Navy's Outlying Landing Field (NC)

The U.S. District Court held that the Navy failed to conduct a "hard look" at the array of potential environmental impacts as federal law requires.

The Court made five specific findings of deficiency:

The Navy's conclusion that impacts on tundra swans and snow geese would be minor is difficult to reconcile with the underlying scientific analysis. The Navy's site investigation and visits were so limited that they did not provide a meaningful opportunity for study or observation. The Navy was advised by its experts of the inadequacy of its month-long radar study; while it was a good preliminary effort, it does not suffice for a thorough analysis of the risk of harm.
The Navy's BASH (Bird Air Strike Hazard) analysis was similarly deficient; the comparative assessment with other NC military installations was flawed and without factual basis, and the site visits and study were too limited. In addition, the Navy acknowledged that reviewing the results of the BAM was simply a 1st step in the analysis, yet it failed to do more - shortcomings especially exaggerated when considering the proximity to Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and the high risk (severe 50% of the year) at the site.
The Navy conducted a depthless literature review, and the scientific studies do not support the Navy's conclusions of minor impacts. In fact, the Navy's conclusions are supported by little more than speculation. A "hard look" under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) contemplates significantly more than simply citing studies and anecdotal evidence - especially when a significant national refuge is only a few miles away. Particularly troubling was the Navy's acknowledgement that the response to noise is species-specific, yet it did not include species-specific data. The Navy should have investigated and acknowledged the impacts.
There was no factual basis in the Navy's comparative analysis of the BASH risk and environmental impact with other military facilities in the region.
The Navy wholly failed in its review of indirect, secondary and cumulative impacts. A critical omission in its analysis was the failure to consider the incremental impacts of adding the OLF - which would involve significant military flight operations - to the already significant military flight activity in the area in the existing Military Operation Areas (MOA).
Another critical flaw is the Navy's failure to consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed Mattamuskeet MOA.