Stacked deck

A follow-up environmental study is not persuasive in explaining the Navy's preference for a controversial landing field site

The U.S. Navy justified its decision to build a practice landing field for jet fighters close to a North Carolina haven for large migratory birds on the basis of an environmental study found deficient by the federal courts. So, the courts told the Navy to take another look. But its supplemental study turns out to be little more than a warmed-over rationale for why a site near the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is just fine. That conclusion remains unconvincing.

The Navy's full-speed ahead attitude might be understandable if its preferred site in Washington and Beaufort counties, south of Plymouth, was the only conceivable one in North Carolina. It's not, as Governor Easley reminded Congress in a letter he sent soon after the draft study was released. But even though the Navy insists that no final decision has been made, which is technically accurate, it still seems unwilling to seriously consider plausible alternatives.

North Carolina has no objection to being the host for a so-called outlying landing field -- so long as the facility is compatible with the environment and has the least possible adverse impact on residents. For that matter, the federal government also has a duty to safeguard wildlife and to make sure people aren't unnecessarily harmed. The Navy's favorite site, unfortunately, puts pilots in danger of run-ins with birds from the nearby refuge, cannot avoid disturbing those birds to some degree, and could disrupt farming on thousands of acres.

The new report is over 400 pages, with environmental and economic analysis for five proposed OLF sites. But it fails to adequately explain why the Washington-Beaufort site (Site C in the study) is preferred.

The OLF would be used by F/A-18 Super Hornet pilots based at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach and the Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry Point to simulate landings on aircraft carriers. The major drawback to Site C, although not the only one, is its proximity to the Pocosin Lakes refuge -- seasonal home to more than 100,000 geese and swans.

The report minimizes the risk of dangerous aircraft-bird collisions, provided that a suitable management plan were in place to deter birds from foraging on the site. Perhaps that judgment is correct, but the management plan would not be painless. It would include restrictions on crops normally grown in the area that are attractive to birds, such as corn and winter wheat. How large an area would be affected is unclear, but it could be upwards of 24,000 acres. Then, the geese and swans would have to change their forage patterns.

The Navy says that more than 31,000 practice landings a year would have only a minor noise impact on the birds because they would get used to the disturbance. Perhaps that's so, but it still amounts to taking a risk with bird populations that the refuge is supposed to protect.

None of the other sites previously identified as worth studying is perfect. But some of them raise fewer troubling issues. For example, about 900 acres of wetlands could be affected at Site E in Craven County, but that seemingly is the site's only major drawback. What makes the Washington/Beaufort site so much more attractive to the Navy, other than the fact that it already has bought land there?

Even while the supplemental study was being prepared, following a ruling by U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle that was upheld by a federal appeals court, the Navy continued land purchases at Site C. The follow-up report does contain more information about environmental impacts at that site, but frankly, it still looks as though Navy minds were made up.

Governor Easley was right to ask Congress to apply the brakes to this project, through the budgeting process. The Navy should negotiate with North Carolina on finding a more suitable site, with a credible environmental study at the center of the discussion.