The US Navy´s plan to build an OLF (Outlying Landing Field) in the heart of the Atlantic Flyway. The birds are protected by the International Migratory Bird Treaty. The Navy´s studies downplayed the substantial risk of collisions between jets and the huge flocks of large migratory birds that winter in the area, and minimized adverse impacts to a globally significant wildlife refuge. The OLF will displace farming families dating back several generations and homeowners.

• The Navy's Proposes OLF at site C will threaten
  • Miltary pilots
  • Farmers
  • Homeowners
  • Endangered Wildlife
• Purpose of this OLF
  • Concrete landing strip where repetitive flight operations are conducted by military pilots
  • Aircraft carrier touch-and-go practice by F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft
  • Constant low-level flying at the airstrip and surrounding area
• Location of the proposed Navy OLF site
  • Washington/Beaufort counties, adjacent to Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
  • Albemarle/Pamlico peninsula in Northeastern North Carolina
• Site selected, wrong site for an OLF
  • Wildlife experts, military experts and scientific data concur -- wrong site for an OLF
  • Jeffrey J. Short, Colonel (ret.) USAFR, considered the "father" of the USAF Bird Avoidance Model: Letter to Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy Army, April 2003
    • "In 25 years of dealing with military BASH issues, I cannot recall a worse place to situate an airfield for jet training."
  • Scientific data from BAM (Bird Avoidance Model) and a recent radar study conducted by Ronald L. Merritt a former Chief of the USAF BASH (Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard) Task Force forecast severe risk of BASH: Letter to Navy Secretary England, October 2003
    • "There are very few places in the United States where this level of threat exists."
  • Dangerous to Navy pilots, aircraft, civilians and wildlife due to the likelihood of aircraft collisions with the hundreds of thousands of large migratory birds
  • Will destroy the Pungo Unit of PLNWR, a waterfowl sanctuary, where migratory birds have been coming for hundreds of years ("A New Voyage to Carolina," 1709, John Lawson)
• OLF is not required
  • Original reason for an OLF in North Carolina -- jet noise concerns
    • Navy letter, October 2000: "It is precisely because of community concerns over jet noise that we are carefully exploring the establishment of an additional outlying field ..."
  • Navy pre-selected the site, used "reverse engineering" and flawed data to make the Washington/Beaufort counties site the "best site.": Navy email, September 2002
  • Split-siting brings no benefits: Navy email, September 2002
  • OLF operations will become obsolete: Navy email, April 2003
  • Existing facilities adequate: Navy FEIS, July 2003, 2-60
• OLF will affect the economy negatively at the site area
  • Devastate one of the poorest areas of North Carolina
  • In contrast with existing OLFs this site is not close to a military base, will not receive economic benefits from the base
• Navy disregarding key BRAC priorities: efficiency and joint operations
  • The Navy will condemn over 30,000 acres for the purpose of constructing new facilities rather than using existing military facilities that would be more efficient and cost effective
  • The Navy refuses to consider an ideal location where flight operations currently exist, Open Grounds Farm in Carteret County
• Those opposed to the site selected for the OLF
  • Military experts, wildlife experts, environmental, property rights, sportsman organizations, federal agencies, NC officials and agencies, citizens of Beaufort and Washington counties
• OLF Site Issues and Concerns
• National issue:
  • Safety of military pilots
  • Protect a globally significant National Wildlife Refuge
  • Waste of Federal Tax Dollars
• OLF at the Washington/Beaufort Counties site will result in the following:
  • Danger for military pilots, citizens, wildlife, loss of 50+ million dollar aircraft
  • Destruction of family farms established before Colonial times
  • Loss of livelihood for future farming families, large number of agricultural related jobs
  • Loss of over 30,000 acres (almost fifty square miles)
  • Loss of thousands of dollars of county tax revenue, real estate values
  • Loss of present and future natural resources that support ecotourism, tourism, sportsman activities, retirement communities, recreational communities
  • Pollution: air, land, water, noise
• 100+ organizations and groups oppose the site
• Better locations for the OLF