parcels that the Department has enabled private landowners to manage for conservation and wildlife. We also remain concerned that this conclusion does not address our previously stated concern about the impacts that operations at OLF Site C will have on visitation at PLNWR. Visitors come to refuges to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as hunting and bird and bear watching. We request the Navy to consider a more detailed analysis of this impact, particularly the peak noise level impacts (which were not a focus in the existing analysis because averages were used)."

Taylor's recommendation that Open Ground Farms -- dropped from the FEIS -- be considered as an alternative site is based on reduced impacts on birds and wildlife as well as other factors including:


the site has the acreage required for an OLF.


reworking the site would actually improve its ecology -- the site is recognized as a source of runoff and pollution by environmentalists -- through wetlands restoration that would "help cure long recognized water quality problems in the Neuse River affecting shellfish populations and would also protect water quality in Core Sound."


the land is owned by a single farm corporation with projected lower acquisition costs.


such a purchase would displace fewer homes and families.

There is one sticking point Taylor notes, and that is air traffic constraints resulting from flights in and out of nearby Marine and Navy facilities, "an issue on which we defer to the Navy's expertise."

The letter concludes, however, "This site may well offer the 'win-win' solution so often sought." Taylor then requests the Navy to reconsider the site.

Failing that, Taylor asks that the Navy re-evaluate the Craven County, Jones County and OLF Atlantic (also in Carteret County) sites, employing NEPA guidelines.

The Daily News will provide a more thorough examination of Taylor's letter and its implications as more details become available.

Will the Navy heed the Interior Department's advisory? See for yourself:
http://www.wdnweb.com/articles/2003/...ews/news01.txt
ARROGANCE and POWER = FLAGRANT ABUSE of CIVIL LIBERTIES.

Roper is a small, predominantly African American town located about 10 miles from the proposed OLF site and right in the line of flight (projected decibels from these flights in this town will be 84.2--somewhere between a food processor and circular power saw . ) How will the children in this town, who are already at risk due to poverty and minority status, ever be able to study with that constant racket going on? The African American mayor of Roper, Bunny Saunders has stated (concerning the OLF): "I never thought I'd have to fight for my civil rights twice in my lifetime."

http://www.wdnweb.com/articles/2003/...ews/news01.txt

OLF bill fails to surface

By BILL SANDIFER Staff Writer




PLYMOUTH -- At 11 a.m. Friday, a diverse assemblage of players gathered at Jerry Beasley's shop on N.C. Highway 32 to delve into constitutional law, state and federal. North Carolina Natural Resource Group attorney Tom Earnhardt was the professor.

Earnhardt went public Friday, unveiling a legislative Scud missile, of sorts, that had been poised for a surgical strike -- a strike he feels could help level the OLF playing field.

A little history

Just four years after Orville and Wilbur Wright put North Carolina in history books as the birthplace of powered flight, the state legislature crafted a law that would grease the skids for any project the federal government cared to place in the state.

In 1907, the general assembly passed legislation -- G.S. 104-7 -- that gave up one tidbit of North Carolina's rights guaranteed in the federal constitution: the state has final say on the granting of "exclusive jurisdiction" over property purchased within the state by the federal government.

That legal patch, applied in 1907, enables an automatic transfer of jurisdiction to the federal government upon purchase or condemnation of land within the state.

A simple swipe with the legislative scalpel had been expected to excise that law from the books -- or at least amend it -- but two special legislative sessions came and went -- and no bill ever surfaced.

"Here we are today, almost a hundred years later," said Earnhardt admitting his frustration. "We gave up the right to have exclusive jurisdiction over any property that's bought by a government agency."

A former professor, Earnhardt called upon his 22 years of experience, and explained how such issues as jurisdiction help level the playing field between the state and the feds.

The Navy, with jet fighters that are as good as gold to local economies, carries considerably more clout than an economically depressed, Tier 1 region of a state heavily dependent upon military largesse.

"I think when 50 square miles is going to be purchased anywhere in North Carolina, we have some concerns and some alternatives," said Earnhardt.

Noting that ex-military officers dominated the head table, Earnhardt once again underscored that the massive opposition that has developed around the state against construction of an OLF in Washington County has nothing to do with anti-military sentiments.

"It's very appropriate now to say, hold it; this is going to have a significant impact on the economy of that region," said Earnhardt.

Many have expressed concerns that the Navy has sought to exploit a segment of the state perceived as powerless.

"It would not keep the feds from buying," explained Earnhardt.

However, repeal or amendment of the 1907 state law would give the state a bargaining chip, he said.

"We're not going to automatically give you the sovereign right over 50 square miles," summarized Earnhardt, "until you talk with us. ... It would have given the governor leverage, the ability to negotiate."

The Navy's perceived aloofness throughout the process, added Earnhardt, has been one of the "most disconcerting aspects of the entire problem." DENR officials have complained, as well, about being kept out of the loop.

That sense of helplessness apparently got wheels turning all the way to the foundation of grassroots opposition.

The germ of the idea, said Earnhardt, was handed to him by a farmer with some interest in matters constitutional.

That germ apparently was safeguarded by the governor's office and provided leavening as it rose through the loaf of the legislature, passing muster even with Eddie Speas, former chief deputy attorney general for the state who has stood his ground among the likes of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Though that loaf has collapsed for the moment, Earnhardt said he's not giving up but is taking the plan public in hopes of providing state leaders with another opportunity to provide leadership.

"We're not being properly represented here," said Plymouth Town Councilwoman Mary Ann Byers, who called for another special session for the end of December.

The Navy's timetable would see serious purchase negotiations beginning in January, although contract real estate agents reportedly may not begin work in earnest until February.

Following many months of serving as legal liaison between Franklin Freeman, the governor's top aide, and a coalition of anti-OLF forces, Earnhardt said a number of factors could have kept the bill from surfacing. One, though, stands out.

"There is fear on the part of some leaders that it might be (perceived as) anti-military," said Earnhardt.

"What could be more anti-military than sending pilots into harm's way?" queried Roper Mayor Bunny Sanders, referring to acknowledged hazards pilots will encounter from thousands of tundra swans and snow geese using nearby Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

Whose law of the land?

Should a special session be called and the 1907 law repealed or amended, the federal right of eminent domain, or condemnation, will not be affected. However, Earnhardt and others working on the matter indicated the Navy might no longer find the Washington County site ideal if local jurisdiction is the law of the land.

"Other states have changed the law by giving that power to the governor," noted Earnhardt.

Back in 1907, the law made sense, he wrote in a recent brief on the topic.

"This language is reasonable in the context of a growing state in 1907 where buildings, such as post offices and courthouses, were required in many towns. It would have been unnecessarily burdensome for each and every transaction to go to the General Assembly for a grant of exclusive jurisdiction."

Earnhardt contends one view indicates the spirit of the 1907 law "was never intended to cede jurisdiction to huge tracts, such as the 30,000 acres sought by the Navy. Under this view that statute itself can be challenged as being unclear and ambiguous."

However, a literal reading of "for all purposes of the government" means the federal government can have its way with the state, to include condemning much of Franklin County, for instance, to make use of large underground granite formations there for nuclear waste storage.

"The latter may be far-fetched," writes Earnhardt, "but the current problem in Washington County cannot be denied."

Many have contended that the extensive, multi-level review process that military base realignments and closures are subject to should also apply to any federal action of such magnitude as taking 50 square miles of land out of private hands and off county tax rolls.

Earnhardt further contends that a minor touch-up in the statute's language would also work fine. The automatic authorization could remain for specific types of federal buildings but could limit the amount of land taken to 50 or 100 acres.

With a name like Earnhardt, it will surprise no one that he treasures his Eastern North Carolina roots.

"I caught my first striped bass in downtown Plymouth," he said. "I've seen the birds here throughout my entire adult life."

Summarizing his brief, Earnhardt supports the need for an OLF. He objects to the Washington County site, however, contending it's "a very old farming community living in harmony with a critical National Wildlife Refuge.

"Contrary to popular belief, this should not be an issue to be decided exclusively by the Navy and Virginia politicians. If G.S. Sec. 104-7 is amended, the General Assembly of North Carolina, or the Governor, could have the final vote."

We urgently need to amend the 1907 statute which gave away North Carolina’s right, granted by the U. S. Constitution, to "consent" to the jurisdiction of federal laws on federal property. We can't wait until May because that will be too late for the state to exercise its legitimate responsibility on the OLF land condemnation purchases. This recently uncovered dangerous State Statute gives away our Constitutional rights and grants the Federal Government automatic "exclusive jurisdiction" over any land it acquires in our state - regardless of the intended purpose.
We’re not just talking about the proposed OLF. Right now because of this statute, if the US government wanted to place a nuclear waste dump in your neighborhood, we would have no power so stop them.

For additional background and details please see: http://www.albemarlecommunity.net/SiteIndex.html


PUT ASIDE YOUR HOLIDAY CELEBRATIONS JUST LONG ENOUGH TO MAKE SIX PHONE CALLS OR FAXES:
Defeating the OLF current OLF proposal depends on it.


Governor Easley
Voice: 800.662.7952 , 919.733.4240, 919.733.5811
FAX: 919.715.3175, 919.733.2120
Ask him to call a special session early in January for the urgent purpose of amending GS 107-4

For all NC Legislators:
Ask them to support call for a special session and to work for the amendment of GS 107-4

Senator Marc Basnight Senate President, Pro tem
phone 919.733.6854, Home office 252.636.6600
FAX: 919.733.8740


Representative James Black Democratic Co-Speaker of House
phone: 919.733.3471, Home office 704.847.9938


Representative Richard Morgan Republican Co-Speaker of House
phone: 919.715.3010, Home office 910.295.4575


Also contact the state senator and representative for your district.
You may need to educate him/her on the issue of GS 107-4 and the OLF.
Contact information is available in your local telephone book or at the link
for these directories:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Senate/Senate.html

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/House/House.html


If you don't know who represents you, you can find out at the following link:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/GIS/Representation/

Thank you,

Philip & Marilyn


Group Leaders Please Forward

North-Carolinians Opposed - to - Outlying Landing Field

Send Your Financial Support To:
The Albemarle Community Network
P.O. Box 701
Edenton NC 27932-0701

For up to date information on the OLF issue:
http://www.AlbemarleCommunity.Net
Please bookmark the page.
Email: NO_OLF@mchsi.com
If you no longer wish to receive these notices send
us an email with "Please Remove" as the subject line.


For up to date information on the NO_OLF issue:
http://www.AlbemarleCommunity.Net
Email: NO_OLF@mchsi.com


The Albemarle Community Network
P.O. Box 701
Edenton NC 27932-0701

More information on our struggle:
http://www.sierraclub-nc.org/chapter...es/fall_03.pdf
"The US Navy has announced plans to build an Outlying Landing Field (OLF) in Eastern North Carolina within 5 miles of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Pocosin Lakes
NWR is a globally significant wildlife
refuge, the winter home to 100,000 large
birds including tundra swans, snow geese,
Canada geese and several species of duck.
The wildlife refuge, lying along the
Atlantic Flyway, provides a critical winter
habitat for these migratory birds, which
are protected by the International Migratory
Bird Treaty. Each of the birds weighs 8 to 20 lbs. The size and concentration of these birds endangers pilots, their aircraft, and people on the ground.... The Navy plans 32,000 landings and
take-offs per year. This translates into one
every 16.5 minutes, day and night, 24/7/
52. The Carrier-based F18EFs, cost about
$50 million each and are the noisiest jets
ever built. They will blanket Washington
County with 70 decibels of noise about four times per hour. On the flight paths, normal conversation will no longer be possible, let alone sleep...
Chris Canfield, Executive Director of Audubon North Carolina,
stated, “[The OLF] is a bad decision based
on a flawed environmental study. Since the
Navy has chosen to fly in the face of
reason and good science, we have no other
choice but to actively pursue legal challenges to stop this unnecessarily destructive plan."
....The proposed site is part of a broader
plan to add new fighter jets at Oceana
Naval Base in Virginia Beach and, to a
much lesser extent, Cherry Point in North
Carolina. Both of those locations would
receive substantial financial benefit
associated with the added planes.
In contrast, the proposed site in
Washington County is a rural, low income,
high minority, agricultural area that would
not receive any economic benefits from
the OLF..."

http://www.wdnweb.com/articles/2004/...ews/news01.txt

Law firm, SELC file suits against the OLF

By BILL SANDIFER Staff Writer




RALEIGH -- In a nutshell, the Navy didn't do its homework.

So contends the civil lawsuit filed Friday by the team from the Charlotte law firm of Kennedy Covington on behalf of Washington and Beaufort counties.

The suit was filed in federal Eastern District Court in Raleigh Friday morning along with a similar suit by the Southern Environmental Law Center whose complaint expands on another issue as well -- military efforts to acquire additional airspace for flight training over Eastern North Carolina.

Following the filing, the groups held a joint news conference to discuss the issues.

"This suit seeks to enjoin the Navy from any further activity related to the construction of an OLF," said Ray Owens, lead attorney for the Kennedy Covington team. "This was not an easy decision. We love our state and our country as much as any other North Carolinian. ... Our citizens have done everything they could to show the Navy that its proposed site is not only an unwarranted economic hardship but also a very real danger to the Navy's pilots and its aircraft. ... This lawsuit is not anti-military but instead pro-common sense."

Speaking for the Southern Environmental Law Center, Chris Canfield, executive director of Audubon North Carolina, said, "Over the past two years, we've been frustrated by the Navy's refusal to listen to us."

Canfield, a former Air Force officer, added he had hoped for "intelligent discussions" with the Navy regarding bird-aircraft strike hazards and environmental issues at the proposed outlying landing field site, located adjacent to the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Washington County.

"There are birds capable of bringing a plane down," he explained of the migratory populations -- up to 100,000 -- including tundra swans, snow geese and Canada geese, that call the refuge home for about half the year.

In addition to the refuge's being a "globally important bird area," Canfield cited military BASH statistics. Since 1980, combined Navy/Air Force recorded bird-aircraft strikes numbered 72,000 and resulted in the deaths of 34 crew members, the loss of 55 aircraft and $810 million in damages.

And those numbers, according to Canfield and Matthew Klope, the Navy's BASH manager, represent only a part of the picture. Many strikes, both contend, go unreported.

"The Navy has sidestepped a real exploration of what they're going to do," said Canfield, referring to the SELC's contention that the military's final environmental impact statement is flawed and inadequate.

Underscoring that contention, Derb Carter, senior SELC attorney, said if the Navy had "accurately disclosed" data collected for the FEIS, "it could not support its decision to put an OLF at this site."

The SELC suit also challenges "an OLF-related decision to establish an expanded area of military airspace over North Carolina," said Carter, who added he doesn't accept the Navy's contention that the siting of the OLF and requests for expansion of military airspace adjacent to the site are unrelated.

The Navy also has contended that, since the addition of some 900 square miles of additional military airspace over Eastern North Carolina and the Outer Banks will have "no impact" on the area, no environmental impact study is necessary.

Carter countered that the proposed new airspace will cover parts of four national wildlife refuges, an area that could experience a daily average of seven hours of low-level combat flight maneuvers throughout the year.

"The Navy has proceeded as if these two proposals are unrelated," said Carter. "That's why we see a need to challenge not only an OLF but also the MOA."

"To claim that they're disconnected is ludicrous when you look at the map," said Canfield. (See Thursday's Daily News for a map.)

Regarding the governor's request for mediation of a dispute between the Navy and the Department of the Interior -- the department, which manages wildlife refuges, contends the Navy's OLF site is unacceptable -- lead attorney Owens said, "Mediation is not required, so the Navy can politely say 'no'; so that's another reason we moved ahead with the filing of the suit."

Attorneys said a response to the request for mediation could be expected within 15 days.

Owens, added that the Navy, after it receives the lawsuit, will have 60 days to respond to the action.

The Navy has characterized the FEIS -- the report at the heart of the suit -- as a "sterling" document that was "exhaustively researched," a contention that both suits dispute.

"I would guess that reasonable people could disagree on how 'sterling' it was," said team attorney Kiran Mehta.

A contingent of Beaufort county residents was on hand for the filing and the news conference.

"I think this is an exciting day, really," said Carolyn Harding, former Beaufort County Commissioner and OLF activist. "It's a great relief to find we are at this point now, and legal action has been taken."

"I think this is the only real progress that's been made in the process," said Beaufort County Commissioner Hood Richardson.

"The future of Eastern North Carolina hinges on this decision," said Kathleen Taylor, one of the leaders of Citizens Opposing Outlying Landing Sites. "I'm grateful and thankful that it's in responsible hands."