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

Senator John Warner from Virginia has a BIG deal to do with this. Virginia will get 8 squadrons of the new F-18EF's and Cherry Point (further south of us) will get two. All we will get (IF the Navy succeeds with its sinister plans--which they will NOT) will be noise and pollution, economic ruin and total destruction of our quality of life.
Whoever is ultimately behind this, this is being done because we are viewed as an easy target (weak politically, poor economically, rural, mostly minority).
The Navy and powerful political forces are WRONG. We are NOT the easy target they reckoned. We will fight to the very last for our existence, and most importantly, our GOD will fight for us.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...528&ran=148207

N.C. landowners upset with Navy’s plans
By CHERYL JOHNSTON, The Virginian-Pilot
© January 11, 2004

PLYMOUTH, N.C. — The ceremony had guests, the mayor and a ribbon-cutting, but it was not your typical groundbreaking or grand opening.

In a soybean field on the outskirts of this northeastern North Carolina town, a local farmer officially opened a tent city Saturday – complete with a dozen tents, a handful of campers and RVs, a few tractors, a couple of grain trucks and two homemade F/A-18 Super Hornet models mounted on trailers.

The tent city was the focal point of a weekend-long protest against the Navy’s intent to build a practice airfield here.

Many landowners and farmers are upset with the Navy’s plans for the airfield, which would be used by new jet squadrons that are to be housed in Virginia Beach and Cherry Point, N.C.

The Navy wants to purchase the 30,000 acres to give the outlying landing field, or OLF, a large buffer. Much of that acreage is farmland, some of which has been in families for up to five generations.



See the complete Pilot, exactly as in print
- View stories, photos and ads
- E-mail clippings
- Print copies
Log in or learn more


Email this Page
Print this Page
Get Email Newsletters


“My father came out of World War II, bought it, cleared it, had it drained,” said Ronnie Askew of the 600 acres he farms with his 80-year-old mother. Askew said more than half of the property is in the acreage that the Navy plans to buy.

“I’m here to let them know that I’m willing to fight for it if they want to take it,” Askew said. “I can’t believe the Navy is taking the land when they don’t really need to. It’s just not the American thing to do.”

Locals opposed to the airfield said they would be more supportive if they were convinced this region was the best option for the airfield, and if their community would see economic benefits.

“It’s hard when people say that we’re anti-military,” Myra Beasley said.

Beasley said she and her husband, Jerry, stand to lose their land, farming equipment and trucking shop in the buyout, but not their house. She says it would be easier to let go if she knew the airfield was necessary.

“You’d feel sad, but maybe you’d feel you’re doing something,” she said.

The protesters, in an effort to give their movement a patriotic flavor, named their tent city “Liberty Village.” They also planted several American flags around the site and made red, white and blue “No OLF” signs for their front yards.

“We all love our military – if it was needed, OK,” said Gerald Allen, a farmer who volunteered his land for the tent city and cut the ribbon Friday. But Allen said the Navy was “throwing us the trash and keeping the gravy.”

In a steadily falling wet snow, 30 people came to Friday’s noon ceremony. Some of the organizers planned to camp all weekend but abandoned the idea as temperatures dropped.

Despite the cold, roughly 20 people huddled between a bonfire and a canvas windbreak Friday afternoon for an update from attorney Derb Carter, a senior attorney from the Southern Environmental Law Center.

Earlier on Friday, Carter’s organization had filed a lawsuit on behalf of the National Audubon Society and other environmental groups against the Navy’s choice of location for the field.

The suit was filed in federal court in Raleigh about the same time another suit was filed on behalf of Washington and Beaufort counties, which are also fighting the airfield.

Some locals are hoping that the suits can turn the tide in their battle against the airfield.

“We’re going to win this thing,” said Linda Cutler, who lives south of Plymouth. “They’re not going to take our homes, our heritage, our livelihood just because we’re country people.”

Cutler said her property is not in the zone, but that she is concerned about jet noise.

The Audubon lawsuit raises issue with the proximity of the airfield to the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and the more than 100,000 snow geese, tundra swan and ducks who use the lakes and surrounding fields.

Many local citizens and the Audubon Society said that the Navy not only threatens the birds’ habitat by acquiring the fields and bringing in jet noise but that the pilots will be at risk because of the large numbers of migratory birds.

On Saturday morning, organizers gave a tour of the wildlife refuge. The group first came across about 1,000 snow geese feeding on a cornfield in the refuge, where corn is left to provide winter feed.

As the tour group stopped to watch, the geese swarmed from one section of the field to another, sometimes so thick in the low sky that no blue peeked through between the airborne bodies.

Joe Albea, a conservationist from Greenville, N.C., who led the tour, estimated that there are 70,000 snow geese on the refuge.

The group then spotted several hundred tundra swan resting on the water. The birds average 13 to 15 pounds each. “You can’t fly through them,” said Brian Roth, mayor of Plymouth, who thinks the Navy will not be able to manage the birds. “Just because you have radar that can pick up a hail stone doesn’t mean you drive through a hailstorm.”


With freezing temperatures on Saturday, the tent city was abandoned for a pig picking at a local trucking shop that drew more than 75 people. Landowners were encouraged by one another to hold off on selling to the Navy for as long as possible and to keep putting pressure on local politicians.

Some landowners fear that if they hold out on selling to the Navy, they might not get the fair market value that the Navy has said they would. Others look at it differently.

“I’m losing everything that I have,” said Al Ange, whose house is in the 30,000 acres. “It’s just going to completely wipe me out of it. I won’t have anything left. “What is fair market value? When I don’t want to sell my stuff, how are you going to give me fair market value? I want my land and my heritage.”

The organizers hope to keep the tent city open until late March. A group of Boy Scouts has asked to camp there next weekend.

Reach Cheryl Johnston at cheryl. johnston@pilotonline.com

http://www.wdnweb.com/articles/2004/...ews/news03.txt

Co-speakers seek session on 1907 law

By BILL SANDIFER, Staff Writer




Republican state House Co-Speaker Richard Morgan reportedly has thrown his support behind a call for a special legislative session to amend or repeal a 1907 state law that gives the federal government automatic exclusive jurisdiction over land it acquires in North Carolina.

Critics have said the law leaves the state with no say in the proposed purchase of 30,000 acres in Washington County for construction of a Navy outlying landing field.

Both Sen. Marc Basnight, Senate president pro tem, and Rep. Arthur Williams of Washington sent letters to Gov. Mike Easley on Friday reiterating their call for a special session.

In his letter, hand-delivered to the Governor's Office, Basnight stated his support of the governor's call for the Department of Commerce to mediate a dispute between the Navy and the Department of Interior.

However, Basnight added, "I disagree with the automatic consent granted in the 1907 law, and I feel very strongly that we must return to the legislature its rightful case-by-case review on the question of exclusive jurisdiction on the OLF and similar federal land-acquisition projects.

"Although I realize changing the law will not necessarily stop the creation of an OLF, it certainly will give our state additional review over the question of exclusive jurisdiction, which I understand is critically important to construction of the outlying field."

The text of the co-speakers' joint news release was not available as of presstime Monday.

Since the General Assembly is not scheduled to reconvene until May, the pressure is on to schedule a special session before February. Privately, a number of landowners have indicated they have received Navy correspondence stating that offers for property are slated to begin between the first and middle of February.

Some state officials have expressed concern that purchases of land in the core 2,000 acres could have a domino effect on surrounding landowners. Should the core area be acquired, officials fear that will provide the Navy a stronghold in the OLF area.

The Navy's projected per-acre offering has been estimated at $1,500 to $1,600, a number many landowners have contested as inadequate, citing the productivity of Eastern North Carolina blacklands -- reclaimed wetlands. Some even have called the farmland in Washington County some of the richest in the nation.

But there is a hidden asset in that soil, according to Jamin Simmons who operates Mattamuskeet Management and Consulting. His firm advises landowners on land values and best uses of the land.

Simmons, a recognized expert on land easements, contends that much of the land is worth up to twice the projected Navy offering -- $2,800 an acre -- and some parcels could go as high as $4,000 per acre, based upon payments from state and federal easements.

And those values are before the addition of what he calls "environmental quality incentives," programs that could result from passage of the Kyoto Protocol designed to stop global warming.

"The Southeast is the place for it because land is still relatively cheap," explained Simmons.

The market concept for trading pollution credits on a global basis is already in place in Europe, said Simmons.

"The government's (energy) programs ... are working against the Navy projected purchase price," he noted.

Although the math is complex, Simmons said he is willing to explain the potential property values to Washington and Beaufort county residents. He may be contacted at 252-925-1563.

Those of you who are NC citizens, please write or call Governor Easley TODAY!!!
I quote from the latest communique from the Albermarle Community Network:
North-Carolinians Opposed - to - the- Outlying Landing Field

One More Time, Networkers !


Key legislators are getting behind us to press for a special session, now it's up to the Governor and YOU. Get on that phone, or write a short note. FAX it or send it Priority Mail. Governor Easley must act this week. Call the Key Aides listed below and let them know that a Special Session of the State Legislature must be convened to deal with N.C.G.S. 104-7 for the good of ALL North Carolinians. When that ill-advised statute is repealed, North Carolina can become a partner with our military, not its patsy.


TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE


If you have been making those calls, it's time to get up and do it one more time. We would not be where we are without your constant efforts. If you have been waiting for the moment to act, this is it. Your call will make a difference. Your voice will be heard. But only if you call.

Four (4) Key people in the Governor's office to call:

Franklin Freeman, Governor Easley's top aide
Voice: 919.733.6184
FAX: 919.715.4239

Hawley Truax, Policy Advisor on Environmental Issues
Voice: 919.733.5811
FAX: 919.733.2120

Cari Boyce, Communications Director
FAX: 919.733.5166
Email: cari.boyce@ncmail.net

Allison Stivender, Advisor on Citizen Affairs
Voice: 919.733.2391
FAX: 919.733.2120


Thank you. You are the one that makes it happen !




Group Leaders Please Forward

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

For up to date information on the OLF issue:
http://AlbemarleCommunity.Net
Please bookmark the page.

http://www.wdnweb.com/articles/2004/...ews/news03.txt

Preliminary injunction sought to stop the Navy

By RACHEL BROWN HACKNEY Executive Editor
The law firm representing Washington and Beaufort counties in the fight against a Navy outlying landing field in the region soon will be filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Navy, the Beaufort County Committee of 100 members learned at their monthly meeting Thursday.

Kathleen Taylor of Washington, one of the members of Citizens Opposing Outlying Landing Sites, said she understood the action would be taken as early as today. However, Ray Owens of Kennedy Covington, the Charlotte firm representing the two counties, told the Daily News Thursday afternoon that he could not say precisely when the motion would be filed in U.S. District Court in Raleigh.

"All of the plaintiffs (including the Southern Environmental Law Center) ... will be filing a motion imminently," Owens said.

"We are talking very, very shortly," he added.

The lawsuit the firm filed on Jan. 9 sought a preliminary injunction, Owens pointed out. However, "You have to file a separate motion" asking for it.

That motion, he continued, "has to be supported by affidavits and facts," representing information from the property owners in the affected area and experts, among others.

That motion will seek to stop the Navy from taking any further steps toward building the OLF until the lawsuit can be heard in court.

Once the motion was filed, Owens said, a judge would decide when to hold a hearing on it. "There's no way of knowing when (the judge) will get to that," Owens added. "He could hear it as early as 10 days," though Owens said he doubted it would be that soon, given the complexity of the issue.

Kennedy Covington's OLF team has been coordinating the affidavit work with the SELC, he added. The SELC's lawsuit, also filed Jan. 9, represents a coalition of environmental organizations, including the National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation. The SELC has an office in Chapel Hill, though its headquarters is in Atlanta.

During the Committee of 100 meeting, Taylor also asked the approximately 130 people present to review newsletters she had distributed to them from the Albemarle Environmental Association.

"Please take them home. Please don't ignore them," she said.

She especially directed them to read the list of organizations opposing the OLF, which appeared on Page 3 of the newsletter. The latest to join that group was the NAACP, Taylor pointed out. (See related story in today's Daily News.)

Taylor also discussed the failure of Gov. Mike Easley to call a special session of the General Assembly to seek the amendment or repeal of General Statute 104-7, which gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction to come into North Carolina and take over land for whatever purpose it chooses. The statute originally was intended to facilitate the construction of post offices and other types of federal buildings, she said. "And now we're talking about 30,000-plus acres of land" the Navy says it needs for the OLF.

"We were promised this (discussion of G.S. 104-7) would be brought up in one of the two special sessions in December," Taylor continued, though that did not happen.

"We're just asking to partner with the Navy," she said, "to choose a site that is appropriate" for a field that can be used by F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet pilots to practice aircraft carrier landings.

"This has become such a passion for me," Taylor said of the issue. "The siting of this OLF is going to become the turning point for Eastern North Carolina."

She added, "When land is taken (off the tax rolls) and buildings are taken over ... we all suffer monetarily."

She expressed her thanks to state Rep. Arthur Williams III of Washington, state Sen. Marc Basnight, D-Dare, "and all the others who have worked so hard on our behalf."

Prior to introducing Taylor, Tom Thompson, Beaufort County's economic developer, told the group, "We all need to understand that this is not a matter of patriotism or public defense."

Using a PowerPoint display, Thompson cited several facts about Chesapeake, Va., which is the site of a Navy alternative landing strip, Fentress Field. Adm. Robert J. Natter, who since has retired, admitted in a letter written in October 2000 that the Navy's primary concern in finding a new location for an OLF was the need to pacify Southeastern Virginia residents who had been fighting the branch of service over the noise of its operations at Fentress and at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach.

In 2002, Thompson said, Chesapeake had $2.2 billion in retail sales; it is home to 30 corporate headquarters.

"They are the fastest growing city in Virginia," he added.

PLEASE keep us in your prayers!!!

Willie Nelson asks Bush to intervene in OLF dispute




The Associated Press
Mar 26, 2004 : 2:15 pm ET

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Country singer and Farm Aid President Willie Nelson has asked President Bush to intervene in the land dispute between family farmers and the Navy over a proposed jet practice field in eastern North Carolina.

The Navy says it will build the outlying landing field, or OLF, in the middle of 33,000 acres of farmland south of Plymouth in Washington County.

In a letter sent this week, Nelson raised concerns over potential damage to the nearby Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the winter home to thousands of tundra swans and snow geese. He also said Navy pilots would be at risk of colliding with birds.

Nelson asked the president to direct the Navy to find a mutually acceptable site that does not displace family farmers, threaten the environment, or place our Navy pilots at unnecessary risk.

`This puts it squarely on president's desk and inside the White House," said Plymouth Mayor Brian Roth, one of the leaders of the OLF opposition. "We've sent hundreds of e-mails, letters and post cards to the White House. This is certainly something the White House staff is not going to brush aside lightly."

A 19-member panel consisting of residents and representatives from government and the military is studying the proposal.

Two lawsuits have been filed against the Navy to stop the field.

http://wdnweb.com/articles/2004/03/31/news/news01.txt

Friday, April 2, 2004
Local News
Judge stops short of injunction

By BILL SANDIFER Staff Writer
RALEIGH -- A federal judge stopped short Tuesday of issuing a preliminary injunction against the Navy in its efforts to construct an outlying landing field in Washington County. Instead, he offered a gentlemen's agreement of sorts, cautioning the Navy not to disturb the "status quo" or face a temporary restraining order.

That arrangement followed a daylong hearing on a joint motion for a preliminary injunction filed against the Navy by attorneys representing Washington and Beaufort counties and a coalition of conservation organizations. The injunction would have halted all Navy actions leading to construction of the OLF.

At the end of the day, the Kennedy Covington attorneys representing the two counties indicated they would consider filing a TRO despite the court-arranged agreement. Their decision is expected today.

Tuesday's hearing before Eastern District Court Judge Terrence Boyle was the culmination of almost four months of legal preparation on both sides, including last-minute exchanges of paperwork -- the Navy introduced one document just after lunch.

Boyle's warning that he stands ready to issue a TRO carries weight because such an action would stop the Navy immediately, it would not be subject to appeal and it could be issued without a hearing or notice to the other side. Although a TRO has a limited duration, it can be renewed.

With the twin civil suits consolidated as one, Kennedy Covington attorney Kiran Mehta took the lead in arguing three points for the plaintiffs, contending the Navy:


failed to take a "hard look" at environmental issues as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.


failed to assess adequately the cumulative impacts of the combined influence of an OLF and a proposed adjacent Mattamuskeet Military Operations Area.


failed to seek a land-use consistency determination for OLF property to be acquired in Beaufort County.

"They sort of forgot to do that with respect to Beaufort (County)," said Mehta.

Following a query from the judge regarding whether that left the record incomplete, Mehta replied, "Therein lies the $64,000 question. (The Navy is) still doing work out there."

Ray Owens, fellow team attorney, added, "We believe that's an 8,000-acre mistake," a quarter of the "entire site. We believe it speaks volumes of what was missed in environmental analysis."

Owens said the Navy had relied on 1992 studies as sufficient information to make a decision on Beaufort County.

Stephen Bartell, a Department of Justice trial attorney, countered that the Navy had "exhaustively analyzed all of the impacts."

Regarding the Navy's failure to conduct a consistency determination, Bartell said, "The state of North Carolina did not challenge that determination."

Bartell, however, failed to acknowledge a late fall land-use consistency challenge mounted by the state Division of Coastal Management. That challenge cited the number of changes made between the draft and final environmental impact statements, changes that DCM contended amounted to an entirely different level of impact on land use. The conclusion of that communication was that the initial finding of consistency was no longer valid.

"Yes, there will be impacts ... but these impacts have been considered," argued Bartell. "A preliminary injunction will harm the United States and the U.S. Navy."

Bartell further argued that the roughly 740 acres within the OLF core on which farming would be restricted represented a fraction of county land and that the remaining acreage could be farmed normally. However, the Navy has conceded that point is subject to change.

In addition, Bartell told the court there are no wetlands or easements that would cause problems within the core area.

However, Navy research failed to note that the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources holds a permanent 80-acre wetlands easement on farmland owned by Washington County resident Jimmy D. Harrison. That land, based on mapping data provided by DENR, is inside the proposed fence slated to surround the core airfield.

Bartell also indicated that bird populations at the nearby Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge should prosper under Navy ownership.

Boyle asked, "Are you saying that it's better for the birds if the Navy owns (the land)?"

Bartell contended that, while farmers can change their crops, thereby depriving birds of food, "the Navy has no intention of changing the habitat."

Following more give-and-take, Bartell conceded, "Your honor, I'm not suggesting it'll be better for the birds if the Navy owns it."

Bartell went on to bird-aircraft strike hazard management.

"How do you coordinate that with the birds?" asked Boyle.

Bartell said the Navy would develop a plan.

During a recent state-Navy panel meeting, Navy officials conceded that BASH studies had not resulted yet in a BASH plan.

"It's in the process," said Bartell, "and that site will not be operated until a plan is prepared."

However, he sad no decision had been made on whether bird-detecting radar would be necessary at the OLF, despite the site's "severe" bird-hazard rating for half the year. The decision on radar would follow more studies, he explained.

Bartell, however, pointed to successful BASH management at the Dare County bombing range.

"The difference is," said the judge, "there aren't any birds in the Alligator River."

"We recognize that," said Bartell.

Birds aside, Bartell acknowledged the Navy is "very sympathetic and acknowledges the sense of harm being felt by the landowners."

However, he continued that "those are not legally protected interests. ... Again, these are potential and consequential harms" that could result should land acquisition and construction of an OLF continue.

"There is nothing immediate," he added. "Nothing is going to happen ... for over three years."

At the core of the plaintiffs' case is the argument that the scope of Navy plans, if allowed to go ahead, would amount to a "bureaucratic steamroller." And that motion, if started, argued Mehta, would be hard to stop.

The Navy argued that no halt to its operations was warranted since no harm would come to the environment, wildlife or the region until at least 2007, when operation of the OLF was anticipated to begin. At that point, say documents filed with the court, should damage occur, the decision to allow the OLF project to continue could "be set aside."

Based on those arguments, concluded Bartell, plaintiffs' attorneys had engaged in a "rather unpersuasive attempt at (arguing the concept of) 'bureaucratic steamroller.'"

Instead, he argued, the Navy was the party which stood to suffer "severe" harm from delay in construction of an OLF.

That argument, charged Mehta, was inaccurate and illegal. He cited the purchase of the first acre of land as the point at which "harm" would occur. That harm, he contended, took the form of a loss of tax revenue to the county and the loss of property to the landowner.

Bartell argued that national security needs dictated the kind of quality OLF site Washington County could offer.

Asked by the judge whether the "nuisance factor" surrounding Virginia airfields played into the decision, Bartell replied, "That's part of it."

"The Navy," he added, "knows its training needs. It's not for the county or the conservation groups to decide."

Additionally, said Mehta, waterfowl that rely on regional refuges would never acclimate to jet noise, citing the Navy's own final environmental impact statement as the source. A Navy contract study from which Mehta read found that tundra swans were flushed for several miles around by a small civilian aircraft flying at altitudes ranging from several hundred to several thousand feet.

Mehta concluded that the Navy had ignored its own study that found migratory waterfowl "habituate" to such noise much as crows and predatory birds do. He added that Navy fighters are many times louder than the Cessna aircraft cited in the contract study.

When Boyle asked Mehta about the level of OLF usage anticipated by the Navy, Mehta again quoted from the FEIS, saying flights would average once every half hour, day and night, seven days a week.

"So you're saying roughly 48 a day?" asked Boyle.

Mehta suggested in reality it would be more than that, with many exercises flown at night, according to the Navy.

"A significant portion of those (would) be over the refuge," added Mehta.

Bartell, however, contended that Mehta was wrong in his estimation of frequency, suggesting training periods would be more on the order of one or two times a day, about 45 minutes each. He acknowledged that could change with "needs of the military."

Following that, Bartell announced a revision in proposed flight operations for the OLF.

"That holding pattern is not going to be where it is today," Bartell explained, adding that the floor either would be elevated or moved west, away from the refuge. There was no explanation of whether that would involve moving the airfield.

The new floor, he explained, would be raised to 3,000 feet, the floor of the proposed Mattamuskeet Military Operations Area. There was no explanation of possible conflicts with that MOA floor.

Mehta pointed to that proposal as an indication the Navy continues to reformulate its approach to operating an OLF in Washington County.

Bartell, however, indicated that that revision should reduce some of the noise for birds in the refuge, despite his claim that the Navy has "anecdotal" evidence that tundra swans have a high noise tolerance.

He cited traffic volume in the area as evidence that the birds adapt well to noise.

"There's a lot of traffic in this area," said Bartell.

"On (N.C.) Highway 99?" asked Boyle. "Where does it come from; where does it go?"

Bartell finally conceded, "I've only been there once."

Following that exchange, Bartell argued that there was "intense hunting pressure on snow geese" in the area around the OLF site.

Questioned where that information came from, Bartell said, "Your honor, I don't have that information in front of me."

Following an explanation of the difficulty in bagging a snow goose, the judge asked Bartell, "If you find somebody who's killed one, write (me)."

Bartell, however, did sting plaintiffs' attorneys with one observation: Regarding arguments surrounding the state's position on land-use issues and consistency determination, Bartell noted that there appeared to be no state representative present in the courtroom.

Judge orders Navy to halt work on jet landing field. Issues temporary injunction.
This morning U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle issued the injunction requested by the plaintiff's attorneys, Kennedy Covington and The Southern Environmental Law Center. This will prevent the Navy from proceeding with their plans at the proposed Washington/Beaufort County OLF site. Unless overturned upon appeal, this order will stand until the case is decided.

Judge halts Navy work on landing field
Federal court issues injunction on plan that imperils pilots, migratory birds, communities
Audubon North Carolina

Raleigh, North Carolina - U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle today ordered the U.S. Navy to stop work on a planned jet landing field in eastern North Carolina. The injunction issued by the court supports arguments made against the Navy by The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), representing the National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, as well as those made by lawyers for Washington and Beaufort counties.


In a suit filed in early January, the groups contend the government's environmental impact studies for the landing field downplayed the substantial risk of collisions between jets and the large flocks of tundra swans, snow geese and other birds that winter in the area. The government also minimized adverse impacts to the national wildlife refuge, according to the groups. Judge Boyle heard arguments from both sides on the injunction request on March 30.


In comments accompanying his decision, Judge Boyle said that "the Navy's decision to locate the OLF at [the Washington County site] may have been a clear error of judgment." The court also pointed out that the Navy's planned land acquisitions will immediately "result in irreparable harm," including "harm to the numerous tundra swans and snow geese that spend the winter months at the lakes and refuges close to the proposed OLF."

" This is a major victory for all those who have tried so long to get the Navy to listen to reason and choose a safer, less damaging location for jet training," said Audubon North Carolina Executive Director Chris Canfield. "I hope the Navy will see this stay as a good time to work with state leaders in coming up with an alternative plan."


" An injunction is a first, very important step in carrying forward our case," said Michelle Nowlin, SELC attorney for the conservation groups. "We know the Navy's work fails to meet federal requirements and believe the court will ultimately send them back to the drawing board. At least now the citizens of the area have some breathing room while we finish proving our claims."


" We are glad the court has chosen to bring the Navy to their senses, even if temporarily," said National Audubon Society Chief Operating Officer Bob Perciasepe. "Vital natural treasures are threatened by a wrong-headed scheme that would cause serious damages to a globally recognized Important Bird Area."


Citing extensive evidence from wildlife experts, including the scientist who led part of the Navy's own study, the lawsuit brought by conservation groups characterizes as "reckless" the plan for a new F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet jet training field within five miles of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in eastern North Carolina. The refuge is winter home to some 100,000 large swans, snow geese and other waterfowl, known to represent a severe risk to low-flying aircraft and their pilots. The $186.5 million facility would be located on 30,000 acres the Navy plans to acquire in Washington and Beaufort counties.


In response to Judge Boyle's request at a March 30 hearing that he be given time to formulate his decision and that the "status quo" be maintained, attorneys representing the Navy sent a letter to the court April 2 saying that the Navy would slowdown or cease most activities relating to the landing field for 60 days. However, the letter stated that "The Navy does intend to continue negotiations for voluntary purchases with landowners to whom they made offers prior to March 30, 2004, and to complete voluntary sales with any landowners who are interested in selling." Within weeks of that letter, the Navy closed on more than 1,100 acres of land, spending $3.7 million.


" It is clear they have had no intention of slowing down for anyone, including a federal judge," Canfield said. "They have no one to blame but themselves for this injunction."


In addition to the project's impacts to birds and to pilots, the lawsuit says the Navy also failed to consider the cumulative environmental impacts of the project and another plan by the Department of the Navy, announced in December, to designate 900 square miles of airspace over eastern North Carolina for jet combat training. These proposed Military Operations Areas (MOAs) overlie four national wildlife refuges - Pocosin Lakes, Lake Mattamuskeet, Swan Quarter and Alligator River - the Swan Quarter Wilderness Area, and the Cape Lookout National Seashore.
__________________________________________________ _____________

I sense VICTORY in our long struggle!!!