a) Because I am concerned about the length of time the cleared strip alongside the fence is taking to regenerate, I inspected it more closely. To my horror I discovered that an area approximately 3 metres wide, running the whole length of the fence & beyond at either end, appears to have been sprayed with a chemical. At first I thought it was herbicide, but then I realised that it had affected all the vegetation, not just selected species, & was apparently DEFOLIANT. The people of Vietnam are still complaining of genetic effects of Agent Orange used by the United States' Military Forces in the 1970's. I think we should know what chemical has been used & whether it has any known side-effects.

In my submissions to you in the past, I have pointed out that the orchids are sensitive to even minor changes in their habitat, as they are dependant on a symbiotic relationship with a micro-organism in the soil. Could the spraying explain why the orchid population was so sparse this year?

b) As you are aware, the orchids have spread beyond the boundaries of the Orchid Reserve - indeed, it was because of this fact that the new security fence was erected several metres inside the base perimeter on the west side of the base, north of Nessfield Gate.

Orchids have now colonised the verges alongside Menwith Hill Road & the B6451.

In the area adjacent to the Main Gate, the US authorities like to see neatly mown verges like a lawn. This year orchids have suffered destruction as a consquence of the practice. I believe that my intervention saved some which were growing near the footpath entrance.

This year I have recorded a number of orchid plants on the inside of the fence, but cannot be positive about thsir identification (i.e. what variety of orchid) as I am unable to investigate them closely enough. Their existence is threatened by i. use of the area for dumping scrap metal alongside the warehouses, Motor Pool & Plant Property Stores; ii. the now Cold Store has been allowed to be constructed on this land; iii. the radio hams (who call themselves "Barley Amateur Radio Club", call sign GB 4JUL US) have just erected a new mast c. 15 metres high & installed a portacabin in this location. I am not aware that they have sought planning approval; iv. the apparently defunct security camera is mounted on a lattice mast in this area.

c) Concealed by the unfelled willows are sections of the former chain-link security fence, dumped on the orchids. Obviously the contractors did not anticipate the discovery.

UNTIL THE BASE AUTHORITIES TREAT THIS AREA WITH SENSITIVITY & IMPLEMENT CONSERVATION I SHALL CONTINUE TO COMPLAIN.

ii). RE: OTHER DEFUNCT STRUCTURES: Under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, all the structures in Menwith Hill are the property of the United Kingdom government. In effect this means that the US National Security Agency builds & uses the structures, but when they are no longer of any use then it is the responsibility of the UK to demolish & dispose of them. In 1999 the Ministry of Defence allocated £385,000 for costs incurred at the base. As all salaries are paid by the US Government, including those of the British employees, one can only assume that this money was spent on employing contractors to demolish & dispose of the old. chain-link security fence. I am not aware of any other demolition work carried, out during this period.

It was agreed to demolish the old chain-link security fence as part of the agreement when applying for approval for the new weld-mesh fence. This was acknowledged as having a substantially greater environmentally-detrimental impact & removal of the old fence would go some way to alleviating the damage.

Sections of the old fence are still in position & visible from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty outside the perimeter. In addition there are structures, such as the old, disused Police Control Cabin & adjacent portacabin, still standing guarding the no longer existing Steeplebush Gate. (The now-demolished Commissary Gate was another example, but why retain 3 hideous concrete flower tubs?). Menwith Hill Station causes enough environmental damage without retaining defunct & disused (& deteriorating) structures.

iii). "GT 8 SITE <-" notice: Thank you for your letter of 26th July responding to my enquiry of 4th July, & thank you for taking the trouble to investigate the matter. With respect, the Ministry of Defence explanation is not adequate. To be strictly accurate, there are TWO "Grapnel" Radomes (SBIRS) & on the Planning Application submitted by the MoD Land Agent, Mr H. Taylor, they are numbered "SBI" & "SB2", not "GT 8". The "GT 8 SITE <-" notice appeared to direct construction traffic to SATGOM car park. I did not see the notice on the previous occasion I was inside the base (June 19th) & assumed it to be new.

iv). PUMPING STATION CCTV CAMERA: As part of the Prosecution evidence in the case of R v John, Lee & Zelter a video film has been disclosed to the Defendants showing the circumstances of our arrest in the Operations Area of Menwith Hill on June 19th. According to the legend on the film, it was taken by the CCTV camera located on the Pumping Station. From the angle of the film, it appears to be located in OPs north of the OPs Car Park.

I am not aware of any planning application for such a "Pumping Station", nor for a camera positioned thereon. Does your department know of this, & what is it pumping? (Sewage? Diesel Oil? Polluted Groundwater?). We require this information as this area is part of the gathering ground for Swinsty Reservoir, the Leeds water supply.

It is imperative that the local authorities are fully informed of such matters. Could defoliant & pesticide (see 6th June (v)) enter our water supply?

I shall send copies of this letter to interested parties, e.g. the Base Commander, the MoD Land Agent, the Menwith Hill Forum, the Local Government Ombudsman, etc.

It is evident that the Americans in charge of Menwith Hill are not acquainted with our planning regulations, etc. Perhaps you could send them a leaflet & ask them to comply?

Yours sincerely,

Anne LEE.