Questions and Responses   A Public Forum, email address no2hornets@yahoo.com
Contract All | Expand All                           

Noise

Is Noise a Realistic Objection?

Is noise a viable objection? Is it enough to stop the OLF? The Navy has already admitted the jets are noisy and dangerous, that is why they need to "move" the OLF from Fentress. In any of the proposed sites they will annoy and endanger fewer people. They have admitted that. They have also admitted that the noise will be "louder" at a new site as the flight paths will be lower to more closely approximate an actual carrier approach.

Night time Operations

Do they need total dark?

When I was at Oceana they flew into Fentress during the day, I know, because we had to respond when they crashed. The new "darkness" requirement is questionable. It is my understanding with the navigation/flight aids used in carrier landings, that very little time is spent actually "looking" at the carrier and trying visually to gage the up and down movement, forward speed and wind speed of the flight deck. Quite a few pilots are actually surprised by the thump when they hit the deck. So darkness as a requirement doesn’t seem to be an issue?

Environment

Wetlands in Virginia - from Virginia Department of Environmental Quality July 2005

Virginia Water Protection Permit Program

So important are wetlands to the economy and ecology of Virginia that state law requires no net loss in the amount and function of wetlands. This means the overall number of acres and quality of wetlands must be protected. DEQ upholds this law through the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program. This program issues permits for projects that affect state waters, including wetlands. In general, wetlands are areas where water saturation (from either surface water or ground water) determines soil conditions and plant communities. The goal of the program is to balance the economic and development interests of the Commonwealth with the protection of wetland resources.

Activities requiring permits include:

  • Dredging (removing or relocating sediment from surface waters).
  • Filling (adding material to the bottom of surface waters).
  • Discharging any pollutant into or adjacent to surface waters.
  • Altering physical, chemical or biological properties of surface waters.
  • Activities causing significant damage to existing wetland acreage.

If effects to wetlands are unavoidable, the applicant must compensate for these losses by creating or restoring wetlands, purchasing “credits” from approved wetland mitigation banks or preserving wetland buffers.

DEQ issues general and individual permits for activities that affect wetlands. General permits are issued for activities that will have a minimal effect on nontidal wetlands. General permit projects can be elevated to an individual permit if DEQ determines the project exceeds minimal impact standards. General permits help to increase the efficiency and the speed of Virginia’s permitting process. However, they are issued with the same high standards as individual permits. Individual permits are issued to projects with large impacts on tidal and non-tidal wetlands.

After a permit application has been approved, a public notice announcing a public comment period on the activity must be published in a newspaper in the locality of the affected wetland. Individuals may submit written comments in response to the public notice. DEQ may hold a public hearing, including another comment period, if public response is significant and there are substantial, disputed issues relevant to the proposed permit. DEQ also notifies property owners near the affected wetland.

In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that removed federal protection from many of these wetland habitats. Because Virginia has a statewide wetland program independent of federal wetland programs, DEQ regulates all wetlands regardless of federal jurisdiction. Unavoidable impacts to isolated wetlands require a Virginia Water Protection permit and compensation for those losses.


Is the Assamoosic Swamp Safe?

It has been shown that logging will have no adverse long time effect on an established wetland, if it is allowed to recover. No studies exist for the results when you don't let the area recover and pave a large area adjacent to and possibly extending into an existing wetland. This seems to me to be the best chance we have to defeat the Southampton or Dory site. They have mentioned a tower and refueling facilities, what would be the consequences of a fuel spill being washed into the Assamoosic swamp? The Swamp is a headwater that feeds the Nottoway River, and eventually drains into the Chowan River watershed. Think of all the people downstream we can get involved. They will also need emergency crews, what happens when they have to foam the runway and that residue is introduced into the Swamp? It has been proven that taxi time and runway idling is one of the main causes of pollution at airports, noise, air and ground. Also what studies exist on low level flights and vapor emissions, which will take place right over the Swamp?

A similar question in North Carolina produced the following response

Noise and pollution from an OLF will expose residents of Beaufort County to increased health risks.

Numerous studies have been conducted on the various physiological and non-physiological impacts on the human population that could be related to noise exposure. The Navy conducted a literature review of research findings on the impact of aircraft noise exposure and has assessed the applicability of these findings to the proposed action in the EIS. These findings and the literature from which they are derived are contained in Appendix B of the EIS. These effects range from speech and sleep interference to annoyance. These noise impacts are generally limited to the high noise zones in the vicinity of the airfield. As discussed in Section 12.3 of the EIS, the Navy will seek to acquire residences within the 60 DNL noise zone and relocate all occupants to locations outside of the noise zones as part of the OLF land acquisition strategy. Consequently, quality of life impacts to residents in the vicinity of the OLF sites would either be eliminated or significantly reduced. The Clean Air Act designates six pollutants as criteria pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to protect public health and welfare. Because the projected increase in emissions in the vicinity of any of the alternative OLF sites would not exceed these standards, public health and welfare would not be affected by aircraft operations at the proposed OLF site.

Actions and Paperwork - Broken Agreements?

Why are the Hornets Here?

One question I have is that in all the paperwork; the proposal to station the Hornets at Oceana, the BRAC statements and others, one of the requirements is an additional OLF. Well the Hornets are at Oceana and there is no additional OLF. Can we use this to throw a monkey wrench into current operations?

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

There is talk that this will replace the Super Hornet. Carrier-based models for the U.S. Navy are slated to be operational by mid-2015, when they will first augment, then ultimately replace, F-18s of all types.

It might be quieter, the following is from a January 22, 2006 PilotOnline.com article by Jack Dorsey.

But the aviators also had questions. Among them: What about jet noise?

It is the No. 1 issue among many who live and work near Oceana, the Navy’s only master jet base on the East Coast.

“We don’t know yet,” said Enewold, who has been with the program since January 2002. “The engine is about the same thrust as the F-14 … and will make the same kind of noise.”

However, the plane’s single engine is so powerful that “we don’t see any reason to operate the afterburner around the field,” Enewold said.

Since the engine has not yet been mounted in the first F-35 – the Pratt & Whitney model is being installed –its exact loudness isn’t known.

The engine’s large size may help lessen its noise, though.

“I hear that because it is a bigger engine, it is not near as shrill,” said John Smith, a Lockheed Martin spokesman at the company’s Fort Worth, Texas, plant. “It has a lower sound to it, maybe the same decibels, but it is not the same ear-splitting decibels as the F-18” with its two smaller engines.

There is also some discussion on where it will be stationed for Pilot Training.

The following is from a December 31, 2006 Virginian-Pilot article by Louis Hansen

The F-35 is still in the testing phase, and no bases have been chosen to host its squadrons.

Bouchard said he has seen hints that the strike fighter could be based somewhere other than Hampton Roads' two primary air stations - Oceana and Langley Air Force Base in Hampton.

The base closing commission ordered the three service branches to set up a training hub for F-35 fighters at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

Bouchard said that could supplant similar F-18 operations performed at Oceana.

Don't know if this will have anything to do with its permanent location, or the number of OLF flights at Oceana, Fentress, and an OLF to be announced. From what I read this plane will be replacing the Hornets about the time an OLF gets built (if they ever build one).

The following is from the same January 22, 2006 PilotOnline article mentioned above;

For Oceana, 100 or more F-35s could replace the F/A-18C Hornets. They would serve beside the newer F/A-18 E and F model Super Hornets.

Then again, that might not happen, said Rear Adm. Steven Enewold, the executive officer of the Joint Strike Fighter Program.

“It’s not clear to me yet that we wouldn’t have a consolidated JSF base somewhere that would have all three versions,” Enewold said from his Washington office.

It would be natural to bring them together because the planes have the same engines and avionics and require the same technical skills to maintain and operate them, he said.

“It is not a far stretch to think we might have an Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps consolidation base somewhere,” he said.

The Navy must decide this year where to base its F-35s.

I wonder if it has?

Random Thoughts

Is a group effort the right effort?

I know we need to defend all of the sites but I believe that each site will find it necessary to mount an additional unique defense, maybe for Surry it is the Power Plant, maybe for Southampton it is pollution and the Swamp. We should continue to display a united front, and pool our resources, but each site needs that little personal edge.

My First Scoping Meeting...........

I attended a scoping meeting yesterday. It was about what I expected. I found the contractors that the Navy has hired to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement to be well prepared. They would answer specific factual questions with what appeared to be correct factual answers. If a group was present they would tend to expand on the answer and play to the crowd. They were at their best when emotional or philosophical what if type of questions were asked. They did well with a crowd, they seemed to thrive on interruptions, and would quickly alter the subject of their response. Individuals got answers that were geared to making them happy, but they didn’t seem to care if they succeeded or were believed.

The Navy personnel tended to be very emotional in their answers and contradictory with the facts, even when the questions were asked by the same person, and the previous response should have been fresh in their mind. They were definitely trying to work the crowd emotionally.

The Contractors were taking copious notes and circulating throughout the crowd; they were doing their jobs and doing them well. The least prepared seemed to be the government representative, who was definitely for the OLF.

I think we have dangerously misinterpreted the phrase we won't go where we are not wanted, they have never defined “who” in does not want. It has never been the "little people", the actual land owners. I believe the lowest they will worry about convincing is county Government. This is a political agenda, the Federal Government is on board, most of the Virginia Government is on board, the Navy is working on the county governments. It will boil down to the greatest good for the greatest number. If the county as a whole can gain economically or in any other way, at the expense of a few dozen or even a few hundred landowners, they will take the deal. Somehow we need to obtain some political influence.

Negative PR for Southampton - Positive for Hales Lake......

If they can hire someone to promote the Virginia (and the other NC site), I don't feel guilty putting my two cents worth in. First I need some visuals, two maps - one is an aerial view of the Hales Lake site in relation to all of the existing airfields. the other is a Google Map of the area, Sebrell to Oceana, Oceana to Cherry Point (Havelock).

Link to HiRes Aerial Image  

Link to HiRes Map Image

If you download and examine the Aerial view the first thing you notice is encroachment around Oceana is far worse than encroachment around Fentress. It is also pretty bad around Norfolk International. The second thing you notice is all the open land around the proposed Hale's Lake core area, and an even bigger open area to the left and down a bit. Another nice thing is that Hale's Lake is on the way to the Marine base in North Carolina. If the OLF was closer to the Base in North Carolina more of the squadrons could be home based there and take some of the load off of the already stressed Oceana. There is also room to grow if the OLF ever decides to become a full size master jet base. Think of the positive economic impact to North Carolina. This would require the Navy and the Government to think into the future and plan ahead, something they seem reluctant to do. Do any of the Oceana jets use the Dare County Bombing Range, notice how close it is to the Green Line.

Another Item I noticed is the U.S. Navy Northwest Radio Station, right next to some wide open space. I'm sure the Navy could get a variance to fill in some swamp for a runway.

I'm not sure why the Hale's Lake and Sandbanks sites were rejected in the first round of consideration but maybe we in Virginia should look into the reasons and offer up some solutions to the previous problems? Or at the least see if we have some of the same problems in our sites that may exempt us.

Now looking at the Google map you will notice that the direct approach (Red Line) to the Dory Site takes the jets right over some major population centers. The Dory or Mason site also requires flying closer to and possibly infringing upon the traffic out of Norfolk International Airport, NAS Chambers Field, Franklin Municipal Airport, Suffolk Municipal Airport, Hampton Roads Executive Airport and Chesapeake Regional Airport. Wonder what kind of clearance you need to fly over the Norfolk Naval Shipyard? The flight (Green Line) to the Hale's lake site has few populated areas, and also offers the chance to divert and use Fentress either on the way there or on the way back. On the down side they will pass close by the Edenton Municipal Airport and Elizabeth City on their way to and from Cherry Point.

Another thing to consider. With the higher oil prices jet fuel is expensive - notice the airlines and their problems. Seems to me that closer (Hale's Lake) would be a whole lot better than farther (Dory or Mason or Sand Banks)