[audubon-news] Audubon/Navy Whistleblower Object to Navy Jet Field Plan
- From: "BIANCHI, John" <JBIANCHI@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Audubon-news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:37:03 -0400
Contact: Chris Canfield
919-929-3899
ccanfield@xxxxxxxxxxx
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
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Wednesday, October 15, 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 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."
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.
# # #
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
You are subscribed to Audubon-News. To unsubscribe, send email to
audubon-news-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. To
adjust other settings (vacation, digest, etc.) please visit,
//www.freelists.org/list/audubon-news.
Other related posts:
- » [audubon-news] Audubon/Navy Whistleblower Object to Navy Jet Field Plan
