The Virginian-Pilot
Senate rivals find common ground on Navy landing field - © August 15, 2008
By Dale Eisman
The Virginian-PilotNORFOLK
They're finding plenty of things to disagree on, but U.S. Senate candidates Jim Gilmore and Mark Warner appear equally prepared to back the Navy's controversial bid to build a new landing field in southeastern Virginia despite the objections of nearby residents.
"I'm with the Navy on this. I understand what they need," Republican nominee Jim Gilmore said Thursday. "If the Navy tells us they have to have a facility for training people to land on aircraft carriers... I think that has to be accommodated in the national interest."
Gilmore's comments in an interview with Virginian-Pilot editors and reporters closely tracked Warner's remarks in a similar session last month. Both men said they would try to accommodate local objections to the proposed outlying landing field, or OLF, including seeking an alternative site, but left open the possibility of imposing it on an unhappy community.
The Navy is studying five sites - three in Virginia and two in North Carolina - as potential locations for the $250 million project. The Virginia sites are in Sussex, Southampton and Surry counties; the Carolina sites are in Gates, Camden and Currituck counties.
The service says the field is needed to give its fighter pilots an isolated location to practice nighttime carrier landings. Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach, the Navy's East Coast master jet base, is surrounded by well-lighted subdivisions and shopping centers that interfere with such training, Navy officials have said.
Residents in all the localities involved have joined forces to oppose the Navy plan. The Navy and state authorities have said they're open to offering tax breaks and other compensation to communities disrupted by the field.
Gilmore said he met with opponents last week and pledged to work as a senator to attempt to address their concerns. He accused Democratic nominee Warner of ducking the opponents.
But Tony Clark, chairman of Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field, a group leading the opposition, said Warner is set to meet with him and other opponents today.
"We had some challenges" in arranging a face-to-face session with each of the candidates, Clark said. It took several calls to set up last week's meeting with Gilmore and about the same effort to schedule today's session with Warner, he added.
From his perspective as a Southampton County resident, Clark added, there's nothing the Navy, the state or the federal government can do to make the field a desirable neighbor.
"It's not a monetary issue," he said. "You cannot financially compensate somebody for taking away something they don't want to lose at any price."
Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com
Comments
Humm. .
Submitted by davidj37901 on Sun, 08/17/2008 at 10:20 pm.Actually, it's not a question of complaining about noise. You buy in at accepting 65db sound levels, and then that jumps up to 75>db because Bush's puppet Thelma Drake gets too many squadrons of FA-18 super-hornets, and you have definitely the right to sue and win. It happened already, and BRAC is watching all of this. Eventually the skies will be quiet, free of noise pollution and calm.
Do not advocate an extention of time at sea
Submitted by NCguy on Sun, 08/17/2008 at 8:09 pm.and not having this 2nd OLF will not increase a sailors time at sea. The pilots have to be qualified at the OLF site before the carrier gets underway to attempt to qualify on the carrier itself. So no increase in overall deployment scheduled based on FCLP practices.
Back to the ex Governors. They helped create this mess as Governors. This encroachment has been happening since before 1976. 1976 is when VA BCH approved or opened Lynnhaven Mall against the wishes of the Navy. That kind of encroachment is incompatible to pilot training, it ruins the darkness and must be fixed. Close Lynnhaven Mall and any incompatible development. Navy should be doing that right now for its MJB. Fix Oceana. Fair is fair, our pilots deserve it. Right? If Oceana is now magically viable and nolonger terrible, then fly more than 5 FCLP night operations at Oceana. use Oceana as a backup OLF, like it is suppose to be used.
NAS Oceana
Submitted by etodonnell1976 on Sun, 08/17/2008 at 2:02 pm.Lets get this straight NAS Oceana is not an OLF (Out Laying Field), NAS Oceana is a Master Jet Base. Fentress is the OLF to NAS Oceana. I have been in the Navy for 14 years, stationed in Norfolk and Virgina Beach for close to 10 years. NAS Oceana was established when 90 percent of the abbutting land was farmland back in the 1960's. If you have purchased a home within the area surrounding the base, that is your fault, you should have done your research before making your purchase. HELLO! The base is huge, it should have been obvious that it was there, and with the base come the aircraft and the noise. You have no right to say anything when you have been so blind and have put yourself in the very situation you complain about. The Navy did not force you to build or purchase your home within the areas the aircrfat operate. But, the easy answer to the situation according to some of you, is to increase the time the Atlantic fleet ca
Back to what I said earlier. .
Submitted by davidj37901 on Sat, 08/16/2008 at 2:32 pm.This is all a moot point. The JSF (F35) is going to be in Cecil Field this year, and it will NOT be stationed at Oceana so the days of Oceana are numbered. When JSF comes 100% online Oceana is done.
Summer Pulse 2004 had the Navy surging 4 carriers Submitted by NCguy on Sat, 08/16/2008 at 12:08 pm.They did it in 2004 utilizing the FRP as the model. FRP been around since 2003 timeframe. So the Navy surged 4 Atlantic Fleet carriers without this 2nd OLF, how did they do it? They used existing assets. The Navy is now saying that the encroachment which caused 2005 BRAC to say Oceana is not the future of naval aviation is managable. You accomplised a 4 carrier surge without this OLF, and now the encroachment is such that you should now be able to utilize Oceana to its fullest, if we are to believe you. Navy, five night FCLP operations is not a proper utilization of a site, do you agree?
Navy, please drop this OLF as you have proven time and time again that you do not require this. The assets on the East Coast can do the job of training our pilots. Release the 5 new sites and allow them to move forward with their lives. If Oceana cannot function as an OLF, then the encroachment is NOT managable. So which is it N
Agree With NCguy
Submitted by Noolfinnenc on Sat, 08/16/2008 at 10:33 am.I really wish people would use some deductive reasoning here. Our opposition to an OLF in northeastern NC is not about bashing our Navy. But the leadership of our Navy, and it pains me to say this, is POLITICALLY DRIVEN. We must be mindful of this fact. Not everything the brass tells you they "need" is truly a need. The Navy's own Environmental Impact Statement projects only FIVE nighttime touch and go operations to be conducted PER YEAR at Oceana. FIVE. At the same time, they are projecting more than THIRTY THOUSAND nighttime touch and go operations to be conducted at Fentress if a new OLF is not constructed. This is the "data" they are using to say that Fentress is over capacity. Fentress is NOT over capacity if they use the available capacity they have at Oceana. The reason they don't want to use this available capacity at Oceana? Noise. That's why. They know the folks in Va. Beach will scream to
They have proven a need? Really? Where is the data?
Submitted by NCguy on Fri, 08/15/2008 at 9:42 pm.Folks love to throw around the statement if they need it, the Navy should have it. Has the Navy proven this need? NO. The Navy says the encroachment around Oceana is now manageable. Does this mean Oceana can fly and train our pilots properly? If Oceana is now a viable MJB, the pilots now have a field that can perform more then 5 FCLP operations for the entire year from 10pm to 7am (a Navy number).
No, the Navy does not need another OLF, they just need to fly from the assets they have. That is the smart thing to do.
VA will soon have two senators that will sell their souls to keep our pilots at a field that cannot perform the mission properly. Is that smart?
Yet a community who does not wish this will be gone. This will be terrible.
Amen Govenors!
Submitted by Carolyn R on Fri, 08/15/2008 at 8:12 pm.I pray we don't have to get drawn into the Georgian/Russian conflict but my gut feeling is disquieted. World conflicts so no indication of lessening.
As long as we put our brave "human" pilots in those jets I say give the USN 2 new OLFs if they need it.
Why bother??
Submitted by davidj37901 on Fri, 08/15/2008 at 5:27 pm.All this pandering to the Navy is only because there is much of it here. Being a business man, I'm surprised Warner is behind this as business 101 is don't throw good money after bad. So when BRAC comes back again and relocates the jets to say Cecil Field, the $250K would help move the jets.
N.C. farmers: Soil is all wrong for Navy OLF site - © August 11, 2008
By Jeff Hampton
The Virginian-PilotHALES LAKE
Camden County farmers say flammable and unstable peat beneath the surface of bean fields here make this the wrong place for the Navy to build an airfield.
They hope soil samples taken last week will verify what they say and what past soil surveys suggest because they don't want a practice field here.
Hales Lake, one of five sites where the Navy proposes building an outlying landing field, was once part of the Dismal Swamp. Soybean fields stretch for miles uninterrupted except for large drainage ditches. Without drainage, the fields could not be farmed. The area isn't called Hales Lake for nothing, OLF opponents say.
Surveys show deep layers of organic material cover the area. The land must be drained to get a tractor through it. An 8,000-foot runway pounded by F/A-18 Hornets landing and taking off would not hold up, said Jeff Jennings, a farmer who owns much of the land, and chairman of the Camden County Board of Commissioners.
"I've seen peat out there go 12 to 15 feet down," Jennings said.
The nearby Blackwater Worldwide complex, however, includes an operational runway. Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell would not comment on construction details.
Farmers will not burn stubble off harvested wheat fields here as they normally do because of worries that the fire will sink into the peat. It can burn for months underground, leaving gaps that would have to be filled in with a bulldozer, said Kevin Jennings, Jeff Jennings' brother.
To get samples, engineers sank clear tubes about 16 feet into the ground in seven spots and removed the tubes filled with dirt in visible layers, Kevin Jennings said.
Surveys of Camden County show the Hales Lake area with four different soil types, Roper muck, Belhaven muck, Wasda muck and Hyde silt loam. The survey describes each of these soils to be very wet with a low strength level, unsuitable for septic systems and unstable as a construction base.
"If you step in that stuff when it's wet, you sink to your knees," said Steve Sutton, the Camden County ranger for the North Carolina Forest Service. "It's not solid at all."
Currituck and Camden counties hired Cary engineering firm Withers & Ravenel to study the possible effects of an OLF might on storm-water runoff, soils, wetlands and wildlife, among other things. The soil samples were among the first steps of the study.
The Navy is negotiating with landowners at all five proposed sites to get access for its own environmental study, said Navy spokesman Ted Brown. Soil samples will be part of the Navy's study, he said.
A report on the soil samples was not completed as of Friday, said John Morrison, Camden County attorney.
Jeff Hampton, (252) 338-0159, jeff.hampton@pilotonline.com
Comments
Why would you report the soil to be
Submitted by Carolyn R on Mon, 08/11/2008 at 10:25 pm.wrong due to flammability when you are reporting the 4 types of soil to have a high moisture level?
There may be a sensible answer to this but it should be explained so that those like me who are not technical experts could really understand.
Funny
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Mon, 08/11/2008 at 12:37 pm."The nearby Blackwater Worldwide complex, however, includes an operational runway. "
So when did Blackwater start doing touch and go's w/ F-18's? Doesn't really seem like a valid comparison does it? I am curious why it was mentioned at all.
So What...
Submitted by CrazyTedVB on Mon, 08/11/2008 at 12:08 pm.They can do the same thing the developer did when he built Courthouse Estates. They'll just scrape off the soil and sell it. Then they'll bring in some crappy, litter filled soil to back-fill everything. Problem solved.....
peatground
Submitted by sharonm49628 on Mon, 08/11/2008 at 10:07 am.Mr. Winkie, where have you been while the fires in the Dismal Swamp, and the Hyde, Tyrrell County, NC areas have been burning? That's PEAT darling. Soak it with jettisoned jet fuel, and jet exhaust residue and see how long it will burn. While Virginians may think they rule the world, you couldn't rule which way the wind blew the smoke, could you? If you don't care how much an airfield costs to build (you CAN build about anything, anywhere if you're willing to spend the money) or destroying other people's lives, maybe you care about your own air quality.
OLF>br? Submitted by Prairiedog on Mon, 08/11/2008 at 8:36 am.Yeah, the soil is not good for a landing field. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, LOL)
Gilmore, Warner agree on OLF - © July 25, 2008
Posted to: Editorials Opinion
The Virginian-PilotThere aren't many things that former governors Jim Gilmore and Mark Warner will agree on as they campaign to succeed Sen. John Warner. But the need for an outlying landing field to serve the jets at Oceana Naval Air Station is thankfully one of them.
Both men would support an OLF - where pilots practice nighttime carrier landings - in Virginia if the Navy can make the case.
"I think the OLF is critical to maintaining the mission at Oceana," Warner said during an interview Monday with The Virginian-Pilot's editorial board.
Gilmore was equally unequivocal in an interview Wednesday: "I'm a U.S. Army veteran... and I understand the needs of national security here. I support the Navy in their efforts to gain an outlying landing field."
There's no question that both men understand the importance of a fully operational OLF suitable for high-tempo pilot practice, both for the future of Oceana and for the Navy's continued presence in Hampton Roads.
"It's a matter of national security," said Gilmore, a Republican. "It's a matter of the safety of our pilots."
The Navy has identified five possibilities for an OLF. Two are in North Carolina, and there's one each in Sussex, Surrey, and Southampton counties. Despite efforts from both the Navy and Virginia to leverage economic development possibilities to make an OLF attractive, opposition has been almost universal.
Potential neighbors argue that an OLF would destroy their heritage and way of life in order to solve a problem that Virginia Beach and Chesapeake created by permitting development around Oceana and Fentress.
Everyone involved has been searching for options and possibilities, but at the moment none is immediately obvious. And while the Navy has said it has no desire to condemn private property, in the end it may be left with few other options if it wants an OLF near Oceana.
"I would not rule out eminent domain," said Gilmore. "I would prefer that we work out an accommodation." There is no light between that position and Warner's: "[Eminent domain] should only be a last resort."
If agreement between Warner and Gilmore on such an important issue is unusual, there is some precedent. Reps. Bobby Scott and Randy Forbes, a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican, are likewise united in their views on an OLF, promising to fight any attempt to force one on a community. Unfortunately, that agreement unites them on the wrong side of the issue.
Warner backs OLF for Oceana, won't rule out supporting Va. site - © July 22, 2008
By Warren Fiske
The Virginian-PilotNORFOLK
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mark Warner said Monday he's keeping an open mind on the Navy's search for an outlying landing field for Oceana Naval Air Station.
"I think the OLF is critical to maintaining the mission at Oceana," Warner said during an interview with The Virginian-Pilot's editorial board.
He said the Navy's process of selecting a site to practice nighttime aircraft carrier landings should continue. If the Navy can make a good case for one of three sites under consideration in southeastern Virginia, Warner said he would push for construction despite local opposition.
"I would be willing to support it and make the case to the local community," he said.
Warner said he would "not rule out" the use of government condemnation powers to seize land for the air field. "But that should only be a last resort," he added.
Besides the Virginia sites, the Navy is considering locations in northeastern North Carolina.
Warner indicated that before supporting a site chosen in Virginia, he would talk to local residents and seek their reasons for opposing the field. But he said he would not be afraid to buck local sentiment.
"Trying to use whatever political capital I have to advocate for what may or may not be politically popular, I think I've proven my stripes on that," said Warner, who was governor from 2002 to 2006.
Warner is running against Republican Jim Gilmore, who was governor from 1998 to 2002. They are seeking the Senate seat held since 1979 by Republican John Warner - no relation to Mark Warner. John Warner chose not to seek re-election.
In a wide-ranging discussion, Warner reiterated calls for a comprehensive energy policy that stresses development of alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles. He faulted Gilmore for stressing new domestic drilling offshore and in Alaska, saying such actions will not alleviate demand for oil and natural gas.
He pledged to pursue centrist policies and not be beholden to partisan politics in the Senate. "The value of that is that it really sends the message that you're acting in the country's interests and not the party's interest," he said.
Warner said he is anxious to withdraw troops from Iraq but declined to endorse the 16-month timeline being proposed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. He called for improved health benefits for veterans but offered no details on the cost of such a program.
He also urged a national program to improve roads and rail and lay broadband lines for computer access. He acknowledged he has not figured out how to pay for infrastructure improvements.
Warner said the federal government must curb spending and the only way to do that is to stem the growth in entitlement programs such as health care.
Warren Fiske, (804) 697-1565, warren.fiske@pilotonline.com
Comments
But
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Tue, 07/22/2008 at 3:44 pm.Virginia is his backyard. Considering the amount of sites on the list that are in Virginia this could hurt him politically. He also made statements about reducing goverment benefits. How can this bother even the most conservative of republicans? What ever happened to the parties agenda of fiscal responsibility?
What a joke. . .
Submitted by davidj37901 on Tue, 07/22/2008 at 3:37 pm.I would not vote for anyone supporting an OLF, as it's nothing but a "band-aid." BRAC already spoke saying . . ."the future of aviation is NOT Oceana. . ." Additionally, why spend all this money looking for, validating (environmental impact studies), and pushing for an OLF when the F35 (JSF) will be out in probably three years, and will NOT be stationed at Oceana? It will then not me a MJB, so why not be proactive and relocate the jets now? If Navy brass was "proactive" in the '70s and bought up everything in a 5 mile radius, they wouldn't be looking for an OLF now. A total bunch of idiots is what the Navy brass is.
Phoney Politician
Submitted by UnionMan on Tue, 07/22/2008 at 1:31 pm.Wonder what Warner would say if it was in his backyard? He's a typical democrat running for senator and thinks he can get the military vote if he comes out in support for the OLF. Beware of Warner. He is a liar and only grandstands with those he thinks can help him get elected. After he's elected, he will forget all about the military with his feigned support.
Annoyed by jet noise in N.C.? Click to complain - © July 10, 2008
Posted to: Military News North Carolina
Online: Residents can report jet-noise complaints to the county on its Web site.CURRITUCK, N.C.
On Monday at about 10 p.m., a jet flew over Tulls Creek Road so low and loud that a Moyock woman reported that she couldn't hear the television show she was watching.
She reported what had happened on a new jet-incident complaint form first posted on the Currituck County Web site July 3.
"I don't appreciate my evenings or days for that matter being disturbed by the roar of low-flying jets," she wrote.
As of Wednesday, the county had received six complaints, said Randall Edwards, spokesman for Currituck County.
Several residents have reported excessive jet noise in recent weeks, said Currituck County Manager Dan Scanlon. Camden County provides a link to the Currituck form from its Web site.
"If we sit here for the next year and not register any complaints, the Navy could come back and say we've been flying over there for months and no one has complained," said Randell Woodruff, Camden County manager.
Two months ago, the Navy announced plans for low jet flights over five sites - two in North Carolina and three in Virginia - to demonstrate noise levels at outlying landing fields.
The Navy has not begun the test flights, said Navy spokesman Ted Brown.
"We will clearly announce those ahead of time," he said.
Other military aircraft are training along the East Coast, including the Marine Corps, which also flies F/ A- 18 Hornets, he said.
During the tests, jets would fly about 600 feet above ground in a race-track- shaped pattern - typical of touch-and-go carrier landing drills - without touching down.
Camden and Gates counties in North Carolina and Sussex, Southampton and Prince George counties in Virginia were selected in January as proposed sites for an outlying landing field.
Residents and officials at each site have overwhelmingly opposed a Navy airfield near their homes, largely because of concerns about noise.
Jeff Hampton, (252) 338-0159, jeff.hampton@pilotonline.com
Comments
They are landing. It's brief
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Fri, 07/18/2008 at 2:33 pm.They are landing. It's brief but it is a landing. The ship moves up and down and side to side. Don't shoot the messenger.
They're not landing!!
Submitted by alfarkas on Wed, 07/16/2008 at 6:15 pm.They're doing touch and goes and doing their circles over as many houses as possible. I truly believe they do this just because they can, to prove some sort of macho "...we own this town..." point. And this week they brought in the French. I don't what kind of airplane it is but it's just as loud as the Superhornet. (A single vertical tail and delta-like wings...). Last night went until 11pm. As soon as a few "situations" settle I'm out of here. The superhornets have made this part of the city practically uninhabitable. (It wasn't like this prior to the superhornets). Quote me.
ALFARKAS
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Wed, 07/16/2008 at 10:56 am.Thank you for your support.
Your right. But I don't think the pilots at that stage are able to land on a moving target. I beleive that was the issue raised before. I could be wrong.
misconception, VB did fight FOR the superhornet
Submitted by NCguy on Mon, 07/14/2008 at 10:24 pm.At the 2005 BRAC, Virginia politicians to include Myra fought for the superhornet to stay in VB. Myra spoke for VB when she stood in front of BRAC saying Oceana needed to stay open.
ALFA, I accept that you do understand the impact of these planes to people. Many of us have suggested what ur suggesting, train smarter. The Navy insists that an OLF is the only way and that this 2nd OLF is the only answer. IMPASSE. Thank you for sharing ur exp.
The Navy will not show a need that also takes into account all the assets available to them for pilot training. Their statement Fentress ALONE stops any further arguement. Navy, remove the ALONE from your statements and then validate that the Navy does not have the assets to train our pilots. They have the facilities. Oceana is not the future of naval aviation. period.
I know Ira but
Submitted by alfarkas on Mon, 07/14/2008 at 4:11 pm.I don't wish this noise on anyone else. There has to be a better way. Float a barge, put bouys in the water, buy land along the ocean or bay so the jets can circle over the water. It's the 21st century. Let's train then fight like it's 2008, not 1958. "VB had no choice in the
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Mon, 07/14/2008 at 11:18 am."VB had no choice in the arrival of the Superhornets, NC does."
And we choose no.
Regardless, it would not reduce the jet traffic over PA Plaza.
alfarkas, The politicians
Submitted by NCguy on Mon, 07/14/2008 at 6:24 am.alfarkas, The politicians are a major part of the problem. The local government, in this VB and Chesapeake, have a responsibility to support the training mission. The Navy recognizes this responsibility in the same instruction and documentation that they are using to condemn folks at the 2nd OLF.
The local governments have a policing authority that the Navy is only suppose to usurp if that local government cannot or will not enforce.
The mission at Oceana is degraded to the point were the pilots are not getting the training they need. It would be too costly to fix. So the Navy has settled to keep a degraded training facility at Oceana and Fentress because of how the local governments failed to support the mission. The proper thing is to fix Oceana to make it a first rate facility for our pilots. Is that being done? NO. Stay away from the 2nd OLF site.
NCGuy you have some valid points
Submitted by alfarkas on Sun, 07/13/2008 at 8:40 am.But it goes beyond blaming the politicians. It was INEVITABLE that VB and CHES would grow, people moved here regardless of the government jobs (truly a no-growth industry anyway). What's the answer? Revert vast acreage to swamp, pig farms and soybean fields? When a baseball team is broken, they change managers, not the entire roster. The answer is innovative training that takes the planes away from population areas during "touch and gos". The noise level inflicted upon Princess Anne Plaza over July 8 - 11 was truly absurd. This is the best they can do? VB had no choice in the arrival of the Superhornets, NC does.
This is not about supporting our pilots
Submitted by NCguy on Sat, 07/12/2008 at 12:17 pm.The Navy has told us for too long that a second OLF was not required. So stop the talk about not supporting our pilots. If the Navy showed us they needed this 2nd OLF long time ago, they would have their field right now. The folks at Washington County would have hosted this site, just like any of the other sites on the table now.
This is about the Navy not doing what is proper. The Navy is not willing to tell VB that they either fix the encroachment or we leave. It is too costly for the Navy to fix that screw up. Myra, you have a choice, fix the encroachment or lose the jobs. That is the COURAGE the Navy needs to use. Make the tough choices. There are many communities that will properly host the Navy. It is insane that the Navy continues to fly out of Oceana. That is the problem. Oceana cannot, because of encroachment, perform the mission. Fix that Navy. The pilots MUST always fly around the master jet base. When the mission can no longer be PROPERLY performed, abanon the mission and find anew. That is the proper thing to do. Navy, when will you do the proper thing?
VA BCH has a choice, the 2nd OLF site does not
Submitted by NCguy on Sat, 07/12/2008 at 8:16 am.One of the arguements people say is if you do not like the noise, move. Around this 2nd OLF, no one will be there TO move. The Navy is taking the land and booting the people. Around the 2nd OLF, we would be gone. The Navy will not give us the chance to tolerate the noise. According to the Navy, many of you must be removed. They will not, so they should not condemn us, the Navy is not SAFELY training our pilots and does not have a desire to do that, is that a proper sound of freedom?
The Navy proved that they do not need this OLF to support Oceana in the last NEPA study. If the Navy condemns properties around the 2nd OLF, than they must be doing that around Oceana/Fentress. Thats 33,000+ people gone, and 60,000+ more of you being forced to sign restrictive use easements or the Navy just might fee-simple your lands for the good of the Navy and you. That is what is proposed around the 2nd OLF so Oceana/Fentress resid
My dear 'Navy Man'
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Fri, 07/11/2008 at 2:21 pm."People did not mind when the F-18's of the Navy were flying around on 9/11 did they. No they were happy to see them flying instead of some terrorist flying a highjacked plane and crashing it into some place that our loved ones were living or working."
I hate to bring this up. I truly do. No F-18 stopped any jet from hitting it's target that day. In fact, no fighter jet from any service did. 2 toppled the WTC, one hit right in THE PENTAGON, and another was downed by what we believe was a passenger lead attempt at defense. I understand the sentiment and your desire to mislead us by using 9-11, but your jets did not protect us. The mosque leaders did however get relief from low lying jets in Iraq because the noise is so loud the vibrations were damaging their buildings. It appears we are in the wrong country to get relief.
Jet Fly Over
Submitted by Navy Man on Fri, 07/11/2008 at 8:57 am.I live almost right beside Fentress Airfield. The jets fly there almost every day and although it is loud it is the sound of freedom. Those guys and girls that fly those planes need the practice to protect our freedom. People did not mind when the F-18's of the Navy were flying around on 9/11 did they. No they were happy to see them flying instead of some terrorist flying a highjacked plane and crashing it into some place that our loved ones were living or working. I personnaly love that sound and look up and love the fact that although they are loud and flying real low. Heck at least they are our planes flying. Imagine what the our lives would be like if you looked at those loud planes and they were here dropping bombs on us. If you don't like the noise then MOVE! But love the fact that those dedicated pilots have taken an oath to protect you.
1.5 hours to go
Submitted by alfarkas on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 8:46 pm.Perfect example is tonight! NC residents, wish you were here. It's 8:30pm, only 1 and a half hour to go. They've been overhead since 8am this morning. The A-6s, F-4s, F-14s NEVER flew this far west of Oceana. I've lived here since 1986. I know of which I speak. Superhornets don't belong over the city. It's practice. Oh yes, I forget the wonderful odor of JP-5 (jet fuel). Never got a whiff of that prior to the superhornets either. The city got screwed in this deal, and nothing I can do about it except move. There's my freedom.
Amen swd2k
Submitted by MackenzieM on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 3:05 pm."Thankfully, I don't live in the GN Rd/Va Bch Blvd area where the planes can't be more than 100' off the ground as they "turn final" - the noise is even more deafening. The crash, when it comes, is going to be nasty..."
Amen to that, swd2k
I live right off of the corner of Great Neck and Va Beach Blvd and I can attest to how loud it is. I wear ear plugs when I go outside when they are doing touch and gos.
I do have to say that it's not everyday and it is something I have learned to live with, but if I had a small child to worry about that might be different. I live on a very tight and fixed budget so, no, I can't just move.
I've lived around jet noise from F-14's my entire life, but nothing compares to the roar of an F-18 superhornet. NOTHING!
If I lived in NC I would do just about anything to make sure the NAVY came no where near my home with those jets.
Fight, Fight!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by davidj37901 on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 2:05 pm.Fight like hell NC to keep those jets out of your area!! I’m sick and tired to hear all this crap about “freedom.” It’s not freedom but imprisonment to have these obnoxious FA-18 super hornets screaming overhead. Years back we had only F14’s and then the FA-18s came out, so the playing field changed. I glad all those people won that lawsuit not long ago about the “new” jet noise, and I’m enjoying the fact that BRAC is watching all this closely, as they said.. . “The future of aviation is not Oceana. . . “ And just think of the money of ours being wasted on looking for that “band aid” called an OLF. The F-35 (JSF) will not even be stationed at Oceana so it’s will no longer be a MJB. When you consider Virginia Beach is the most populous city in Hampton Roads, and we’ve go jets overhead, one marvels at the stupidity of the Navy for continuing this situation. Can these morons park a mothballed ship out in the Atlantic and do their stuff?
Writing on the wall
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 1:10 pm.My dear North Carolinians, read how some Virginians like to deride your partiotism and insist your complaints are nothing more than crying. Then you can ask yourself why the sudden need and sacrafice has been asked of us. Isn't it indeed their poor planning and lack of tolerance for the noise that brings it to your doorstep? If they are so patriotic why are we having this discussion. The developement around Fentress is fairly new. The majority began well after this issue was raised in VA. They simply want to dump the problem on you while retaining the benefits. FIGHT!
FREEDOM??
Submitted by Liz Day on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 1:01 pm.I have news for your Freedom Freaks- we are not free. When you can't live in your home in peace from head splitting noise, when it's legal for the government to wiretap anyone they wish, with the myriad of laws that intrude onto your civil rights get passed everyday, that isn't freedom. We can get lost in semantics (that's the correct definition of words,) but if you pull your head out of the sand and stop the macho bravado of the war machine, WAKE UP and get real, you will see that we are not free.
Freedom is when everyone in this planet can live their truth according to their life and standards and be respected without being thrown in jail or penalized for it.
Freedom is protection from harassment.
Freedom is everyone having the right to food, housing and education regardless of status in life. The old patriarchal mindset is a thing of the past. Get with the future. Read the dictionary and learn the truth behind some words.
There is one city that cares, but it's not VB
Submitted by swd2k on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 12:17 pm.Sure the jet base was here long before all the homes and encroachment, but I don't think anyone could have ever known that we'd reach the level of noise that the F/A-18 Superhornet can generate. What's been done about that? NOTHING.
No, the jets don't fly every day or even every night, but when they do fly, it is pretty unbearable. I live just off First Colonial road, and I can sit on my deck and watch plane after plane after plane come by so close that I can almost see the color of the pilots' eyes when they pass. The deck shakes, the glass rattles, nothing can be heard in conversation, on the television, on the phone - nothing. It passes, then another comes about 30-45 seconds behind it as they do touch-and-gos in the pattern. This will go on most nights starting about 6 or 7pm and end well after 10:00pm. Ever hear of Chinese torture??? A plane a minute for 4+ hours = Chinese torture!
Thankfully, I don't live in the GN Rd/Va Bch Blvd area where the planes can't be more than 100' off the ground as they "turn final" - the noise is even more deafening. The crash, when it comes, is going to be nasty...
Oh, Canada
Submitted by hjdttt on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 12:04 pm.87 Canadian soldiers dead in Afghanistan. How are they not paying for the protection of the world's freedom?
Jet Noise Expansion
Submitted by alfarkas on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 11:34 am.It's simply a matter of shifting their training habits. There should be absolutely no need in this day and age to practice "...race track oval patterns...600 feet altitude..." over any population area. Super Hornets have ruined my peace and quiet here in the Princess Anne Plaza section of VB. NC citizens, don't sit still. We had no choice over Super Hornet noise, you do. Good Luck.
Jet Noise can and will ruin the quality of your life.
Submitted by Liz Day on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 11:15 am. Not only will you not hear the TV, you won't sleep well (if at all), it will scare the life out of your pets and babies, (and I've seen animals and children traumatized by the sound), the levels of this jet noise will keep you and everyone else on their last nerve. It will makes your ears ring hours after the noise has stopped. Jet noise can cause hearing loss. WHen flying over schools it deters students from learning at their full potential.WAKE UP! =All the pro-jet noise people are totally ignorant and in denial about how hazardous this noise is.
I won't go into the crash potentials, emissions standards and damage to the natural habitats because I know that is way down on the list of importance of the military. Look what they've done to the dolphins and whales with their sonic testing in the ocean.
There are solutions to this problem and everyone can win if the military is just willing to do things differently.
Welcome to the Club
Submitted by JMBeckwith on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 9:10 am.Us in VA Beach deal with it all day every day. From 8 am to well past midnight. What they call the "Sound of Freedom" is just a nuisance to all of us. Especially when you buy a home with the disclaimer that “the jets rarely come through here, you wont even notice them”. Well when you have chronic migraines and cluster headache you know when you are waken up in the middle of the night in massive pain. I hope that NC doesn’t have to suffer like we do. I don’t see why the jets can just practice their flying out into the ocean and leave us alone.
Liars
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 9:05 am.When I called to report F-18s flying directly over my home, the Navy refused to take the complaint stating that they were Air Force jets. I told them I see they were F-18s as I was very familiar w/ the jet having lived at the oceanfront. They refused to take my complaint. I beleive this is to skew the numbers of complaints. They are trying to down play the impact of the noise. We know they have been flying low for months trying to probe us for tolerance.
Have respect for your military
Submitted by darkiya on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 8:34 am.Do not cry over an hour of lost television when the trade-off is to have skilled and prepared pilots ready and willing to defend our country. I have worked and lived near jet noise to the point that it became a normal occurance to pause mid-sentence for a jet to go overhead before continuing your thought. While I would hate to be woken up by the noise in the dead of night, during the normal waking hours I see no issue in a little bit of jet noise.
Get used to it
Submitted by marks57720 on Thu, 07/10/2008 at 7:39 am.Get used to it...it's the sound of freedom! It's about time that the North Carolinians living near Southeast Virginia have to endure what this is all about. Sort of like the Canadians who have the U.S.'s protection all the time, but don't have to pay for it. It's a small sacrifice to ensure that our pilots are ready to defend YOUR FREEDOM.
Navy seeks to identify owners at 5 OLF sites - © July 2, 2008
By Kate Wiltrout
The Virginian-PilotThe Navy has begun identifying landowners in five locations that are being considered for a controversial outlying landing field.
The Navy said in a news release Tuesday that its representatives have started visiting tax and deed offices in two North Carolina counties and three Virginia counties. They are collecting copies of deeds and records to determine landowners in the 2,000-acre core area of each site. The information will help the Navy contact owners if employees need to visit properties as part of its environmental impact analysis.
Sussex, Southampton and Surry counties in Virginia and Gates and Camden counties in North Carolina are being considered for a landing field where Virginia Beach-based jets would practice takeoff and landing maneuvers.
The release specified that the Navy would only amass names of property owners – not residents – in the core areas, where the runway and support facilities would be located.
The Navy said that if it determines it needs access to a property, it would purchase a temporary easement from the owner for about 18 months.
Beach residents to get lull in jet noise, but it won't last long - © June 26, 2008
Posted to: Military News Virginia Beach
By Kathy AdamsVIRGINIA BEACH
City residents will get a little more peace and quiet today, but not for long.
Since May 29, those living near Oceana Naval Air Station have endured a greater number of the notoriously noisy field carrier landing practices because of the closure of Chesapeake's Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field. Its runway was shut down for maintenance but is now back in working order several days before the scheduled completion date of June 30. Landing practices resumed at Fentress on Wednesday evening, said Oceana spokesman Troy Snead.
But Oceana's traffic will pick up again the second week of July when landing practices increase, he said.
Residents from the Birdneck Road area to the Oceanfront were divided on whether they'd noticed any additional noise during the past month.
"It's increased quite a bit from what I can tell, especially at night," said Sean Burke, who lives near the beach. "It can be a hassle."
Snead said there had been an increase in noise complaint calls but could not provide numbers.
Tom Saulnier, who works from his home off of South Birdneck Road, said he'd noticed about 25 percent more jet noise overhead recently. But it didn't really bother him.
"I kind of tune it out, for the most part," said the Marine veteran. "I know they have to train, so I honestly don't have a problem with it."
A few miles away, in a townhouse near Laskin Road and Pacific Avenue, Tom Slack said he hadn't heard any more noise than usual. Neither had several residents at Linkhorn Bay Apartments off of North Birdneck Road.
While thankful for any extra quiet to come in the next two weeks, some residents said the overall noise level is still significant.
"It's been a whole lot louder than it used to be," said Cherry Terry while sitting on her front porch after work Tuesday. She has lived in her home, off South Birdneck Road less than a mile from Oceana, for almost 50 years. Her family hears the jets almost every evening as they watch TV or sit on the front porch, she said.
"I understand they're training and that's their job," she said, as jets roared by every few minutes. "But they need to slack it up. It's too much."
Kathy Adams, (757) 446-2583, kathy.adams@pilotonline.com
Duke to do environmental study of Gates OLF site - © June 19, 2008
By Jeff Hampton
The Virginian-PilotA Duke University law clinic will conduct an environmental study at no charge of the Gates County, N.C., site where the Navy is looking at the possibility of building a jet practice airfield.
The Navy is conducting its own environmental impact study over the next year that will include the Gates County Sandbanks site, but local opponents want to make sure its conclusions are in the best interest of Gates County, said Laura Dickerson, spokeswoman for Citizens Against OLF.
The group approached the Duke University Environmental Law and Policy Clinic for help.
"We have a lot of wetlands there, and we're hoping this will help us learn more about them," she said.
In January, the Navy announced five sites - two in North Carolina and three in Virginia - that could serve as an outlying landing field where pilots of F/A-18 Super Hornets could practice aircraft carrier landings. Nearly unanimous opposition has organized at each location in search of anything from a rare plant to displaced farmers to stop the Navy's plans.
With each contributing $250,000, Camden and Currituck counties have hired a law firm, a public relations firm and an engineering firm in efforts to oppose an OLF proposed for Hales Lake.
Without financial help from the county, the Gates County citizens group has depended more on organizations offering voluntary services. The Southern Coalition for Social Justice is already representing the citizens group at no charge.
"We're very, very grateful," Dickerson said.
On Monday, the Environmental Law and Policy Clinic offered free services, said Ryke Longest, director of the clinic.
"Sandbanks clearly has an extra diverse natural habitat that could be destroyed," Longest said. "It is important for us to act proactively."
Formed last year, the clinic will primarily research environmental background already published about state game lands set aside there and a tract preserved nearby by the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, he said.
Graduate students, many studying environmental law, will do most of the research as part of their degree work, Longest said.
A joint venture of Duke Law School and Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment, the Environmental Law and Policy Clinic serves nonprofit organizations that are involved in conflicts related to water quality, air quality, natural resources conservation and environmental justice, among other things, according to a press release from Citizens Against OLF.
The Navy had no comment, said spokesman Ted Brown.
Jeff Hampton, (252) 338-0159, jeff.hampton@pilotonline.com
Comments
Fight!
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Thu, 06/19/2008 at 9:48 am.The Navy is refusing in some cases to take noise complaints from within Currituck County. For several months now the jet traffic has become lower and more frequent. I believe they are probing their boundaries. SO a couple of time I called in and told them they were too loud and this was not the norm for this area. The person answering the phone told me I had to "prove" it was a Navy jet before he would take the complaint.
Living in VB this never occured. Has anyone else had this happen? I beleive the reason is that they want to show that they have been flying low with no complaints. This is how they tend to do things.
Fight!
Group pushes to get Currituck site off Navy's OLF list - © June 13, 2008
By Jeff Hampton
The Virginian-PilotMOYOCK
A jet practice airfield proposed for Camden County should be dismissed as too intrusive - as it was in a 2003 study commissioned by the Navy, a residents group says.
In a letter sent this week to U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., the group asked elected officials to enact legislation that would strike the Hales Lake site in Camden County from consideration for an outlying landing field.
Maps from the 2003 study show the Hales Lake site with elongated noise zones that extend over Moyock in Currituck County and Elizabeth City in Pasquotank County. The study recommended "no further action" on the Hales Lake site, because of its potential effects on the growing population nearby.
When Hales Lake was put on a list of five sites in January, the noise zones were smaller and did not overlap Elizabeth City or Moyock. The opposition group questions the change that appears to make the site more acceptable.
"We're focusing on the one thing," said Juanita Krause, a founding member of the group, which is calling itself Hales-No OLF - Currituck and Camden Citizens Against the OLF. "What changed the contours? Where's that study?"
Camden and Gates counties in North Carolina and Surry, Sussex and Southampton counties in Virginia were selected in January as proposed sites where Navy jets c ould practice carrier landings. The Sandbanks site in Gates County and sites in Southampton and Surry counties were also among those studied in 2003 and recommended for no further action.
B ased in part on the 2003 study, a site in Washington County was named the preferred site. But years of opposition from residents, environmental groups and government persuaded the Navy to find another site.
With the help of state officials in North Carolina and Virginia, the Navy named the most recent five sites and began a new environmental impact study with plans to name another preferred site as early as next year.
Original OLF sites were surrounded by 50,000 acres of high noise and accident zones. That was reduced in the 2003 study to 38,000 acres. In recent public meetings, the Navy has displayed the sites on maps as ovals covering about 30,000 acres.
Average high-noise contours were diminished after the number of jets per squadron was cut to 12 from 14, said Navy spokesman Ted Brown. Fewer jets needing practice at an OLF lessens the average noise e ffects, he said.
Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach is projected to get eight new squadrons of F/A-18 Super Hornets and a practice squadron. Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station is set to get two new squadrons.
As the environmental study progresses, ovals marking the five sites will evolve into more realistic, elongated shapes like those in the 2003 study, Brown said. But the elongated sites will remain about 30,000 acres, he said.
Jeff Hampton, (252) 338-0159, jeff.hampton@pilotonline.com
Could some mussel stop OLF? Camden opponents think so - © June 6, 2008
By Jeff Hampton
The Virginian-PilotCAMDEN, N.C.Opponents of a Navy airfield are flexing their mussel.
A freshwater mussel found in a Camden County creek near a site the Navy is examining for an outlying landing field could raise concerns in an environmental study.
Construction projects can be affected when rare animals are found, and many of the 50 mussel species in North Carolina are threatened.
"We hope it raises red flags in the OLF study," said Camden County Manager Randell Woodruff.
Woodruff plans to send the shell to Withers & Ravenel, an engineering firm in Cary hired by the county to conduct an environmental study on the OLF site. The Navy is conducting its own environmental study of the site and four others, including one in the Gates County Sandbanks area and three in Virginia.
Local landowner Waverly Sawyer found the 6-inch-long freshwater mussel while cleaning out a creek on his property last fall, he said Thursday. Sawyer saved the shell and turned it in to Woodruff early this week, believing it might be environmentally significant.
"It was the biggest one I've ever seen," he said.
Biologist Robert Nichols of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission narrowed identification of the shell to two possible species, based on photographs e-mailed to him by The Virginian-Pilot.
It could be the eastern floater, not threatened but generally not found in this region, or the alewife floater, which is listed as threatened in North Carolina but has no federal status, Nichols said.
Mussels are tough to identify by photos, but 60 percent of the state's species are rare or declining, he said. Other species of concern in the region include the Choanoke crayfish and the fingernail clam, he said.
Nichols and other biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission are among those who review draft environmental impact statements such as the one being done by the Navy at the OLF sites.
Ted Brown, a Navy spokesman, said the Navy is analyzing all five sites for potentially endangered species as it compiles its impact statement. It would be premature to comment on specific species that could potentially be affected, he said.
Staff writer Kate Wiltrout contributed to this story.
Jeff Hampton, (252) 338-0159, jeff.hampton@pilotonline.com
Comments
I had to laugh on this one.
Submitted by Carolyn R on Thu, 06/05/2008 at 10:52 pm.Not only is the person who discovered the mussel a landowner, he is one of the county's biggest DEVELOPERS. The real laugh came from the fact that the county is so concerned about a mussel. I believe they weren't worried about an endangered plant when US 158 widening decisions were being made. I guess aquatic life trumps plants to them. This is just too funny!
Gates County, N.C., declines test flights over proposed OLF - © June 4, 2008
By Jeff Hampton
The Virginian-PilotTest flights are not wanted in Gates County any more than an outlying landing field.
Gates County commissioners sent a letter to the Navy on Tuesday declining the offer to fly F/A-18 Super Hornet jets over a proposed airfield site in the Sandbanks region.
"Since the jets cannot practice actual touch-and-go landings, the demonstration would not convey the accurate noise levels of an OLF," the letter said. "With the high costs of fuel and our current national debt, it would be wasteful to spend taxpayer money on such an inaccurate demonstration."
Last month, the Navy announced it would fly over the five sites proposed for an OLF in a pattern that would simulate jet noise levels. The jets would not be able to touch down but would fly as low as 600 feet.
Retired Navy pilot Roger Lambertson from Camden County said at the time that flyovers would not accurately duplicate noise levels of jets touching down and having to power engines to full thrust to climb again.
"The Navy has used the excuse of fuel prices with us when we mention other sites," Gates County Commissioner Kenneth Jernigan said Wednesday. "We've said Fort Pickett, and they say it costs too much to fly that distance, " Jernigan said, referring to the Virginia site.
The Navy acknowledged receiving the letter but had no response late Wednesday, spokesman Ted Brown said.
Jernigan, who lives within the noise zone of the proposed Sandbanks OLF site, serves on a task force of residents and officials opposing the airfield.
Camden and Gates counties in North Carolina and Sussex, Southampton and Prince George counties in Virginia were selected in January as proposed sites where Navy jets would practice carrier landings.
Residents and officials at each site have overwhelmingly opposed a Navy airfield near their homes, largely because of concerns about noise.
The Navy is conducting environmental impact statements on each of the five sites and plans to eventually name a new preferred site.
Jeff Hampton, (252) 338-0159, jeff.hampton@pilotonline.com
Comments
Obviously there are some people who will want the flyovers.
Submitted by Carolyn R on Thu, 06/05/2008 at 11:24 pm.I would also suggest to them that they go to Fentress to get the real experience. I think a lot of people will be greatly surprised at what they don't hear.
The Navy bullies or threatens again
Submitted by NCguy on Thu, 06/05/2008 at 6:58 pm.From the Daily Advance 4 June 2004: "Catoire said the Navy couldn't promise at this time not to fly jets over the Camden or Gates sites. He said a flyover might be necessary to gauge noise levels as part of the ongoing study process." So here the county commissioners representing the citizens of this county ask the Navy and CDR Catoire says sorry, were gonna fly over your heads even if you do not want it. Did the Navy do any of these live noise studies for the old NEPA study? Nope. They used a computer model for all the noise contours. Is flying a jet in this manor scientific with controls, NOPE. it is just a waste of time. Is the Navy fostering a since of team and partnership with the sites? NOPE. The live noise studies the Navy did was years later and failed miserably to pass the scientific test. Half of the desired tests were not accomplished because of birds in the area and bird strike potentials. The Navy called the tests satisfactorily completed thou.
Kudos to Gates County Citizens
Submitted by skybluepink on Thu, 06/05/2008 at 8:15 am.It is so refreshing to see honest truthful people in Gates County trying to stand up and protect it's citizens in this OLF situation! Of course the fly over would not be true or honest! The Navy's noise levels are already distorted by averaging the sound over 24 hours, over 365 days a year! In stead of trying to present entertainment by the Navy, who only wants to attract some individuals with their flying skills, the good people of Gates want to put a stop to all the negative impacts, and misrepresentation of information put forth by the Navy.
In this time of economic woes, you would think the Navy would be working on ideas or projects to save the citizens from wasteful spending, and try to find ways to help the economic conditions facing the United States.
At least keep the impacts to the areas in Virginia that are already impacted, rather than spreading the negative impacts across 2 states. Thank you, Virginian Pilot for helping to get the truth out in your entire area of people who take the Virginian Pilot daily! Good Job!
Sound applause!
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Wed, 06/04/2008 at 11:02 pm.Good job Gates County! Test for what? They already have an OLF at Fentress.
Thank you Roger Lambertson. In case no one else does.
It's good for people to know the truth.
Sure Thing
Submitted by davew on Wed, 06/04/2008 at 10:30 pm.You can be sure of 2 things, taxes and the government not telling the truth. The navy could care less about civilians and their quality of life.
Good for You NC!!!! Don't take NAVY !!
Submitted by johnh31265 on Wed, 06/04/2008 at 9:21 pm.Enough said. NAVY just trying to run a front as usual!!!!
N.C. counties order impact study of OLF to compare with Navy's - © May 23, 2008
By Jeff Hampton
The Virginian-PilotCiting distrust of a Navy study, Camden and Currituck counties have hired an engineering company to research the potential environmental impacts of a proposed jet airfield.
Withers & Ravenel, an engineering firm based in Cary, will study the effects an outlying landing field might have on storm water runoff, soils, wetlands and wildlife, among other things. At the same time, the Navy is conducting a draft environmental impact statement, which will include similar research.
"What track record do they have to make somebody want to trust them?" said Jeff Jennings, chairman of the Camden County Board of Commissioners.
A Navy environmental study done in Washington County was widely criticized after it was released in 2003. A judge ruled the study inadequate in 2005. The Washington County site was removed as a preferred site in January. In February, the Navy proposed options in Camden County and Gates County and three others in Virginia.
In March, Currituck and Camden counties agreed to split costs to hire Poyner & Spruill, a Raleigh law firm, and French West Vaughan, a Raleigh public relations firm. Each county agreed to contribute $150,000 for early efforts. Later, the figure could rise to more than $1 million if a lawsuit is filed.
The counties agreed to hire the engineering firm this week. Pasquotank County voted Monday to contribute $25,000.
At a hearing Wednesday night in Camden County, leaders of no-OLF groups in both counties and about 70 residents challenged Navy facts distributed in recent public meetings. Comments will be sent to the Navy.
New storm water laws recently passed in North Carolina could make it more difficult and expensive to build an airfield on a remote farm, said Larry Johnson, president of Camden No-OLF.
Currituck No-OLF president Juanita Krause warned residents the Navy could hold an easement stretching for miles from its runway and could control what property owners do with their land.
In a phone interview Thursday, Navy spokesman Ted Brown and OLF project officer Cmdr. Richard Catoire responded to some of the challenges from residents, such as the criticism that noise levels averaged over 24 hours do not accurately measure the nuisance.
Brown and Catoire said military and civilian airports typically use day-night averages to measure noise levels. Actual decibel levels can be higher but are different depending on distance, wind, temperature, humidity and the individual aircraft operation.
Noise research on the Navy's OLF Web site details why a 24-hour average more accurately measures overall nuisance better than single-event noise levels. Opponents have disagreed with the conclusions.
Another criticism is that distances from Oceana Naval Air Station to four of the five OLF sites are inaccurate in the Navy's figures. The distance to the Camden site measures 26 miles, the same distance given by the Navy. But the other four are much closer than the Navy states.
Brown and Catoire said the Navy measures "transit distances," which accounts for flights having to avoid airspace around such facilities as Norfolk International Airport. Flights from Oceana could fly more directly to the Camden site. For the environmental impact statement, the Navy plans to measure flight distances that would go around Moyock.
Jeff Hampton, (252) 338-0159, jeff.hampton@pilotonline.com
Comments
Carolyn R
Submitted by Kira on Sat, 05/24/2008 at 4:04 pm.
It is I who agrees with Darrell.Your are very perceptive. I like that. I wish you would look at all sides…I always say it’s my side, your side and the truth. It may be time to just look at the truth.
Well, Amy, why don't you andV Submitted by mariew62207 on Sat, 05/24/2008 at 11:49 am.V Well, Amy, why don't you and all the others that like the noise of freedom get together, and, tell the Navy to keep the jets in Oceana? Oh, why didn't you tell your neighbors that sued the Navy because of the noise and damage done by the jets, not to sue and complain?
Kira
Submitted by Carolyn R on Sat, 05/24/2008 at 12:11 am.
I believe Darrell agrees with you!
OLF
Submitted by Kira on Fri, 05/23/2008 at 11:05 pm.
Amy, just answer the question posted here....clean your back yard first before you mess up your neighbors.In Currituck and Camden counties the Navy plans to take and hold restrictive easements and prohibit incompatible development for over 26,400 acres (over 41sq. miles). Is the same amount of land restrictive easements and incompatible developments required for Chesapeake and Virginia Beach? If not, why would the Navy infringe on the rights of people in North Carolina and not hold the same equal restrictive easements on the property of the people in Virginia Beach? Has one home in Virginia Beach or Chesapeake, VA been taken by eminent domain as required by BRAC?
This whole process is wrong. First you strip people of their possessions, so they’ll have no resources with which to fight. It’s long been known, “Without property rights, there are no other rights.” Wake up folks, this process could be coming to you next.
More of the same
Submitted by Amy on Fri, 05/23/2008 at 9:35 pm.
It's just more of the same NIMBY mentality that the Navy has to deal with. It has to go somewhere people, and everyone is going to scream "Not in my back yard" no matter where they go. Don't fool yourselves into believing that the intrusion of the Navy is going to be welcome anywhere. I don't like the noise, but I tell you what, hearing that noise at least lets me know that they're still there training to protect and defend us should the need arise.
2 things about average noise
Submitted by gordonwall on Fri, 05/23/2008 at 11:21 am.
If you were to fire a 50 cal rifle next to your ear, the average noise level would be quite low, but you would still be deaf. Second since most of the OLF operations occur in darkness -pilots have to make 40 landing in the dark before deploying- the navy needs to use the number of hours of darkness instead of 24 hours. Otherwise the Navy is being less than honest.
Fight!!!
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Fri, 05/23/2008 at 11:17 am.
NC residents, push your elected officials. Make sure this fight is well funded. Beware of those who try to play down the effects of the jets and the destruction to our communities. FIGHT!
Go NC... Good For You!!
Submitted by johnh31265 on Fri, 05/23/2008 at 10:49 am.
Finally people realize the truth and fight for thier rights. The Navy is infamous for lies and deceit to get what they want!!! Glad NC is standing up to them!! Now the truth will come out. Oh yeah by the way "agent Orange" never caused CANCER and "SONAR" does not harm Whales. Jet noise is pleasant to listen to and Navy aircraft never drop "pratice Bombs" on populated civilian areas!! "We the Government" support the "Navy Studies" and find all life to be safe from any of the aforementioned studies and all you stupid civilians should just shut up and take what we say to be GOSPEL!!!! NOT in OUR Backyard Says "North Carolina!!!! Good For you North Carolina!!!!
olf
Submitted by Kira on Fri, 05/23/2008 at 7:50 am.
In Currituck and Camden counties the Navy plans to take and hold restrictive easements and prohibit incompatible development for over 26,400 acres (over 41sq. miles). Is the same amount of land restrictive easements and incompatible developments required for Chesapeake and Virginia Beach? If not, why would the Navy infringe on the rights of people in North Carolina and not hold the same equal restrictive easements on the property of the people in Virginia Beach? Has one home in Virginia Beach or Chesapeake, VA been taken by eminent domain as required by BRAC?This whole process is wrong. First you strip people of their possessions, so they’ll have no resources with which to fight. It’s long been known, “Without property rights, there are no other rights.” Wake up folks, this process could be coming to you next
Possible OLF sites called endangered - © May 14, 2008
By Matthew Jones
The Virginian-PilotA historic preservation group's annual list of the state's most endangered sites names a proposed Navy landing field as a threat to local history in four counties.
The list, released Tuesday by APVA Preservation Virginia, is intended to provide local citizens "with a tool to raise awareness," said Elizabeth Kostelny, the group's executive director.
It also, she said, gives "some credibility that someone outside the community thinks this issue is important."
The Navy is studying three sites in Virginia and two in North Carolina.
The Virginia sites include land in Prince George, Southampton, Surry and Sussex counties.
Kostelny said the group included these sites because of the possible threat of degradation to historic structures from noise pollution and vibration caused by the jets.
Another threat, she said, comes from the potential loss of thousands of acres of agricultural land, which could affect century farms and other valuable landscapes.
In response, Navy spokesman Ted Brown said Tuesday that the Navy "is fully committed to identifying and analyzing impacts to cultural resources and historic sites" as dictated by a number of national regulations, and that these would be "key areas" in its upcoming draft environmental impact statement.
The Navy will consult with historic preservation offices in both Virginia and North Carolina, he said, adding that anyone with specific information on historic or cultural sites should submit it to the Navy before the public comment period ends June 7.
Kostelny stressed that the preservation group is not opposed to the OLF. Rather, if the Navy does chose a Virginia site, it will encourage the Navy to work with the affected community to ensure its historical resources are protected.
But Surry County resident Gwendolyn Wooden-Jones, who attended Tuesday's news conference, hopes the announcement will cause the Navy to rethink its plans.
The land that Wooden-Jones and her family have farmed for more than 100 years stands northeast of the proposed runway at the Navy's Cabin Point site, which straddles Surry and Prince George counties.
"I think it was a very positive move, in the sense that, before moving any further, the Navy would take a look at all the declared sites," she said. "Hopefully, this will slow up the process, if not totally block it."
Wooden-Jones, who is a member of the Nottoway Indian tribe of Virginia, said the Surry location includes documented historical sites and Native American burial sites. She said she believes the Navy could find another site on federal land that would have less of an impact.
"There is just so much negative," she said. "We stand to lose so very much."
Alice Higgins, who lives near Waverly, which is between two of the sites, agreed.
"The land at any of the sites is irreplaceable. The historical value can never be brought back once it goes," she said.
"Agriculture and tourism are the two big strengths of Virginia's economy," she added, "and those are the two big areas in which these areas contribute."
Matthew Jones, (757) 446-2949, matthew.jones@pilotonline.com
Taking a chance on oil, OLF - © May 11, 2008
Christina Nuckols
Virginian-Pilot op-ed columnistIN THE REPUBLICAN nomination battle for this year's U.S. Senate race, both contenders have grabbed hold of high-voltage issues that could make it hard for the party's chosen candidate to cozy up to Hampton Roads voters this fall.
Former Gov. Jim Gilmore has emerged as an enthusiastic booster of stepped-up offshore drilling for oil, including along Virginia's coast, a topic that makes tourist-dependent Virginia Beach antsy.
Del. Bob Marshall used last month's Shad Planking to announce his opposition to an outlying landing field for Oceana's F-18 pilots, a step many in the region view as crucial to preserving the Naval Air Station in Hampton Roads.
Neither issue will be pivotal in the party convention later this month to select a nominee. So why would these two guys voluntarily plunge into such hazardous territory, particularly when Mark Warner, the ever-cautious Democratic candidate, has carefully parsed his policy statements to avoid giving offense?
The answer lies with Warner, whose advantage in polls and fund-raising is forcing both Republicans to come out swinging, even at the risk of clocking potential supporters.
On a personal level, Gilmore is hungry for the chance to take on Warner, who spent much of his gubernatorial term blaming his Republican predecessor for the state's budget crunch. Strategically, Gilmore also knows he can't delay in carving out clear policy differences to close the disconcerting gap he would face in the general election.
Energy policy is an obvious starting point with gas prices at record highs. With trademark bravado, Gilmore has sailed full steam ahead with a call for drilling for oil off Virginia's coast. Dick Leggitt, Gilmore's campaign manager, dismisses suggestions that the Republican's position on oil could be an impediment in the state's second-most populous region.
"We're not talking about drilling right off Virginia Beach," he said. "We're talking about deep-water drilling, 50 miles out."
As the underdog in the nomination fight, Marshall is always looking to make a splash, and the outlying field issue was a convenient way to rally locals at the Shad Planking in Sussex County, one of several localities where the Navy is considering a practice field site.
Marshall criticized Virginia Beach for allowing development to encroach on Oceana, and declared it unfair to punish rural farmers for the city's bad decisions. He warned that Oceana could leave Virginia even if a new OLF is created.
The issue appeals to Marshall's populist streak and may score him points with a handful of rural Southsiders. But it also highlights anxieties in Hampton Roads over the retirement of U.S. Sen. John Warner, whose seniority helped to keep Oceana at the Beach during the most recent round of military base closings. Few in the region want to see him replaced with someone so antagonistic to saving Oceana, which has a $1 billion annual economic impact on Virginia Beach.
Both men fault Mark Warner for playing it safe on hard issues. The Democrat is open-minded about natural gas exploration in the Atlantic but acknowledges environmental concerns with oil drilling. He wants property owners to have input on the OLF but warns that the loss of Oceana could make other military bases vulnerable, deepening the economic harm to Virginia.
Warner may wrap his policies in caveats, but so far he's managed to avoid setting booby traps for himself in a region no candidate can afford to write off this fall.
Christina Nuckols is an editorial writer for The Virginian-Pilot.
E-mail her at christina.nuckols@pilotonline.com.
Navy plans low flights over Virginia, North Carolina sites - © May 8, 2008
By Jeff Hampton
The Virginian-PilotCAMDEN
The Navy plans low jet flights over five sites, three in Virginia and two in North Carolina, to demonstrate noise levels at outlying landing fields.
Test runs would occur within the next year and will be advertised, said Navy spokesman Ted Brown.
Jets would fly about 600 feet above ground in a race track shaped pattern typical of “touch and go” carrier landing drills without touching down, Brown said.
The tests are intended to demonstrate that landing practice will not be as intrusive as expected, but opponents of an outlying landing field used similar tests conducted in 2005 as a rallying point when flights didn’t go as expected.
Camden and Gates counties in North Carolina and Sussex, Southampton and Prince George counties in Virginia were selected in January as proposed sites for an outlying landing field.
Residents and officials at each site have overwhelmingly opposed a Navy airfield near their homes largely because of noise. The Navy held meetings at each of the sites in the last two weeks to explain flight patterns, location and frequency of flights among other things.
In 2005, the Navy conducted a test run for the public at a site in Washington County where observers said a jet pilot narrowly missed a flock of geese. The Navy disputed the claim. A test scheduled for Hyde County near Lake Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge was scrapped after flocks of birds were seen flying in the testing area and it was deemed too dangerous.
Camden, N.C., GOP candidates oppose OLF, but one adds a twist - © May 1, 2008
By Jeff Hampton
The Virginian-PilotCAMDEN
In Camden County, the only primary contest pits two candidates with somewhat different views on the proposed Navy practice airfield.
Republicans Robert "Bob" Albury and Michael McLain, both of Camden, will face each other in Tuesday's primary. Albury, an antique-shop owner, and McLain, a certified public accountant and teacher at Hampton University, are vying for the right to face Democrat Joey Coppersmith for the Courthouse District Board of Commissioners seat in the November general election.
Incumbent Jeff Jennings, the board chairman, is not seeking re-election.
The site under consideration in Camden County for the Navy's outlying landing field is in one of the region's largest potato growing areas. County residents have opposed the airfield, where fighter jets would practice carrier landings. Sitting commissioners have issued a resolution opposing the field no matter what incentives the Navy offers.
In addition, Camden and Currituck counties have teamed up to hire a law firm to lobby against the field.
A site in Gates County and three others in Virginia also are being considered for the airfield. An environmental study requiring at least a year will determine which site the Navy prefers.
Both Albury and McLain have said that they oppose the OLF, but McLain said he is open to discussions with the Navy.
"There are some who favor the OLF," McLain said. "They're the silent group."
He's willing to listen to the Navy, he said. "I believe all offers are open for discussion," he said.
Camden's population has grown sharply in recent years, creating a need for more schools. But the county has lagged in attracting the industrial and commercial development that would broaden the tax base to help pay for schools.
Albury and McLain support attracting more businesses to the county.
Albury said he would form a search committee to focus on attracting light industry. McLain said he would try to entice industry by pushing for a partnership with Chesapeake to bring public sewer service to the north end of the county.
Jeff Hampton, (252) 338-0159, jeff.hampton@pilotonline.com
Five things to know about the Navy's OLF search - © April 27, 2008
The Virginian-PilotA new round of public meetings is about to start as the Navy resumes its quest to find a site for a practice landing field to serve Oceana Naval Air Station.
Navy officials say they need an additional field because Oceana and nearby Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field are frequently at capacity.
In addition, they say, so many houses have been built around the airfields that flying conditions don't effectively mimic those of landing on an aircraft carrier, particularly at night. n In January, strong local opposition killed plans to put the landing field in Washington County, N.C.
Now the Navy has begun an environmental impact study of five other sites in Virginia and North Carolina.
Already, many residents and local officials are voicing concerns about those sites, as well. But Navy officials express hope that, armed with economic and other incentives, they can find a community that will welcome them.
The environmental study
The environmental impact statement, or EIS, will look at the impact that building and operating a landing field is likely to have on air quality, plants and animals, bodies of water, land use, housing, transportation and the region’s economy. It also will include an analysis of aircraft noise levels.
This week’s meetings give the public a chance to suggest other factors the Navy should consider.
The format of the meetings
These are not public hearings where people can give a speech to the crowd – formal hearings aren’t set to be held until mid-2009. These sessions are informal. Large displays will describe various aspects of the project, and Navy representatives will be on hand to answer questions and speak one-on-one with residents.
Attendees also can fill out comment cards and suggest issues they want the Navy to consider or study further as part of the environmental impact statement.
How to comment
In addition to submitting written comments at the meetings, the public can submit them online at http://www.olfeis.com/ or mail them to Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, 6506 Hampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23508 Attn: Code EV OLF Project Manager.
The deadline for submitting comments is June 7.
To learn more
The Navy site http://www.olfeis.com/
Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field http://www.novaolf.com/
Citizens Against OLF http://www.citizensagainstolf.com/
Lawmakers weigh in on OLFs in N.C. counties - © April 24, 2008
By Jeff Hampton
The Virginian-PilotTwo congressmen took different stances on a Navy jet airfield proposed for sites in Gates and Camden counties in letters sent Wednesday to the secretary of the Navy.
U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., wants Camden County removed from the Navy's list of sites proposed for an outlying landing field.
"Local opposition to the proposed site is overwhelming," Jones wrote. "Local officials, groups and citizens have voiced their concerns and I believe they are valid."
Jones did not mention the Gates County site, which is not in his district.
U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., whose district includes Gates County, was not as firm.
"As the Navy initiates the scoping process to identify community concerns of the five proposed sites, I urge that the statements of local residents be afforded strong consideration," Butterfield said. "Nonetheless, it is my desire that this process produce a suitable OLF site."
A Gates County group opposing the OLF is planning to meet with Butterfield on Friday. Residents have stated environmental and noise hazards as reasons for their opposition.
"He has not been as strongly opposed to the OLF as we would like for him to be," said Renee McGinnis, a member of the Gates County contingent.
The letters were sent five days before the first of a series of public meetings planned by the Navy. The first will be Monday in Currituck County.
Other elected officials have also weighed in. State Sen. Marc Basnight, D-Dare, and state Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, have stated opposition to an OLF in northeastern North Carolina no matter what incentives come with it.
Republican U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr oppose both sites if there is no local support.
"I question whether it is prudent for the Navy to move forward with additional studies on these contested sites - spending millions in taxpayer dollars and causing further emotional and financial tolls on the residents of northeastern North Carolina along the way," Dole wrote to Navy Secretary Donald Winter two weeks ago.
Camden County has hired Raleigh law firm Poyner & Spruill, which has assigned five attorneys with expertise in military affairs, government administration and environmental law. Currituck County has agreed to help pay the costs.
The proposed Camden County site lies near Moyock, the most populated and fastest-growing area in Currituck County and adjacent to security contractor Blackwater.
Gates County commissioners have not joined the coalition, but a residents group has been strongly opposed to an OLF. The Gates County site sits in a much more remote area.
The Navy announced in January that sites in Gates and Camden counties and three in Virginia would be studied over the next 30 months to see which one would be most suitable for an OLF.
Jeff Hampton, (252) 338-0159, jeff.hampton@pilotonline.com
Good faith fading in OLF dispute - Editorial - © April 15, 2008
The Virginian-PilotEverybody clearly has learned from North Carolina's bitter but successful fight against a landing strip to serve Oceana's jets. Unfortunately, they've picked up tips from the Washington County duel that could prove damaging to everyone's interests, even to the region, its economy and the national defense.
The Navy is just beginning a study of five possible locations for an outlying landing field to train the pilots stationed at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach. Two are in North Carolina, three in Virginia.
The Navy will need to exercise some control over a huge parcel of land - the strip itself and surrounding acreage. Oceana's future as the East Coast master jet base depends on replacing the field at Fentress in Chesapeake, now so encroached with development and polluted by ambient light that it is no longer ideal for carrier-landing practice.
The objections in Washington County were initially about property rights but, thanks to the Navy's missteps, focused eventually and almost exclusively on the potential threat to migratory waterfowl. The birds proved a potent weapon, forcing the Navy into a retreat. Now it is considering the five alternatives.
Since the commonwealth doesn't have migratory waterfowl overwintering in nearby estuaries, at least not many, opposition in Southampton, Surry and Sussex counties has focused on property rights, heritage and resentment, a potent mix in a place like Virginia.
It's an emotional combination, and it's already in full flower, inspiring 650 people to show up at Southampton High School recently.
Delegates and state senators representing the region have capitulated already and said, essentially, that they'll support whatever residents want, or don't. More surprisingly, perhaps, is that they've been joined by U.S. Reps. Randy Forbes and Bobby Scott, who don't agree on much and who are supposed to have a broader national perspective.
As an ardent promoter of a strong defense, and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Forbes' view is most surprising. He said he will not allow an OLF to be forced on Southampton, Surry, or Sussex. Forbes said that after the governor's office made a similar and earlier commitment, the more important principle is to prove to residents that government can be trusted.
He is counting on negotiations among the state, the Navy and the localities to shake loose a site acceptable to everybody. But in the current atmosphere of pitchforks and recrimination, with opposition building in both Virginia and Carolina, that seems unlikely, to say the least.
The Navy is trying. The brass is open to just about any solution and is actively soliciting ideas. That sort of openness is refreshing.
But given the principles already raised by opponents - property rights, heritage, resentment - it's hard to imagine them holstered by the prospect of jobs, or money, or economic development.
Still, the state and the Navy should continue to explore every option in a quest to produce a package that makes an OLF palatable. In the end, though, Oceana is too important to the region, the state and the nation to be allowed to wither for want of an OLF.
This was an easier calculation when the Navy focused on rural Washington County, but it is no different now.
If a site in Virginia is the Navy's choice, and neighbors still oppose it, then the Navy and the state may be left with no choice but to take the land, in the larger public interest. It's in the hands of the communities, at least partly, to see that the fight over an OLF never comes to that.
Comments
Correction
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Tue, 04/15/2008 at 9:53 am.
The article should not have stated that it is in the "hands of citizens.' It should have correctly said that it is in the hands of 'Virginia's citizens."It appears that the only thing being agreed upon is that nobody wants the thing near them. If we looked at the checks and balances, the base is a huge benefit to Virginia's tax base. It should remain within their borders. As a con to placement in NC, the area proposed is the fastest growing region in NC. The Navy will be chasing it's own tail by placing it along the Camden/Currituck border. Encroachment is unavoidable in this area. The level of noise will affect more people in the flight path from Oceana to this site.
Simply put: it's a dumb idea.
This time, Navy aims to build consensus for landing field - © April 12, 2008
Public MeetingsThe Navy gave formal notice this week that it is studying the five sites. The study is expected to take two years to complete, with plans for the landing field to be in use by 2013.
The Navy will discuss the project at several public meetings:
- - April 28: 4-9 p.m., North Carolina Cooperative Extension, Currituck County Center, 120 Community Way, Barco, N.C.
- - April 29: 4-9 p.m., J.E.J. Moore Middle School, Disputanta, Va.
- - April 30: 4-9 p.m., Sussex Central High School, Sussex, Va.
- - May 1: 4-9 p.m., Southampton High School, Courtland, Va.
- - May 2: 4-9 p.m., Gates County High School, Gatesville, N.C.
- - May 5: 4-9 p.m., Camden County High School, Camden, N.C.
- - May 7: 4-9 p.m., Surry Central High School, Dendron, Va.
By Kate Wiltrout
The Virginian-Pilot
NORFOLKThe Navy says it’s taking a new approach to finding an outlying landing field for Oceana Naval Air Station – and top officials are pledging not to make the same mistakes their predecessors did.
Politicians and environmental groups still bruised from a long battle over a different site remain wary, though they said they welcome the Navy’s new commitment to cooperation and creative solutions.
Rear Adm. David Anderson, who’s leading the effort to find a site, said Navy Secretary Donald Winter has given him “wide latitude” to “question everything, down to how much we’re offering to pay for land, how we assess land, how much land we have to own.”
In January, Winter withdrew the Navy’s proposal for a field in Washington County, N.C. The site had garnered widespread criticism from residents, environmental groups and sporting organizations. The Navy’s analysis of the site, a few miles from a national wildlife refuge, drew sharp criticism from a federal judge and appeals court.
Eventually, North Carolina’s two senators and its governor also opposed the location.
Winter decided the Navy would examine five new sites – three in southeastern Virginia and two in northeastern North Carolina.
This time around, Anderson said, the Navy can’t afford to use the military’s standard procedure for locating a controversial facility.
“We look around and we find a spot on the map, and we plop our requirement down and force everybody to adapt to our requirement,” Anderson said.
“Legally, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we’re authorized to do that. But I don’t believe that the Department of Defense and Department of the Navy can continue to do business like that in the future.
“When you completely disregard and disrupt communities’ and individuals’ lives, with this air of arrogance, they’re going to call their elected officials now in a way they have never done in the past.”
And those elected leaders respond by cutting off federal funding, he said.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., remains skeptical.
“I fear that now we could be heading down the same road and allowing history to repeat itself,” she wrote in a letter last week to Secretary Winter.
“I question whether it is prudent for the Navy to move forward with additional studies on these contested sites. ... North Carolinians vividly recall the several stressful years and several millions of dollars expended in studying the widely opposed Site C in Washington and Beaufort counties.”
Anderson hopes that bringing residents, local officials and non-governmental organizations to the table early will mute some of that criticism.
He insists that the Navy can find a creative solution.
“If the people want to farm, if that’s the biggest activity in the area that the community wants to continue, we’re working out ways for them to farm right up to the edge of the concrete,” Anderson said. “And if they want to go across the concrete, to work it out so they can have access to get across when we’re not flying.”
David Smith, Virginia’s deputy secretary of commerce and trade, said state officials are also talking to the Navy about economic development possibilities that could make the field more palatable to Southampton, Sussex and Surry counties.
“If you think about the asset we’ll have in place – a 10,000-foot runway – that could lend itself to other uses for that field when the Navy isn’t using it,” Smith said. One example: he mentioned a distribution facility where commercial cargo jets could land on the runway when the Navy wasn’t practicing.
“This is a very refreshing position the Navy is taking on something like this,” Smith said.
Anderson, a former A-6 Intruder and F/A-18 Hornet pilot, said he’d rather work with the potentially affected communities upfront to make the project as palatable as it can be.
“Let’s put everything on the table. Nobody’s writing checks right now. We just want to brainstorm and find out, 'What’s the art of the possible?’” Anderson said, using one of his favorite phrases.
He said the Navy is already talking to two environmental groups about a site in Gates County, N.C.
Representatives of The Nature Conservancy and The Conservation Fund have been consulted on what’s called the Sandbanks site, Anderson said, to talk about “reintroducing some agriculture and threatened and endangered species we know are compatible with having an airfield there.”
Tom Cors, government relations representative for The Nature Conservancy’s North Carolina office, confirmed that the Conservancy is “engaged in the process,” partly because it owns 6,500 acres in Gates County adjacent to the proposed field.
Cors said the conservancy isn’t opposed to working with the military, noting that it started a conservation buffer program at Fort Bragg with cooperation from the Defense Department.
But he also said The Nature Conservancy is taking a “wait-and-see approach” with the landing field.
“There are just a lot of things we don’t know yet,” Cors said. “We really have to wait and see what sorts of impact will come out of the environmental impact statement to really understand what that means for conservation.”
He does think the Gates County site is less objectionable than the Navy’s old preferred location: “The environmental concerns are of a much different magnitude and scale than the Washington County site.”
Robert Crouch, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s assistant for commonwealth preparedness, said the Navy has learned some hard lessons, but he warned communities not to view Washington County’s outcome as an indication the Navy can be deterred.
“I think it’s a mistake for us to assume that there’s never going to be an OLF anywhere,” Crouch said. “There’s got to be a solution to this found, and it takes patience, and open-mindedness to listen and to be heard.”
Anderson knows that may be the biggest task he faces: getting residents in the five counties to listen and respond to the facts, not emotion.
He said he’s gotten calls from residents of Moyock, N.C., concerned that their quality of life would collapse because of jet noise if the landing strip were to be built in Gates County. In reality, Anderson said, they probably would not notice the jets, which would not fly above them en route to the field.
“We still are losing the battle on educating people about what it means,” Anderson said. “There’s an awful lot of misinformation out there.”
Kate Wiltrout, (757) 446-2629, kate.wiltrout@pilotonline.com
Comments
Just Seeing
Submitted by contractorva on Sat, 04/12/2008 at 6:40 pm.
If he lived in the flight path..We were arguing about it...but hes on the outer edge..so now its a new argument if the "edge" counts or not. I don't see how it matters either...I give up on this...
RE What difference..
Submitted by contractorva on Sat, 04/12/2008 at 6:02 pm.
Sorry as per an agreement can't say unless "Move Oceana" comment replies. Everyone is still here..But I will tell you this....the "vote" on you is 5 to 0...So no odds on you..pretty much a sure thing..
Setting the record straight
Submitted by markk33831 on Sat, 04/12/2008 at 5:32 pm.
I live on the edge of the flight pattern for Oceana. I'm one of those freaks that the noise really doesn't bother me but then I don't live directly under the flight paths either.My point being, the safety issue of the base is a critical concern, and it is one the Navy has brought up repeatedly. The chances of a disastrous accident go up considerably with high performance aircraft such as the F-18. The more crowded the area is, the heavier the operations, the greater chances of of accident. One cannot compare commercial jets to high performance fighters or strike aircraft.
And don't forget it's not just the people who live around the base that complain but the tourists also. I do not see where the two are compatible. The City of Virginia Beach is going to have to make a choice: tourism and homes or the naval air station. It will eventually come down to that, if it really hasn't already and we are just fooling ourselves about it.
The very best thing would be to create a new MJB out in the middle of open country. The problem with that idea is the people in the open country like it that way. Too many NIMBYs out there.
I dont' get it. .
Submitted by davidj37901 on Sat, 04/12/2008 at 5:20 pm.
What difference does it make where Mark lives? And besides, it's NOT just Oceana, it's an issue with Shadowlawn, Broad Bay Point Greens, Wolfsnare Plantation, Foxfire, Red Mill . .All the places routinely get blasted by jet noise. Anything in a five mile radius is in danger. You just hear more about Ocean as it's closest to the base. And, yes, I do live around Oceana, and I knew all about the jet noise, however, it's an excellent location; Close to interstates, great restaurants, the beach, Back Bay by way of International Parkway. I don't get all these idiots talking about the base closing, and money going away. The base will stay, as MANY other things go one there. It's just that the jets will leave. It's not a huge economy issue, or any big deal for a bunch of pilots/jets to relocate. Ocean is a stupid place for a MJB, and the Navy knows it. If the DOD was concerned they should have bought up tons of land in the '70s.
Re Replacing Oceana
Submitted by contractorva on Sat, 04/12/2008 at 2:12 pm.
Mark.. I have 4 friends over & 2 of them are Navy. 5 here including myself. All read your blog entry. I'm not going to say how I voted, or even that gambling may be taking place....but I will say this. The odds are 4 to 1 that you live in the Oceana area
Time to replace Oceana
Submitted by markk33831 on Sat, 04/12/2008 at 1:21 pm.
The real problem is with the location of Oceana NAS. Virginia Beach has grown up around it. It is inevitable that cities will do this. No matter how much preaching that Oceana is so important to the city, the reality of it is, if it WAS so important, the city would have stopped development around the base decades ago.This should not be an issue of where to put the OLF but where to create a new Master Jet Base for the East Coast.
It will become more of an issue the first time a jet crashes down in a residential area, an office building, the Lynnhaven Mall or, heaven forbid, a school . . .
Wow, they have learned nothing. . .
Submitted by davidj37901 on Sat, 04/12/2008 at 12:27 pm.
"Winter decided the Navy would examine five new sites – three in southeastern Virginia and two in northeastern North Carolina."The Navy reps are all complete morons. When will they realize that with the JSF out in around two years Oceana is finished as a MJB. Yet, these idiots continue to look for an OLF, which is simply a band-aid. I wish someone in the Navy would step forward and do the intelligent thing, and move the jet base to a secluded location, and southeastern VA, northeastern , NC is not secluded enough. Either that or give $450K to every homeowner in a 5 miles radius to buy a new house.
You're right about misinformation
Submitted by mariew62207 on Sat, 04/12/2008 at 10:25 am.
“We still are losing the battle on educating people about what it means,” Anderson said. “There’s an awful lot of misinformation out there.”I think the Navy should look in the mirror as to where most of the misinformation is coming from.
Public Meeting Itinerary....OLF
Submitted by contractorva on Sat, 04/12/2008 at 9:18 am.
Hmm I guess Adm. Anderson didn't agree with my suggestion on a previous post suggesting Suffolk, may be a hospitable place..Good luck Admiral...I don't know how you will fare with the people & locations on your itinerary, but, over my houses, including the rentals units, in Chesapeake, Va., You may feel free to occupy the airspace without complaint from me. If any of the pilots have to eject..The Navy may also walk on my grass.. I would suggest trying for the front yard at my house though. The dogs may not understand that you are allowed...in the back, & you may at times have to be careful where you step..
“If the people want to
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Sat, 04/12/2008 at 8:24 am.
“If the people want to farm, if that’s the biggest activity in the area that the community wants to continue, we’re working out ways for them to farm right up to the edge of the concrete,” Anderson said. “And if they want to go across the concrete, to work it out so they can have access to get across when we’re not flying.”There are very few full time farmers in Camden and Currituck. Homes abutt every single one of them. The real "misinformation" provided by Anderson and his supporters.
A big thanks out to Sen. Dole and other officials who have supported their fellow citizens.
650-plus turn out to fight proposed OLF in Virginia - © April 3, 2008
By Kate Wiltrout
The Virginian-Pilot
COURTLANDDays after a band of committed farmers celebrated their defeat of Navy plans for a jet landing field in North Carolina, a group of Virginia residents turned out en masse to start a similar battle.
More than 650 people packed Southampton High School's auditorium Wednesday night to hear advice from Barry Steinberg, an attorney from Kutak Rock, a Washington-based firm.
Steinberg, a retired Army colonel, wasted little time in telling members of the audience what they wanted to hear.
"It's oversimplistic to say that we are in a fight with the Navy. We want to help the Navy solve its problems. But the solution to the Navy's problems is not in Sussex,
Surry and Southampton counties," he said to applause.
In January, four years after Washington County, N.C., filed a federal lawsuit against the Navy's plans for a landing field there, Navy Secretary Donald Winter took the North Carolina site off the table.
He designated five other sites - two in North Carolina, three in Virginia - for further study. Those sites were among more than a dozen recommended last year by the governors of the two states.
Winter's decision jump-started the nascent opposition to the Virginia sites.
Wednesday's meeting demonstrated how organized Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field is. In the high school cafeteria, volunteers staffed tables to collect donations, sell red and white "No OLF" yard signs and hawk raffle tickets to raise money for the effort.
The group also distributed pages of contact information for elected officials to target with letters of protest.
Steinberg outlined the process that will unfold over the next three years: scoping meetings, a draft environmental impact statement, and then the record of decision on which site best provides for training squadrons of fighter jets from Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach.
Residents like Jim Hunnicutt said they resent the possibility of their homes' being affected because development in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake has rendered current facilities less than optimal for training pilots.
Hunnicutt bought a $5 sign to display on his 10-acre property in Sedley, about three miles from one of the proposed sites.
"We're getting dumped on," he said. "If we were getting the whole base - with the tax base and population and jobs - it would be one thing. There's no incentive. I don't particularly want it anywhere in the area."
Steinberg told the crowd that not wanting the landing field isn't a strategy for fighting it.
"We've got to give them ammunition," he said, referring to congressional representatives with some power over military funding.
He advised residents to raise questions about every aspect of the project: How will county finances be affected from losing thousands of acres of taxable property? What would clear-cutting timber for the field do to the population of red-cockaded woodpeckers? How would paving an 8,000-foot runway affect flooding and drainage?
"Running to court is not the answer," Steinberg said. Instead, the community must build an administrative record so it has a case if it does sue later, after the Navy makes its decision, he said.
Steinberg also said the Navy's biggest issue isn't finding a landing field for Oceana's jets - it's pondering Oceana's future when the Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, replaces the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
"The Navy ought to be looking at the bigger issue," Steinberg said. "Oceana has a problem that needs to be fixed."
The attorney finished his hourlong presentation with an abbreviated civics lesson.
"In a democracy, the will of the people counts," read his final slide. He urged the audience to reach out to state and federal elected officials.
"We don't live in the Soviet Union. We don't live in Red China," he said.
Responding to a question about the likelihood of winning against the Navy, Steinberg cited the Washington County group - a grass-roots effort that fought the field on environmental grounds, in court, and by attracting support from politicians.
"The Navy basically gave up," Steinberg said. "David, 1. Goliath, 0."
Kate Wiltrout, (757) 446-2629, kate.wiltrout@pilotonline.com
Comments
Build an OLF
Submitted by ssdamore752 on Thu, 04/03/2008 at 12:11 pm.
Why doesn't VA, Va. Beach and the Navy get together and do like Japan did and build a airport at sea? Build a small island a couple of miles off the coast with the runway they want/need, and run the connecting bridge into the Dam Neck area.
Jets
Submitted by my_view on Thu, 04/03/2008 at 8:39 am.
I am guessing in the beginning Virginia Beach was the poor country folk! But the city did get greedy and wanted it ALL!! They lied about the noise, and just kept building-still building! The Navy should have bought that land, why they didn’t I don’t know. But now we are stuck with the Jets! My question is, are these people unpatriotic because they don’t want the jets?? Because in VB you are? They should practice but not in an area with homes, schools, business... Nevada does sound good, but where ever they go they need to secure land, and lots of it!
Has anyone ever heard of...
Submitted by jonnycage on Thu, 04/03/2008 at 6:45 am.
Nevada! What a great place for an OLF. There are no people, no environmental issues, no cities to shed light upon darkness and thousands of square miles where planes can run through any situation they want. I understand there is a great need for training facilities for our military, but the east coast has become way too populated for it to be safe and logical. Why not head west? Some western states are 10 times bigger then these east coast states, and they have smaller populations then say Richmond. It may be time for a new base. Then everyone can be happy, and more importantly accomplish what needs to be accomplished without compromising the publics safety or the military's objectives.
Always Dumping on the Country People
Submitted by UnionMan on Thu, 04/03/2008 at 6:27 am. It's high time the federal government and military stops trying to dump on the poor country people. If they want a big enough base, then stop building in Virginia Beach. The buck started with the greed of Virginia Beach. It needs to stop with Virginia Beach. Now Cherry Point Naval Air Station always did want those F-18's. Maybe they should go to Cherry Point? I bet if the Navy all of a sudden decided to move to Cherry Point, you'd see Va. Beach council members start squawling.
Navy will argue for OLF by citing need for night pilot training - © March 25, 2008
By Dale Eisman
The Virginian-Pilot
WASHINGTONThe Navy’s top officer said today that the service will make its case for construction of a new practice landing strip in southeastern Virginia or northeastern North Carolina by emphasizing to nearby residents the importance of pilot training for night landings aboard aircraft carriers.
“We have to have a place where pilots can go fly that best replicates the environment that they’re going to experience” at sea, Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, told reporters.
The Navy wants the landing strip placed in a remote area where pilots can fly in and out in near-total darkness but still relatively close to Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach, its East Coast master jet base.
Roughead acknowledged that the Navy is facing serious local opposition to the proposed outlying landing field but said the service intends to press ahead with environmental and other studies of five potential sites announced in January. All are within 65 miles of Oceana.
Those sites, three in Virginia and two in North Carolina, were announced after the Navy abandoned a three-year effort to place the $250 million facility in Washington County, N.C. Local opposition similar to that which derailed the Washington County plan has sprung up near the new sites, each of which is located on timberland or farmland.
Comments
re locate
Submitted by Willy Brown on Tue, 03/25/2008 at 10:01 pm.
Charleston, S.C . or Goldsboro's Seymor Johnson x-air base would welcome the $$$$
So
Submitted by Ira Tateu on Tue, 03/25/2008 at 6:11 pm.
Idiots. The two NC sites are in the fastest growing areas in the state. No wonder the dealers charge them $600 for a hammer. It's the cost of explainng how to use it.
Crystal Ball
Submitted by Harvey Ridge on Tue, 03/25/2008 at 1:00 pm.
I don't even need to use a crystal ball to see where this is going. Not long from now the griping, moaning, pity, "woe is me" farmers, land owners and environmental zealots will be out in full force bemoaning the fabricated injustice that the Navy is trying to impose with the OLF. Let me help them out by providing a few more excuses for their NIMBY portfolio: "Can't build it here, it could harm the the endangered 3 toed bugbats in the area"; "Why are you doing this to me? This farm has been in my family for 4,000 years and we expect to turn a profit within the next decade"; and how about "Building the OLF here will drastically alter the migratory pattern of taxpayer dollars as they transform into the form of government farm subsidies." That should give the SELC and like organizations a good place to start....If there are any fledging environmental or grassroots organizations in need of slogan assistance, just let me know. We can start with "GO OLF - Beacuse We Like to Party!"
Training flights at Oceana, Fentress to increase next week - March 7, 2008
VIRGINIA BEACHThe Navy announced today that flight operations at Oceana Naval Air Station and Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress in Chesapeake will increase considerably March 10-13.
Five squadrons from Oceana and one from Chambers Field in Norfolk are preparing for an upcoming training exercise. The flights will take place during the day and at night.
For more information, visit https://cnic.navy.mil/oceana/index.htm or call (757) 433-2162.
Comments
Kate49484, I'm Sorry if I Appeared Harsh.
Submitted by contractorva on Sun, 03/09/2008 at 9:49 pm.
While I didn't research your recommendation, I will stipulate that high decibel l