212/979-3124
nseverance@audubon.org
919/929-3899
Navy
Did Not Conduct "Hard Look" Required By Law
Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, September 7, 2005 - A three-judge panel has ruled
that a U.S. Navy decision to place a jet landing field in eastern North
Carolina was based on an incomplete and flawed environmental review process.
The federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia,
issued its opinion today in National Audubon Society v. Navy, affirming
a lower court ruling that stopped the Navy's development of its training field
in eastern North Carolina.
The
National Audubon Society filed suit against the Navy in January 2004 to
challenge the plans that threatened Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, a
globally significant wintering spot for more than 100,000 swans, geese, and
other large waterfowl. After a
February ruling by the District Court in Raleigh, NC, against the plan, the
Navy appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The
training field for new Super Hornet F/A 18 E/F fighter jets was to have been
located just miles from the refuge. The
Outlying Landing Field (OLF) was intended to support more than 31,000 landing
and take-off flights per year of squadrons stationed at Oceana Naval Air
Station in Virginia and Cherry Point Marine Corps Station in North Carolina.
Recent decisions of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission
call into question if and for how long Super Hornets might be stationed at
either base.
Leading
aviation safety experts, including one who had led the Navy's internal
analysis, came forward to protest the plan, saying the bird populations
presented a severe risk of fatal collisions with low-flying jets and were
unmanageable. Audubon believes
that Navy attempts to make the area safer for jets would significantly damage
the refuge.
Lawyers
from the Southern Environmental Law Center represented Audubon in the case
that was joined by Defenders of Wildlife, and the North Carolina Wildlife
Federation. The affected counties
in North Carolina also filed their own suit to stop the field.
Together,
the plaintiffs contended that the military's analysis of environmental impacts
to birds of the region, safety risks to pilots, and cumulative effects of the
field in connection with other current and planned military uses of the region
was woefully inadequate. The
Court of Appeals agreed.
"These
shortcomings cast doubt upon whether the Navy has fully comprehended the
impacts of its actions in isolation, let alone in combination with
others," the ruling states. "The
Navy's conclusion that impacts to snow geese and tundra swans would be 'minor'
is simply difficult to reconcile."
While
affirming the requirement by the lower court that the Navy redo its
environmental analysis, the Appeals Court did require the District Court to
modify its injunction so that the Navy might proceed with some aspects of its
planning, including continued purchases of land from "willing
sellers."
"The
Court of Appeals decision makes clear that the Navy didn't do its homework on
the landing field," said Chris Canfield, executive director of Audubon
North Carolina. "We are
pleased by the general ruling, but certainly concerned that modifying the
injunction might permit the Navy to waste even more tax dollars.
The site is unacceptably dangerous due to the birds and potentially
unnecessary due to base closures."
Prior
to today's decision, the Navy had bought or condemned some 2,600 acres of
land, at a price of $6.4 million. Plans
for the $186 million project include acquiring 30,000 acres or close to 50
square miles of farms, many of which have been operated by the same families
for a century or more.
"Audubon
applauds the court's decision to safeguard not only a great natural treasure
and community but also the safety of our pilots," said Bob Perciasepe,
Chief Operating Officer for Audubon. "We
expect the Navy to follow carefully the court's directives as it examines new
potential sites."
"The
attorneys at the Southern Environmental Law Center and those at Kennedy
Covington representing the counties have done superb work," stated
Audubon North Carolina's Chris Canfield.
"They helped uncover the truth about a dangerously flawed process
and brought it to public light and justice while facing a daunting
adversary."
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.
#
# #