Official: Step up anti-OLF effort - Monday, July 21, 2008
Camden building case against Navy airfieldBy Toby Tate
Staff WriterEven though Camden County has been pretty proactive opposing a proposed Navy jet airfield in the county, the county manager believes local residents can help ramp up even more opposition to the project.
At a meeting last week, County Manager Randell Woodruff suggested county residents conduct a door-to-door campaign across Camden in opposition to the Navy's proposed outlying landing field.
"I told Juanita that we need to go door to door in the community and let people know our opposition," said Woodruff, referring to Juanita Krause, a Moyock resident and organizer with North Carolinians Opposed to the Outlying Landing Field.
Woodruff pointed out that Camden already is far ahead of other communities that oppose being picked as the site for the Navy OLF. He noted the hiring of Raleigh-based law firm Poyner and Spruill and the public relations firm French/West/Vaughn, also of Raleigh. The county expects both firms to build a solid case showing how an OLF would have a significantly negative effect on the local economy, tax base, environment and quality of living.
Another strategy Camden has employed is the use of its county Web site, camdencountync.gov, where residents who claim the Navy is now conducting flyovers can post complaints about jet activity.
The complaints will be compiled and later presented to Navy officials at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach, Va., where many of the F-18 fighters jets that would use the OLF are based, according to the Web site.
Now is the time for residents to air their complaints so the Navy is aware of the opposition, Woodruff said.
"If we don't start complaining now, the Navy can say, 'Well, we've been flying over the area for months and nobody has complained about it,'" he said.
Woodruff said another argument against the OLF concerns something nearly everyone in northeastern North Carolina has become familiar with in recent months — the potential for large wildfires if there's a jet accident.
"We could be living in a fog for 30 or 40 days if a plane crashed and a fuel tank ignited," Woodruff said.
The Hales Lake area in Camden is one of five sites the Navy is currently studying for the proposed OLF, where jet fighters will eventually practice taking off and landing on aircraft carriers. The other sites include the Sandbanks area of Gates County and three sites in Virginia.
Woodruff said Monday that Navy officials should develop a system that ranks the five sites in order of suitability for an OLF.
"You'd think that they'd go through all these five sites and rank them — this is the best site, this is the next best, this is the worst — and then commonsense would tell you that they would pick the most suitable," Woodruff said.
But that's not the way the federal process works, he said.
"What I thought was really disturbing ... is that (the Navy) still has the discretion to pick the worst site," Woodruff said. "They need to update the process of doing these studies."
Comments
By Ira Tateu
Jul 22, 2008 11:40 AM"Thank you for contacting the office of Governor. We appreciate hearing from you. Your e-mail will be directed to the appropriate individual for a response."
Just write http://www.governor.state.nc.us/email.asp?to=1
By JD
Jul 22, 2008 8:13 AMStill missing the point. The Governor and Lt. Governor put us on the OLF list and sent it to the Navy. The legislature can pass a bill taking us off the list. Game, match, set.
By Mike
Jul 21, 2008 7:07 PMTag,
I fully support you. I Served 27 yrs US Navy in Operations, 6 years DOD. We Do not need an OLF.
By Ira Tateu
Jul 21, 2008 7:02 PM"Now for those of you reporting complaints about F/18s flying over, you probably better make absolutely sure it is an F/18 or you are giving the USN the ammunition to say you don't even know when an F/18 flies over as compared to another plane flying over. This can be a double edged sword."
It's pretty easy to spot an F-18. However, the Navy has been refusing to take complaints from citizens by asking them to 'prove' it is an F-18. Every once in a while a quieter jet from another branch flies lower than the rest. How do you like being tested? Doesn't sound like the Navy is a very good partner; does it?
By Ira Tateu
Jul 21, 2008 6:55 PM"I believe that someone a while back (in another post) recommended a referendum to see if the county could pull enough votes together, either for or against the OLF. May not be a bad idea to see what the majority says."
The problem is that more than one county is affected. How are we going to be fair and have multiple referendums that may be conflicting?
By Tag
Jul 21, 2008 5:55 PMYou know, this in-fighting is just what the Navy needs. Divide and conquer is the base rule of warfare. I believe that someone a while back (in another post) recommended a referendum to see if the county could pull enough votes together, either for or against the OLF. May not be a bad idea to see what the majority says. At least it would show that we are trying to play by some type of rules, and it would lend a lot of credence to either side if you knew what the majority of people were supporting.
What would be really interesting is to find out how many of the folks responding here are a) Active/Retired military, b) DoD Civil Service and c) DoD Contractors. As for me, I'll let you know up front, Retired Navy (24 years as a jet mechanic), current DoD Civil Service and I am opposed to the OLF. I believe that the disabilities I incurred from my time in the Navy is payment enough for me to be able to say, "Not in my backyard."
By skybluepink
Jul 21, 2008 2:01 PMThe EIS is a total joke. We all know the Navy will pick whatever site they WANT. They have the power and arrogance to reverse engineer any data as long as it suits their needs. They will not at this point reveal what site they LIKE the most, they have to pretend they are abiding by NEPA and study all 5 sites then make a ROD (record of decision). Only then will any of the people in the 5 sites know they are being condemned, and destroyed by the very same military people that are suppose to protect us. It's a little like a domestic terriost act. Kind of scary when you work your whole life to raise a family and protect your home, and hopefully leave your children and grandchildren something that is a piece of you, so they will always be a part of you, and it can all be wiped out in a moments notice by politics and greed. EVERYBODY knows that Oceana let things out of control, by the city and the Navy, and now they want to dump all their problems on rural communities who have no desire to be urbanized. As bad as the economy is, maybe we will all get a break, and there won't be any funding for an OLF, hopefully there are more pressing military matters don't truly needs attention, and not just the whelm of politics and greed. At least it will be interesting to see how many LAW SUITS will be against the Navy and Virginia Beach for forcing their problems on rural communities in NC and Virginia.
By skybluepink
Jul 21, 2008 1:58 PMThe EIS is a total joke. We all know the Navy will pick whatever site they WANT. They have the power and arrogance to reverse engineer any data as long as it suits their needs. They will not at this point reveal what site they LIKE the most, they have to pretend they are abiding by NEPA and study all 5 sites then make a ROD (record of decision). Only then will any of the people in the 5 sites know they are being condemned, and destroyed by the very same military people that are suppose to protect us. It's a little like a domestic terriost act. Kind of scary when you work your whole life to raise a family and protect your home, and hopefully leave your children and grandchildren something that is a piece of you, so they will always be a part of you, and it can all be wiped out in a moments notice by politics and greed. EVERYBODY knows that Oceana let things out of control, by the city and the Navy, and now they want to dump all their problems on rural communities who have no desire to be urbanized. As bad as the economy is, maybe we will all get a break, and there won't be any funding for an OLF, hopefully there are more pressing military matters don't truly needs attention, and not just the whelm of politics and greed. At least it will be interesting to see how many LAW SUITS will be against the Navy and Virginia Beach for forcing their problems on rural communities in NC and Virginia.
By Sir Ching
Jul 21, 2008 1:57 PMThe ones using the word patriotism all the time seem to be the anti OLFers. That is reading a lot into the other comments.
By skybluepink
Jul 21, 2008 1:57 PMThe EIS is a total joke. We all know the Navy will pick whatever site they WANT. They have the power and arrogance to reverse engineer any data as long as it suits their needs. They will not at this point reveal what site they LIKE the most, they have to pretend they are abiding by NEPA and study all 5 sites then make a ROD (record of decision). Only then will any of the people in the 5 sites know they are being condemned, and destroyed by the very same military people that are suppose to protect us. It's a little like a domestic terriost act. Kind of scary when you work your whole life to raise a family and protect your home, and hopefully leave your children and grandchildren something that is a piece of you, so they will always be a part of you, and it can all be wiped out in a moments notice by politics and greed. EVERYBODY knows that Oceana let things out of control, by the city and the Navy, and now they want to dump all their problems on rural communities who have no desire to be urbanized. As bad as the economy is, maybe we will all get a break, and there won't be any funding for an OLF, hopefully there are more pressing military matters don't truly needs attention, and not just the whelm of politics and greed. At least it will be interesting to see how many LAW SUITS will be against the Navy and Virginia Beach for forcing their problems on rural communities in NC and Virginia.
By mako
Jul 21, 2008 1:46 PMYou can also call Oceana direct for flyover complaints at 757-433-2162as I do. Currituck county also has a form that can be filled out on the county website so I encourage all to do so. We moved away from Oceana for peace and quiet and more than doubled our travel time to work and back and I will fight tooth and nail to keep it peaceful.
By concerned citizen
Jul 21, 2008 1:14 PMOK stop with the patriotic bull.
A couple of things are going on with the people who keep relying on the parasitism front:
1. These people have a interest of their own with getting the OLF in NC,... I.E. work for a NC based DOD contractor and they see $$$ building it.
2. They're brain washed or stupid to believing this is a readiness issue for the Navy.
You need to realize, this is not about patriotism or readiness. Oceana is on life support due to the lack of poor planning with encroachment. The fact of the matter is, the state of NC cut a deal with the Navy with being able to keep two squadrons in Cherry point, and in return, NC would help ease the pain of Oceana and the several pending law suites the Navy has with VA residents and build a OLF to lessen the noise in VA.
Folks... This is not about loving your country... Wake up. The politicians and the upper chain of command from the Navy (nothing more than politicians) have made a drug deal and the average citizen will pay. We have nothing to gain in NC from an OLF, unless you're a NC based DOD contractor.
By pj
Jul 21, 2008 12:59 PMThis isn't just a Camden problem, Northern EC should also be concerned. The flight path is going to be going right over P-Tank HS, EC Middle and the elementary school. Their are a lot of things to consider but that is one reason I moved from around Oceana.
I understand that VB screwed the Navy by allowing them to build but if you move close expect the noise. I moved to get rid of the noise and this time I was first in the neighborhood, not the Navy.
By plain and simple
Jul 21, 2008 12:19 PMSounds great Mike and makes sense, if it is truly a viable option. I wonder if the Navy has made it a consideration.
By wschuyler
Jul 21, 2008 12:06 PMAs a veteran I'm patriotic as the next. If the Navy needs an OLF thats fine. But the Navy needs to tell the truth. Anytime they get the foot in the door, the requirement will get bigger. OLF does that. The next thing will be a mini Oceana, or worse a consolidation of requirements, as the land will be available via the OLF.
By Mike
Jul 21, 2008 11:38 AMYou want a Solution... How about Fort Picket? Oceana can not perform as a Master Jet Base, The City of VA Beach has made sure of that. A OLF is nothing more than a Band-Aid for a Big Problem. Fort Pick has a Air Field. Over 30,000 Acres.(Gov. Owned) Sound's like a good Solution. If jobs where to move, So be it. What is best is that we unite for one goal. That goal is to have a Master Jet bast that can and will perform the Duties & functions of a MJB. OLF is not the answer!!!!!
By jj
Jul 21, 2008 11:27 AMTo plain and simple:
You are plainly and simply entertaining!
Thanks for all the laughs with your amazing insight,wit and intelligence.
By plain and simple
Jul 21, 2008 10:57 AMTo Rob: Idiots????....incapable of thinking????.....brainwashed????
The Navy lied???? HMMM, that's a first? Let's see. Let's shut down Oceana, and then NOB too. Half the people living in NENC and working in SEVA would be out of a job if it wasn't for the military. So if it has nothing to do with patriotism then what are the many reasons Camden is SO WRONG????? You are right about the problems that BRAC has with Oceana, but what are the choices you suggest to resolve the problem. The new OLF is the Navy's resolution. Come up with one better, not just for you, but the whole nation.
I can tell by your post...you are an intelligent flying a--hole.
By plain and simple
Jul 21, 2008 10:14 AMPlain and stupid...perhaps a lease of the land to the Navy instead of ownership would work better, with the stipulation that whenever the lease is surrendered they are required to return the land to its original configuration.
By plain and simple
Jul 21, 2008 9:59 AMThat's a another complete and total issue to be addressed, this stuff about who owns the land (and beach access). Who owned the land before you??? Who owned it before the Europeans landed on this continent?? Who owned it before the Indians?? Just the same way people took claim to the land, I guess the government can do it too. Land, unlike other things purchased in life, is only here for us to use, or abuse.
By plain and simple
Jul 21, 2008 9:46 AMBoy I pity you folks in Camden, with the manager you have. What a lame argument, 30 to 40 days in a fog because a plane MIGHT crash? I think someone else is in a fog, a permanant one. If that's what his defense against the OLF is, ya'll are in trouble. Hey Woodruff, here is another one you can use. Lightning MIGHT strike a plane and it crash into the Dismal Swamp and set it on fire. Can you imagine. Nah, that could never happen.
By Plain and Stupid
Jul 21, 2008 9:41 AMHey plain and simple, I sincerely hope that someone from the Navy reads this and decides that wherever you live is the best site for an OLF. I'd love to see your attitude if you were like me and they wanted to take your family's land that has been in your family for over 100 years!
By Plain and Stupid
Jul 21, 2008 9:40 AMHey plain and simple, I sincerely hope that someone from the Navy reads this and decides that wherever you live is the best site for an OLF. I'd love to see your attitude if you were like me and they wanted to take your family's land that has been in your family for over 100 years!
By Plain and Stupid
Jul 21, 2008 9:38 AMHey plain and simple, I sincerely hope that someone from the Navy reads this and decides that wherever you live is the best site for an OLF. I'd love to see your attitude if you were like me and they wanted to take your family's land that has been in your family for over 100 years!
By plain and simple
Jul 21, 2008 9:34 AMmuttering......absolutely nothing of value......talking about not having a life.....hmmm
By plain and simple
Jul 21, 2008 8:51 AM1. JJ, your initials should be JA (figure it out)
2. Hope the OLF comes and you either learn to live with it or you decide you have to move.
3. I have some cheese if you need it.
By JJ
Jul 21, 2008 8:18 AMYes, plain and simple (a good name for you), I am selfish. Thanks for pointing that out to me and all of us unpatriotic folks that live within five miles of the proposed OLF.
By plain and simple
Jul 21, 2008 7:47 AMSame old, same old. Not in my back yard!!! Put it on someone else. It it just so happens it is in my back yard, I do live in Moyock. And if the Navy didn't think Camden was the right place for it, they wouldn't be looking there. So what are the so many reasons Camden isn't the right place? Comes back to what I said originally. Selfishness.
By Rob
Jul 21, 2008 7:43 AMTo all of you idiots that are standing on top of your patriotism soap boxes telling us how ashamed we should be for opposing the OLF. How many times do you have to be told that this has nothing to do with patriotism! The Navy has been CAUGHT lying! They DO NOT NEED a new OLF to maintain pilot training or readiness. They want a new OLF because of all the grief they are catching for allowing all the encroachment arounf Fentress and Oceana. You guys don't have any trouble giving us that oppose the OLF "lessons" on supporting the military but you sure have a hard time accepting the fact that the Navy has LIED to all of us! Maybe you could go back and read the findings and requirements of the last BRAC committee? Oops, I apologize that would mean that you would actually listen to an opposing view! Silly me.
Oh, Carolyn R, if you could take just a little time from your busy schedule of second guessing everyone (you had your chance but decided to cut and run) maybe you can go back in history and tell us all just how many Coast Guard aircraft have crashed at the EC base? The last crash, if memory serves me correctly, was a Navy E2C practicing touch and goes at the air base. Before that I believe it was another Navy plane that crashed at the end of the old runway. Hmmmm, maybe we should be fighting to keep the Navy from using the Coast Guard air base because they are the danger. Also, most of us aren't as ignorant as you would like to believe. We can tell the difference between the slow, low flying WHITE and ORANGE Coast Guard aircraft as opposed to the GRAY JETS of the Navy.
You guys really need to keep this up. Please go out in public and let everyone know how you feel! Please go out and tell everyone just how unpatriotic we all are for not wanting an OLF in our backyard because the Navy needs it and would NEVER lie to us! I really should be sympathetic because you really can't help it. You've been brainwashed by Wubya the past 7 years. You see a terrorist behind every bush. You've gotten so accustomed to believing every lie that the government tells you that you are incapable of thinking for yourself.
By muttering
Jul 21, 2008 7:39 AMJJ
These are not supporters of the OLF..
Just plain and simple wise guys with no life to live..
By JJ
Jul 21, 2008 7:25 AMMy husband retired from the Coast Guard after 24 years of service and my son is currently in the US Air Force. You can consider us unpatriotic and selfish if you wish, but all three of us oppose the OLF. Camden County is not the place to build the OLF for so many reasons. I believe that these ardent supporters would most certainly be less supportive if this was happening in their own backyards.
By plain and simple
Jul 21, 2008 6:59 AMYou love your freedoms that our military afford you, and some put their lives on the line every day for you, and some have given the ultimate for, for you. But you can't sacrifice a little noise in trade for what they do for you? If I was the Navy I would be marching out the wounded pilots, or the parents, wifes, or children of pilots they gave their life .....FOR YOU AND YOUR FREEDOMS YOU ENJOY!!! You selfish people. You want them and need them to protect you...but you don't care if they are trained properly to do so. Shame on all of you!!!!
By ecgang
Jul 21, 2008 6:35 AMi think there is so much more to worry about these days then if the navy is going to have jets flying over your houses making noise or for fear of one crashing into your house. you dont mind the navy protecting you but you want to raise cain about the jets. i say the ones who are against it should just stop and think before they speak.
By Carolyn R
Jul 21, 2008 12:02 AMSo the only plane we are concerned about crashing over us is a US Navy plane? Congratulations US Coast Guard, you escaped that assault.
I would be careful in asking the 5 sites to be ranked in order of desirability. Sometimes you get what you ask for.
Now for those of you reporting complaints about F/18s flying over, you probably better make absolutely sure it is an F/18 or you are giving the USN the ammunition to say you don't even know when an F/18 flies over as compared to another plane flying over. This can be a double edged sword.
Web sites to tally jet noise complaints - Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Residents urged to register complaints in anti-OLF effortBy JENNIFER PREYSS
Staff WriterResidents of Camden and Currituck don't have to wait for the Navy to build a practice landing field in their community to complain about jets thundering nearby. Complaints about noise from jet flyovers can now be posted online on the counties' official Web sites.
The Web site noise registration has been active since the beginning of July and has already received more than 50 complaints, according to a release from the public relations firm working with Camden in its opposition to the Navy's proposed outlying landing field.
Flyovers have become more common since the Navy included Hales Lake among its five priority sites for the OLF, where the F/A-18 Superhornets would practice landing and takeoff maneuvers.
Camden County Manager Randall Woodruff encourages citizens to leave comments and concerns on the Web sites. According to the release, Woodruff said the comments will be shared with Navy officials.
"We want to hear from our citizens about their questions, comments and concerns regarding current jet noise so that we can share this with the Navy," Woodruff said in the release. "We do not want increased jet noise in our community and we do not want an OLF."
Recent submissions include an account of multiple jet flyovers in one day, according to the release.
Larry Johnson, a Camden resident who is heading the NO OLF Camden/Currituck citizen's protest against the project said, "These F-18s are noisier than anything that existed when the Navy created its process and policies for noise over 40 years ago.
"We cannot afford to ignore the impact jet noise will have on our communities and most importantly our children and grandchildren," Johnson said, according to the release.
Citizens with noise complaints can visit www.co.currituck.nc.us, or www.camdencountync.gov to fill out an incident form. Reports require a name, address and explanation of the incident. The information provided will be read by county officials.
Navy to visit tax offices about OLF - Sunday, July 06, 2008
By JENNIFER PREYSS
Staff WriterThe U.S. Navy will begin visiting tax offices in Gates and Camden counties in the upcoming weeks as part of its two-year study of potential sites for a training airfield for jet pilots.
Ted Brown, a Navy spokesman, said Friday that the visits are a routine part of the research process. The Navy plans to study sites in the two North Carolina counties and three sites in Virginia for its proposed outlying landing field. The visits do not signal any decisions about where the OLF will ultimately be located, he said.
"The Navy has not decided on purchasing the land in Camden," Brown said. "Our visit is part of the research process."
Local tax officials also have that understanding.
"As of yet, the Navy has not been into the tax office," said Renee McGinnis, tax assessor for Gates County. "This is just part of their research."
Navy officials are looking for approximately 2,000 acres to construct the OLF, which would be used to train Navy pilots to perform touch-and-go landings and low-level flying. The Navy says the OLF would simulate conditions novice pilots need to face before attempting takeoffs and landings on aircraft carriers.
Many residents in both Gates and Camden counties oppose the landing field, citing a number of concerns. Residents are particularly worried about wildlife and environmental infringements, and excessive noise problems. They also believe the landing field would devalue their homes and land holdings.
The county governments in Camden and Currituck have also allotted taxpayer funds to hire legal and public relations teams to fight Camden's selection for an OLF.
Contact Jennifer Preyss at jpreyss@coxnc.com
Firms hired to promote the other 4 OLF sites - Saturday, June 21, 2008
Camden turns to PR, engineer expertsBy JOHN HENDERSON
Staff WriterCamden County continues to hire experts to dissuade the U.S. Navy from selecting the Hale's Lake site for a fighter pilot training field. In fact, the county is now compiling data in an attempt to make four other proposed sites for the Navy's outlying landing field much more attractive.
Camden's Board of Commissioners agreed Monday night to spend more than $58,000 to hire two companies to further this cause, with Currituck being asked to cover half of it.
The commissioners agreed to spend $40,000 to hire Withers & Ravenel Inc, a Cary-based engineering firm, to determine whether four alternative sites might be a better geological fit than the Hale's Lake site in Camden. The firm will evaluate soil conditions and stormwater runoff at the four alternative sites, which include the Sandbanks site in Gates County and two other sites in Virginia.
The commissioners also agreed Monday to extend by another three months a $6,000-a-month retainer of French/West/Vaughn, a Raleigh-based public relations firm that is trying to generate publicity to influence the Navy's decision.
The contract also calls for the county paying for all "incidental expenses," expected to be an additional $480 a month.
The contract requires the firm to prepare a spokesman for media interviews, to write and prepare press releases, and to monitor and track local and national media coverage of the OLF.
The Navy has begun a two-year study of all five sites. The study is being performed to determine suitability for an OLF, where fighter pilots would practice touch-and-go maneuvers.
In addition to the Hales Lake and Sandbanks sites, the other sites the Navy is considering are the Cabin Point Site in Surry and Sussex counties, Virginia; the Dory Site located in Southampton and Sussex counties, Virginia, and the Mason Site located in Sussex and Southampton counties, Virginia.
Camden County Attorney John Morrison told commissioners Monday night that Withers & Ravenel's geotechnical review of the other four sites won't require on-site visits, but will rely on existing documents.
"It could be very difficult to go to Virginia and say, 'Hi, I'm from Camden County. I'm here to make sure your property is better than ours for an OLF,'" Morrison said.
So far, Camden and Gates county residents have been unified in their message that they don't want the Navy to pick any site in northeastern North Carolina.
But Withers & Ravenel also will be looking for soil and stormwater runoff data from the Sandbanks site.
Laura Dickerson, spokeswoman for the Gates County No-OLF group, said Tuesday that she hopes the unity between Camden and Gates will continue.
"I just hope we can continue to work together," she said.
Gates County recently informed Camden that it lacks the funds to help Camden pay for a legal team that is fighting the OLF. Camden and Currituck county taxpayers are footing the bill for Poyner & Spruill, one of the largest in the state. The fees of the five individual lawyers working the case range from $190 an hour to $315 an hour.
Camden is tapping into its $4 million reserve fund for the dollars to pay these experts. In the upcoming year's budget, commissioners set aside $250,000 to cover the legal, engineering, and public relations fees.
U.S. Navy rejected OLF sites in 2003 - Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Group: Stop study of Gates, Camden sitesBy John Henderson
Staff WriterThe fact the U.S. Navy rejected two northeastern North Carolina sites for a proposed jet landing field in a previous study should be enough reason for Navy officials to dismiss those sites from consideration now, a citizens group opposed to the airfield says.
Navy officials, however, say the previous study of the Hale's Lake area in Camden and the Sandbanks area in Gates County has no bearing on the current outlying landing field study, which is expected to take more than two years.
Members of Currituck/Camden Against the OLF believe the previous study is relevant, and in a June 6 letter to Navy officials ask that the sites again be removed from consideration for the jet training airfield.
Larry Johnson, the citizens group president, makes it clear in his letter that residents are unhappy with the Navy's designation of Hale's Lake and Sandbanks as "new" sites for OLF consideration.
Johnson writes that the Navy's April "Notice of Intent" to begin a two-year study of the Hale's Lake site provides "false and misleading information to the public when it identifies the sites ... as 'new."' In fact, Johnson's letter states, "four of the five 'new' alternative sites identified (for the OLF) are not new at all ... (but) have been studied before."
Johnson's letter notes that an evaluation of the Hale's Lake site was completed in July 2003 as part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for a study entitled "Introduction of F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Aircraft to the East Coast of the United States."
"Of the four sites previously studied in 2003, only the Cabin Point and Mason sites (in Virginia) were retained for further study in the 2003 OLF Siting Study," Johnson writes in his letter. "Both the Sandbanks site (in Gates County) and the Hale's Lake site were recommended for 'no further action'... indicating that neither site even made it beyond simple preliminary screening."
Navy spokesman Ted Brown said it is true that the Navy examined the Camden and Gates sites previously in 2000 and 2001. However, just because the sites were subsequently dropped by the Navy after the original "siting study" does not mean they had glaring faults for an OLF, he said.
He also said the Navy's criteria for the OLF has changed since that time.
"Remember where we were when we conducted the siting study," Brown said. "We were looking at 50,000 aces (for an OLF), as opposed to what we are looking at now, which is 30,000 acres."
Earlier this decade, the Navy believed it needed to have at least some control over 50,000 acres for an OLF, Brown said.
Today, the Navy believes much less government-controlled land is needed for the airfield, he said.
The 30,000-acre zone Navy officials refer to today is a noise contour area that might be irritating to some residents. But the Navy is not looking to buy anywhere near that much property, Brown said.
Uses like farming could still continue on much of the acreage within the noise contours, Navy officials have said.
Only a couple of thousand acres where the runway would be located would actually have to be purchased.
Brown said he did not believe the Navy announced any specific reason for dropping the Camden and Gates county sites from previous consideration for the OLF.
"The Navy made a decision at that time to narrow the (potential OLF) sites down from in excess of 20 to six," he said. "We looked at the ones that best met (the Navy's needs)."
Officials: Drainage woes should ditch Camden OLF site - Thursday, May 29, 2008
Hinson: Hale's Lake got name for reasonBy JOHN HENDERSON
Staff WriterThere's a reason why a large farming area in Camden County is called Hale's "Lake," local officials say.
It's because it's so prone to flooding.
"Go back to the name: 'Hale's Lake.' It infers what it's capable of being," says Dwane Hinson, who before recently retiring spent more than 30 years as a conservationist for the Albemarle Soil and Water Conservation District. "When a place is called, 'Hale's Lake,' that is some indication of what we're dealing with."
Camden residents want U.S. Navy officials fully aware of what they're dealing with before they choose Hale's Lake as a site for a pilot training field.
The Navy has embarked upon a two-year study of the site, along with four others, to determine their suitability for an outlying landing field where pilots would practice takeoffs and landings for future carrier missions.
Before retiring from a five-county Soil and Water Conservation district that includes Camden, Hinson worked with Camden County officials to develop drainage system requirements for protecting the environment. He said he's very aware of the topography at Hale's Lake.
"It has significant drainage issues," Hinson said. "The drainage issues are related to the flat terrain. The ditches may only remove two inches of water in 24 hours. If you get a six-inch rain, it's going to pond."
Hinson said the Navy would have to invest a significant amount of money in a drainage system before developing an OLF in Camden.
"Since money is not going to be a limiting factor, (the Navy) can build drainage systems at an elevation so (flooding) won't be an issue," Hinson said. "It is going to run up costs significantly. But I don't think cost is an issue with these guys."
Hinson said if the Hale's Lake site is picked, it's important that the Navy install the right type of drainage system. Otherwise, runoff from an OLF could potentially harm the Pasquotank River.
"The biggest issue is the water quality threat," he said. "They'd have to make sure they designed a drainage system so that it would address any water quality issues."
Hinson said the Navy would need to develop a drainage system that ponds and stores the stormwater instead of allowing it to drain.
"The more water you drain, the less water quality you have," he said. "In these flat areas, you can't drain the large rainfall events. It would be an environmental disaster."
The drainage system would also have to be designed so that it didn't create downstream flooding for residents, Hinson said.
"It's a big issue," he said of the drainage. "We don't want to turn the place into a Chesapeake Bay, which is already failing. We want to make sure that the Albemarle Sound doesn't end up in the same situation."
Despite the flooding concerns, the Hale's Lake site sits on some of the higher elevated land in Camden.
Dave Parks, chief inspector for Camden, said 63 percent of county falls in a flood zone, but the Hale's Lake site is not included.
He also said the elevation of the Hale's Lake site is eight to 13 feet above sea level.
"That's a pretty good elevation up there," he said.
Parks said many areas of southern Camden are much lower than that, with elevations of six feet above sea level or less.
"(The Hale's Lake site) falls outside of the 100-year floodplain," he said.
But Parks said the problem with the site is that it drains poorly.
He said the flat contour of Camden makes it difficult for water to drain.
"Drainage a big concern in any flat county," Parks said.
He said farmers rely on stormwater absorbing into the soil. Ditches are designed to prevent flooding, but they can overflow after heavy rains, he said.
"The ditches will only hold so much water," Parks said.
Parks said before developing an OLF in Camden, the Navy would have to successfully cross two state permitting hurdles. One would be completing an "erosion sedimentation control plan," the other would be securing a stormwater permit. In its plan, the Navy would have to show that stormwater runoff would not adversely affect adjacent properties.
Camden County Manager Randell Woodruff said it's disconcerting that the Navy would even consider locating an OLF on the Camden site considering the flooding potential.
"That's why it's called 'Hale's Lake,' because it floods," he said. "When it floods, it looks like a lake, and covers acres and acres of land, huge open space, 15,000 acres that are very isolated."
At a community meeting in Camden earlier this month, residents displayed a poster showing the Hale's Lake site under several feet of water after heavy rains.
Camden resident Larry Johnson, president of Concerned Citizens Against the OLF in Camden, said the pictures speak for themselves.
"We told (Navy officials) there are 800 and some homes in the core area (that would be affected by jet noise)," Johnson said. "They didn't know that. They don't seem to know a lot of things. They claim there is a study to be done. But they are still lacking a lot of information that they should be aware of."
Comments
By Ira Tateu
Jun 21, 2008 2:59 PMAs I have stated before, Easly is wiloling to sell us down the river because he sees NE NC as a drain on his budget. He has made these statements before. Ask the commisioners about the sale of the airport and the reason why we had to sue. It was because Easly rose the price by $999,999 in what he claimed was a justified amount because our region caused a dent in his budget. As for the water, cal lthe Army Core of Engineers out. Ever hear of 'hydrology?' It looks to me that if the area was not ditched it is indeed a wetland. The effect on neighboring properties and the detriment to waterways from run off is a no brainer.
By Tag
Jun 3, 2008 10:56 AMA few articles (and many comments) ago, someone brought up the fact that Blackwater stood to gain a great deal from this OLF. Guess what pops up in the news recently (6-2-08)? From the AP - Report: Blackwater Worldwide Purchases Brazilian-Made Fighter Plane. Just where do you think they would like to practice flying this newly acquired toy? Wouldn't it be wonderful (for their accounting purposes) if they had an airfield close by which, by coincidence was used for military type aircraft and, because they help to operate the field, where they could both house and launch this shiny new aviation acquisition into the wild blue yonder? Am I off base, or does anyone else see the irony in all of this? I wonder if this is an amphibian aircraft... ;)
By CAMDEN TAXPAYER
Jun 1, 2008 10:20 AMIt is strange that camden was not concern about the camden citzens,drainage and environmentally,when they tried to force the 280 feet high=28 story building,490 acre trash dump on the camden citzens.Now for some reason this olf runway has a drainage,environmentally problems.How about all the highways in camden county,traffic is still moving.Drainage problems is not blocking traffic.
By NCguy
May 31, 2008 8:39 AMJD,
Your sooooo right.
I despise mikey for what he has done to the region but as the Navy pilots told me, these are the cards we are dealt with and we have to try to get mikey to help us. Perdue wants to be our next gov. She will give a vanilla answer (normal political hand wringing answer). She will not commit to a stance. She is on the fence.
Not sure if Owens and Basnight feel it is proper timing. This OLF is now on a train wreck path to happen in the next two years. At what point is it proper and have the greatest chance to derail this wreck for Owens/Basnight and the GA to attempt their move?
While mikey is in office is not the time it would seem. He could have stopped this before the train got going, did he?
By NCguy
May 31, 2008 8:08 AMFrom the Tidewater News'
To the Editor:
In response to the an earlier article in The Tidewater News, ıAdmiral: OLF choice will get a rosy deal,ı The Nature Conservancy would like to clarify its role and position in relation to the Navyıs proposed sites for an Outlying Landing Field (OLF).
Admiral Andersonıs comments may have conveyed the impression that The Nature Conservancy views an OLF at the Sandbanks site ı or any of the other four proposed locations ı as a positive conservation opportunity. That impression is inaccurate.
The Nature Conservancy will be submitting comments to the Navy as part of the EIS scoping process to request that the environmental review address issues that are of concern to the Conservancy.
Michael Lipford, executive director,
The Nature Conservancy, Virginia
Katherine D. Skinner, executive director,
The Nature Conservancy, North Carolina
The Navy twisted what these folks had to say. What else is the Navy twisting? Capacity at 63% on any given summer night is overcapacity? If there was not a single house within 100 miles of Oceana I would need this OLF, encroachment is not my problem, capacity is?
The Navy will say the viability of Oceana is not a concern for this NEPA process. The training at Oceana and Fentress is terrible, this is not a place to train young pilots.
From the Virginia Pilot, Navy says air traffic at Oceana will increase in June, There will be an increase in aircraft landing at Oceana Naval Air Station from today through June 30, the air station said.
The Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field in Chesapeake will be closed during that time for routine runway maintenance, which will cause a considerable increase at the air station.
Squadrons will be practicing landing during the day and at night to prepare for scheduled carrier deployments, the air station said. In its entirety.
For a month, in the summer time, when 63% of any given night, Fentress will be over capacity, the Navy is able to perform all the missions at Oceana? We are in the window right now for this problem to be occurring. Yes, people can say the Navy is utilizing other fields for their training. That is the exact point. Capacity for the Navy is not just found at Oceana and Fentress like the Navy is trying to sell us. Capacity is the entire east coast. It is more convenient for the Navy to train at Oceana Fentress, but not a solid hard fast requirement that all FCLP training for all air wings must be performed at Fentress alone as the Navy will imply.
Sounds like the Navy has a management and scheduling problem and not a capacity problem. Sounds like noise mitigation for Hampton Roads at the expense of NE North Carolinians is still the primary concern for the Navy. Sounds like the pilots needs are not being taken care of when the Navy continues to decide to force them to fly out of Oceana. Sounds like the Navy will not accept they have a serious safety problem around Oceana and they are doing nothing about it. Sounds like Navy leadership has forgotten that safety in every training evolution or evolution comes first. Sounds like the Navy forgot that they have a responsibility to protect the civilians around Navy bases and must make tough decisions to protect them. Sounds like the Navy will only enforce directives on new communities vice doing what is proper and equal for all. These are improper sounds of freedom.
By JD
May 30, 2008 4:05 PMAll it takes to stop the OLF is for our Governor and Perdue to ask that the area be taken off of the list for consideration, since they reccomended to the Navy yo consider Camden. Bill Owens and Marc Basnight can introduce a bill to bar it from happening. Why are these people getting a pass?????????????????
By Mike
May 30, 2008 2:03 PMTo Jet Pilot
We Know that... Fair weather Pilots all weather Aircraft.
To GK with the new draining laws going into effect, a big ditch might be an issue.
By jet pilot
May 30, 2008 7:46 AMAbout the drainage in Camden's field, FYI,jet pilots don't practice landings during tropical stroms and hurricans. just thought you'd like to know
By GK
May 30, 2008 7:40 AMThey, will dig a moat around the place, and use the dirt dug out to build up the land. This has been said so that there would be less opposition to building the airfield.
Local officials: Camden tops Navy OLF list - Friday, May 23, 2008
Navy spokesman: No site ahead of othersBy JOHN HENDERSON Staff Writer
CAMDEN — Camden County is at the top of the Navy's list of potential sites for a controversial pilot training field, the chairmen of the Currituck and Camden commissions warned residents here Wednesday night.
Both Barry Nelms and Jerry Jennings made the announcement — denied by a U.S. Navy spokesman — in the Camden High School cafeteria following a closed session meeting attended by Camden and Currituck commissioners and a Raleigh attorney.
The attorney, Thomas R. West, of the law firm Poyner and Spruill, has been requesting documents from the state of North Carolina to prepare for the legal fight with the Navy over its proposed outlying landing field. Both counties are paying the firm to prevent the Navy from picking the Hale's Lake site in Camden for the OLF, where pilots would train for carrier missions.
"In the last couple of months I've had privilege to a lot of information that was generated by the state of North Carolina, and recently, in the last few months, it's become very clear that Camden has been singled out (for an OLF)," Nelms, chairman of the Currituck commission, told the crowd of slightly more than 100 in the school cafeteria.
Nelms said the Hale's Lake site is attractive to the Navy because of its close proximity to Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach, Va., which could significantly save on fuel costs. He also said it would be much cheaper for the Navy to open a new OLF in Camden than shell out hundreds of millions of dollars being demanded in lawsuits filed by Virginia Beach residents over jet noise.
Jennings concurred with Nelms, saying residents had better pace themselves for lengthy legal battle.
"This is going to be a slow burn, and right now, we are a turtle, not a rabbit," Jennings said. "So we don't need to burn ourselves out, because we've got a long, hard fight (ahead of us). ... Keep the heat on our political people in Washington and Raleigh."
Navy spokesman Ted Brown said Thursday morning that it is not true that Camden ranks ahead of any of the other four sites that the Navy is studying for the OLF.
"At this point we have no preferred alternative. We are looking at all five sites equally in the environmental impact (study)," Brown said.
But residents attending Wednesday's meeting expressed little trust in the Navy, saying they've heard or read conflicting statements about the OLF proposal.
For example, Troy Breathwaite said Navy literature states that the Sandbanks site being studied in Gates County is 72 miles from Naval Air Station Oceana, when it actually is only 55 miles in a straight-line distance from the air station. He said the Navy's estimate of the straight-line, 26-mile distance between Oceana and the Hale's Lake site is accurate.
"Honestly, from looking at the data, I've very concerned that this (Hale's Lake) is a site that is standing out (for a Navy OLF) for a number of reasons," he said.
Moyock resident Jack Lilienthal said a Navy official told him at a recent OLF "scoping" meeting that the airfield would not poison water fowl, only nuisance birds. However, a Navy official at another scoping meeting told him the OLF wouldn't poison any birds, he said.
"It appears that one hand does not know what the other is doing," Lilienthal said.
Pasquotank resident Bill Lehmann, a former pilot, said if the OLF comes to Camden, Navy jets would be flying at 1,800 feet or less over the largest school complex in the county, affecting 2,500 students and faculty. He said a staff member at Elizabeth City Middle School told him that students have a hard time concentrating when the lawn is being mowed.
"I said, 'Well, you can imagine what it is like when you have 32,000 F-18s going over the top of you?'" Lehmann said.
Elizabeth City resident Rosie Hale said a recent "60 Minutes" program has led her to question why the Navy couldn't build an island for the OLF.
"Put the OLF out there, and then when they are sick of training on it, they can build condominiums, and people can go live on that island," she said.
Navy spokesman Brown said developing an island for an OLF would be "incredibly costly," and involve "fairly significant" environmental impacts.
Camden County Manager Randell Woodruff said residents need to continue to make their opposition to the OLF known over the next year.
He said June 7 is the cutoff date for the public to raise questions and concerns for the Navy as part of the scoping process. It will be another year before the Navy again receives public comment on the project.
"We've got to keep it on the front-burner," Woodruff said. "This (OLF) is the equivalent of a hurricane coming from out in the ocean coming toward us."
Pasquotank commits $25K to OLF fight - Wednesday, May 21, 2008
County seeks $30K for pool repairsBy BOB MONTGOMERY
Staff WriterPasquotank County has agreed to help neighboring Camden County fight a Navy jet landing field from being located in the Hale's Lake area.
The Board of Commissioners voted 7-0 Monday to spend up to $25,000 helping Camden's legal fight against the proposed OLF.
Commissioner Marshall Stevenson said he supports helping Camden in its battle with the Navy. The Hales Lake site is one of five being studied for the airfield.
"I certainly think we should do what we can to help Camden," Stevenson said. "If the OLF were to be located in our county, I would certainly hope the same of them."
County Manager Randy Keaton said he was approached recently by Camden officials who said they would be asking their western neighbor for financial support. Camden has budgeted up to $300,000 toward its OLF fight.
Keaton said six years ago Pasquotank also put up $25,000 to help several counties, including neighboring Perquimans, fight previous OLF site plans.
"In this one, Camden approached us about committing money for the project," Keaton said. "Once they came up with a number, then our board put up the same amount."
Keaton said the county's reasons for opposing the OLF are the same as when a site in Perquimans was being considered. A nearby landing field would result in loud jets flying across parts of Pasquotank, bringing unwanted noise and pollution but few economic benefits.
Keaton said the central part of Pasquotank — the area of Berea Church and Northside roads — would be most affected if the Navy built the OLF in Camden's Hale's Lake area.
"The schools and residents (of those areas) would be affected," he said.
Neighboring Currituck County has also pledged $250,000 toward Camden's looming legal battle against the OLF.
Elizabeth City City Council approved an anti-OLF resolution in February that supports Camden's cause, but allocated no money for the legal fight.
In other business Monday night, Pasquotank commissioners also agreed to seek up to $30,000 from the local Tourism Development Authority to pay for needed concrete repairs and diving board replacements at the county-operated Meads Pool.
Comments
By NCguy
May 27, 2008 5:39 PMIra T, Thanky for your comment. I do try by hardest to be accurate with what I put out. I try to show Navy or other authoritative documents for what I put out.
Based on those documents and my meager understanding of the Navy, this OLF process and how it will impact my community and my neighbors do I make some judgment calls.
Im glad folks are reading what I have to say. I hope folks are asking questions of the Navy.
For all, This is not the time to sit on your hands. This is the time to write. To speak your mind. To pick a side, do you wish to host this OLF or do you wish not to host this OLF. If you sit on your hands and not write one way or another, you only have yourself to blame when the choice is made for you.
Your community and your neighbors community is in your hands. What will you do?
By Ira Tateu
May 27, 2008 11:23 AMSome back and forth w/ our resident Pro Jet Spokeswoman, Carolyn:
"Mr. Tateu, biased, I am guilty."
Nah, really?
"illogical, not from information I have been privy to so far and lazy, I do not understand how that relates."
Please see below for your explanation of laziness and lack of logic.
"Concerning the submarines,...I don't fully understand their deployments even after having worked at the Navy Yard and being very inquisitive. In some ways, I imagine them as playing a more vital role than jet fighter planes since they are unseen. Maybe they don't patrol the Atlantic off Washington but I hope they do. I also would like to think they are patrolling the Atlantic off Tidewater Area (and quite frankly the Albemarle Area). With the sophisticated weapons available today I can envision an attack from an enemy sub close to the shore that would become airborne and hit Washington. Who better to stop this than our own dedicated submarine forces? Again, maybe this scenario is not possible but it lives with me."
So you are just making this up as you go along? You want a community to give up their lifestyles and families their land so you can daydream? Um, both illogical and lazy. I am having trouble believing you defended yourself and then typed a paragraph detailing the fact that you don't know anything about the subject.
"NCguy, do you not accept that the requirements and circumstances could have changed since the historical documents you have digested (and very well I might add) were prepared?"
What does it matter to you? By your own admission you just paint scenarios minus facts and type them into this blog. Why would it matter if his are correct if yours are not? Regardless, his ARE correct.
"Nothing would make people disappear from this area any quicker than for Tidewater to lose the military presence it has."
The exact same staement was made in Jacksonville and Charleston. Both times it ended up being untrue.
"However, I believe that it is in the best interest of all to maintain Tidewater as a military center even in the interest of cookie cutter housing developments that we can't afford."
Speak for yourself dear. I can afford my home.
By NCguy
May 27, 2008 6:32 AMPilots have to land on a carrier and that requirement is not in doubt.
The requirements of how to land a plane on a carrier have not changed as evident by the nice pictures the Navy keeps providing us. That picture is the same since the FEIS.
Muscle memory (as the pilots and the Navy like to call it) need that practice.
The total number of FCLP landings / pilot for each deployment is the same.
This requirement is relatively the same. The total number of times a carrier has to get under way may increase, but that is a two week window of training. as the number of times increases, the actual number of FCLPs needed per underway could go down as the pilots muscle memory is stronger requiring less reinforcing exercises.
So while the operational requirements of the Navy have changed, or could change it is hard to belief that the methodology and training requirements for landing our pilots safely on a carrier will change so drastically that over all utilization at Fentress will increase to much above 20% for the year even if a second OLF is not built.
By Carolyn R
May 27, 2008 12:28 AMMr. Tateu, biased, I am guilty. I am for national defense issues first without a doubt, illogical, not from information I have been privy to so far and lazy, I do not understand how that relates.
Concerning the submarines, they are a very esoteric part of the USN. I don't fully understand their deployments even after having worked at the Navy Yard and being very inquisitive. In some ways, I imagine them as playing a more vital role than jet fighter planes since they are unseen. Maybe they don't patrol the Atlantic off Washington but I hope they do. I also would like to think they are patrolling the Atlantic off Tidewater Area (and quite frankly the Albemarle Area). With the sophisticated weapons available today I can envision an attack from an enemy sub close to the shore that would become airborne and hit Washington. Who better to stop this than our own dedicated submarine forces? Again, maybe this scenario is not possible but it lives with me.
The Air Force, God Bless them too. I admit my favorite branch is the USN but I recognize that all branches play an equal part in the mission of defending the United States. I would support the Air Force as strongly as I support the USN.
NCguy, do you not accept that the requirements and circumstances could have changed since the historical documents you have digested (and very well I might add) were prepared?
Darrell, I read the article you refer to and I was bothered by it. Your suggestion for an economic impact on NENC would be a wonderful idea. I caution you though, be careful what you ask for.
It is somewhat ironic, there is nothing I would love better on a selfish personal level than for the military to leave Tidewater. I love the planted fields and development is not what I appreciate in this area I have grown up in. Nothing would make people disappear from this area any quicker than for Tidewater to lose the military presence it has. However, I believe that it is in the best interest of all to maintain Tidewater as a military center even in the interest of cookie cutter housing developments that we can't afford.
By Darrell
May 26, 2008 10:49 PMYesterday in the VP Mark Warner stated he was troubled because the Navy is considering having the CVN-77 or other carriers, home-ported in Mayport, Fla. He went on to say there are seldom more than two of our nationıs 11 carriers in Norfolk at any one time. With that said I ask why the Navy is stating they are over capacity. Is there any way we may be able to confirm Mark Warnerıs statement?
Also, Thelma Drake sponsored amendment asking the Secretary of the Navy to consider the economic impact of communities such as Norfolk when ships based there are shifted to other communities. Again this is because the Navy is considering moving an aircraft carrier or other Norfolk based ships to Mayport, Fla.
These recent moves indicate to me the Navy may be coming to their senses. While I think the OLF is real and it may come here to NE NC. I do think the Navy is starting to hear the public. KEEP THE PRESSURE ON. Write the Navy every chance you get. I urge everyone to write to Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and Adm. Gary Roughead.
This is all about the money. Virginia wants all the money but none of the problems. Never did Mark Warner mention the OLF.
Hey Virginia, how greedy can you get?
I think our Congress should sponsor an amendment asking the Navy to consider the economic impact of our communities here in NE NC. Our negative impact will be worse because the Navy plans to condemn 30,000 acres or 42+ miles. This will kill us economically.
By NCguy
May 26, 2008 8:15 PMCarolyn A review of the Navy's own documentation drives my comments. The Navy told me they do not require a second OLF (FEIS, pg 12-1). The FEIS was prepared by the same group of folks that came to the scoping meeting. Mr. Keys was CDR Keys and had the same job CDR Cotiere (sorry sir if I misspelled your name, not my intention) has now. That statement stated that Oceana does not require a 2nd OLF.
The Navy, (Adm. Natter Oct 2000) stated that this 2nd OLF process was to provide noise mitigation (for Hampton Roads) and operational flexibility.
An analysis of the Navy's utilization numbers indicated that for the year, this 2nd OLF would be utilized less then 6% and Oceana even if a 2nd OLF was not built is utilized 20% or less. I use yearly numbers as that is what the Navy utilizes upon us for their DNL impact numbers. Seems fair!
The Navy (Adm Nathman) stated that the training fidelity (ability to simulate what our pilots will experience at the ship) around Oceana and Fentress is terrible, this is not a place for young (inexeperienced) pilots to train.
My comments are based on what the Navy is telling me. So yes, I do belief our pilots, and I belief what the Navy is telling us concerning this 2nd OLF it is not required.
At the unveiling meeting 18 Sept, 2007, the Navy (Adm. Anderson) stated that if there was not a house within 100 miles of Oceana, I would need this 2nd OLF, encroachment is not my problem, capacity is.
Based on the quantitative documentation and other statements, I make my decisions. I have stated that if the Navy shows me information that justifies they require this OLF, I would shut up. If a community desires to host this OLF, I would shut up. Neither of these have happened. If I was a pilot, I would be trying to convince people that I do not want to train at Oceana and Fentress. I would be saying that I require a facility that meets my needs. Our pilots also realize that the Navy is not going to fix Oceana or Fentress. Has the kidney shaped pattern around Fentress been fixed yet? case in point. So from the fidelity stand point, yes our pilots require a 2nd facility only because the Navy refuses to take care of them in the first place. That is why I advocate abandoning the mission. However, that is not what the Navy is now saying, they are saying they do not have the capacity. When they admit that the fidelity is flawed, then they must fix that. That is why they use less than optimal vice bad. Less than optimal means pilots keep flying. Bad means abandon the mission.
That is why I fight for fairness and equality. The Navy has the capacity to train our pilots. The Navy does not have the proper training fidelity capacity at Fentress. Fix the fidelity issues and the Navy will have the total capacity required.
By Ira Tateu
May 26, 2008 12:06 PM"I know there are other planes positioned to protect Washington but having the backup close by is comforting. I think it is imperative we have planes, ships and subs present to protect Washington."
Um, what about the strike on the Pentagon? What ever became of the Air Force?
Submarines protecting Washington?
As usual, lazy, illogical, and biased responses from Carolyn to help destroy our way of life.
By Carolyn R
May 26, 2008 12:47 AMNCguy, why do you believe the pilots when they say training at Oceana is not good but you do not believe them when they say they need a second OLF? You have said they do not need a second OLF in past comments. I think Oceana is the prime location for two reasons, its absolute coastal location and its proximity to Washington. I know there are other planes positioned to protect Washington but having the backup close by is comforting. I think it is imperative we have planes, ships and subs present to protect Washington. Think about how upset we as Americans stay with those in Washington, some of the rest of the world like them a lot less than we do.
Mr. Bass, while I agree that VA Beach doesn't deserve to keep Oceana, the number of people in North Carolina who would be hurt by Oceana leaving would be devastating.
By Ira Tateu
May 25, 2008 2:45 PMCONCERNING GOV. EASLY:
The poster is correct he sold us out. I would like to explain the most likely way he is rationalizing this action. He in the past has made comments that he felt our region has shorted the state on tax dollars. When he tried to reneg on the airport in Currituck, he specifically said he was interested in bring money out of our locality and back to the state. Thus the price tag went from a token amount to 1MIll overnight. I do not remember the exact amounts. Gov. Easly is in fact use our region as a bargaining chip w/ the national goverment. I should note that this is not intended to be any type of partisan attack. The truth is obvious concerning Easly though. Your well being is not part of the equation when he is involved. Ask yourself why he would fight for Washington County and then hand us to the wolves?
By Ernest T. Bass
May 25, 2008 9:11 AMCarolyn, This is the first time I have seen you write something that I can agree with. Your first paragraph is spot on.
Where we disagree is on where an OLF should be located whether it is "needed" or not (no data presented thus far has convinced me that it is needed...and I have have read reams).
The Navy themselves have said that they believe all five sites are suitable for an OLF including the three in Virginia. Therefore, it should be a no-brainer. Pick one of those Virginia sites and leave us in NC alone. Virginia caused the problems, Virginia gains the economic benefit of Oceana, let Virginia give up a site for an OLF. This is Virginia's problem to correct if they want to keep Oceana for the foreseeable future. Let Tim Kaine figure it out. North Carolinians have said loud and clear that we do not wish to take the lashes for Virginia's crimes. And yes, I used the term "crime" intentionally for it is a crime what Va. Beach and Chesapeake have allowed to happen around those military facilities. I think we can all agree on that.
In all honesty, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake really don't deserve to keep those facilities any longer. I say send the jets to Cherry Point or Beaufort SC or somewhere else that wants them and respects them.
With that said, all the blame is not on Virginia. The Navy bears an equal amount of blame. What they are trying to do in NC (basically condemning 30,000 acres of our land), they could have done in Virginia 30, 40 years ago. If they had done so then, we would not be having this argument. The Navy could have purchased the land around Oceana and Fentress and they didn't. The encroachment problems are partially the Navy's fault as well.
By NCguy
May 25, 2008 8:05 AMCarolyn, We are on the same wave regarding our pilots. I too, want what is best for them.
Washington, DC is taking the easy way out which means believing what the Navy says (normally a good and smart thing) by accepting that building this second OLF will fix the problems for our pilots.
As far as VB being appropriate location, if its for protection of our coast arguably, there is many locations along the eastern seaboard that can perform that mission, Oceana being one of them. Beaufort, Cherry Point, Langley, Dover, Seymour Johnson, Pope, just to name a few all have fighter jets to protect this region.
Why I feel Oceana is inappropriate is our pilots, two came to the scoping meetings one of them flat out told me Oceana training is not good for him or other pilots. I belief him. With that, we as a country and Washington,DC must listen to him and fix Oceana. They must make Oceana meet his needs. The Navy has defined what that is. For FCLP, 600ft on the down wind leg; no one living in the 75 dB DNL contour line; no incompatible development; no light encroachment. For our pilots, that must be done. VB has stated they would not do that for our pilots. The Navy has stated they will not do that for their pilots. So the best thing to happen is open up the bidding process. Cherry Point and Beaufort SC will probably jump heavily at the chance for more planes. Cherry Point has an OLF already, Bogue Field. Beaufort SC, either gets the second OLF, or utilizes OLF Whitehouse. Still, our region is protected by fighter jets. Regardless of how many OLFs are there for Oceana, the pilots must still perform some practices at Oceana. The Navy has a training policy that every landing is suppose to replicate landing on a carrier. Thus all the missions performed by a carrier pilot will end with an FCLP style approach. They may not be graded, but the pilot is suppose to reinforce their carrier approach every time they get in the plane.
For all, When it is mentioned that your site is number one, that is how your community should look at this. Never assume the Navy is looking at another site. Always feel your the target and your less then 2 years away from being forced to move, or receiving noise events that will make you wish to move away. Your local government did not sell you out. Unless you have definitive proof that one of your commissioners was jumping at the chance to get this OLF, I would seriously refrain from believing they did that.
Governor Easley, on the other hand, sold you out. When he requested that the Navy not talk to your community or let you know you where a potential site. The Navy set a dead line of Sept 14 or 15 for a community to ask to be removed. He did not allow DENR to present the 6 proposed NC sites until 18 Sept. State Senator Jones did not know what site was on the list until about 10am on that day, when DENR unveiled them. I talked to Senator Jones that morning and he did not know. Rep Owens apparently was told earlier in the day also. Regardless, no one that represents you, except Governor Easley, knew you were being reviewed until after it was to late to get you off the list in the first place.
If you wish to address anger or dissatisfaction in a direction, its to Raleigh. For all of you who submitted questions at the Governors OLF study group hearing in Nov?, have you ever seen an answer from our Gov? Yet, your site is on the list.
By Carolyn R
May 24, 2008 12:03 AMI have not seen current data or historical data to determine the need or ılackı of need for an OLF in Virginia, North Carolina or anywhere under current conditions. It does make sense to me that a second OLF could be needed due to increased practices. I believe world tensions will only get worse. The fact that Virginia Beach has not treated the USN fairly is one fact I think we can agree on. If it were up to me, it would not have happened. Encroachment would have been stopped cold in its tracks. To correct the problem would be great but the reality is I donıt believe Washington will step in and make that happen. I would be among the first to join the fight if the answer was to get Virginia Beach to correct their errors. As of now, the USN is left in a bad situation. I want them to get what they need. I also want that jet base to stay in Virginia Beach because I believe the location is appropriate.
I just donıt see the USN as the problem. I see local government as the problem.
For those concerned that the Camden local government might be selling the citizens out, I have all the confidence in the majority of them being against the OLF. The majority is all it takes to set the direction.
By loneduck
May 23, 2008 7:20 PMDid you guys read the article about Nelms saying Camden was the number one spot for the OLF? I don't trust our commissioners. Not as far as I can throw 'em. Why this revalation now? We knew this as soon as it was announced that Camden/Currituck was on the list. We knew these folks had sold us out. OT: Hey, DA, why do you choose just certain articles for comment? The piece on the comment I mentioned is certainly worthy; and I would love to have been able to comment on the budget for Currituck .... 8 new deputies for Corolla???? are you kidding me? Two would have been more than sufficient. What a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. All intake in taxes down and we're hiring 8 new deputies for tourist patrol??? Good Grief!
By Ira Tateu
May 23, 2008 11:24 AMThe "Bear claw" just lost my support both in public as well as in private conversation due to the PATRIOTS comments on these boards.
By NCguy
May 23, 2008 6:33 AMCarolyn, Show me any kind of data that states we should sacrifice a community for the common good with regard to this OLF. That we should roll over and let the Navy have their way. Show me where the Navy cannot perform the mission with the assets they have.
this is the Navy's offical website that shows all of their arguments to date. They have a statement that says Fentress alone cannot do the job but they have to place a qualifier to their need statement. When you look at the entire east coast, or even within the flying distance of these super hornet aircraft, there is plenty of capacity. The Navy will not tell you that. They claim it will be to costly and hurt the airframes. Planes are meant to fly. Pilots dump fuel....management issues, not capacity issues.
Also, show me in this plan how Oceana and Fentress will suddenly be viable once you sacrifice your neighbors.
Sacrifice without a good reason is not a wise decision.
The big picture is still Oceana and Fentress do not do the mission for our pilots. The Navy told me at the scoping meeting that this is not a concern of this NEPA process. So when is it going to be a concern to the Navy that the master jet base does not meet our pilots needs? Why are you supporting a plan that does not 100% support our pilots? For to long the Navy has had this problem around Oceana and Fentress. Now they are trying to side step their responsibility to us and our pilots by saying an OLF potentially in Camden or Gates County is the best for our pilots. The Navy is failing to take on the problem head on. Correcting the encroachment around Oceana/Fentress to make those facilities meet the pilots needs.
If there is a plan to make Oceana viable, I have not seen it, can you link a site that demonstrates how the Navy is fixing Oceana and Fentress to the same standards they have spelled out is required around this second OLF?
Thank you in advance for that link or data.
By Carolyn R
May 22, 2008 10:34 PMThe following is a quote, "Freedom does not come with a price."
God help the nation that discounts the price paid by so many throughout our history.
By loneduck
May 22, 2008 7:06 PMThe so-called patriot is one of those who may have been called a "loyalist" in colonial days; or in Germany's hey-day may have been singing "sieg heil";some folks can't discern fascism from nationalism from patriotism and they make the mistake that "patriots" are blind followers who consume propoganda and not individuals with a free mind and body. Freedom does not come with a price. Think about it. Fascism and nationalism and imperialism come with a price. In which group would our founders place themselves?
By mike
May 22, 2008 2:30 PMPam, Get a life.... really....
By pam
May 22, 2008 2:11 PMNext they will be trying to close down the coast guard landing field.
By USA PATRIOT
May 22, 2008 11:11 AMSUPPORT THE OLF!!! SUPPORT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE!! WRITE YOUR SENATORS AND SAY YES TO THE OLF!! GET YOUR BUMPER STICKER THAT SAYS I LOVE JET NOISE!! TRADE IN YOUR NO OLF SHIRTS FOR THE BEAR CLAW SHIRTS!!! LET THE JETS ROAR!!!!!!! THE NOISE OF FREEDOM
By Ira Tateu
May 22, 2008 9:41 AMNeither the Air Force, Navy, or the Marines jets took down ANY OF THE 4 JETS so I'll take my chances. Oh yeah, your tin hat fell off.
By USA PATRIOT
May 21, 2008 1:35 PMTO MR. IRA TATEU
WHO WOULD YOU RATHER BE FLYING OVER YOUR PROPERTY??USA PILOT OR AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS THAT INTENTIONALLY CRASHED JETS IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER,PENTAGON AND TRIED TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE.3,000 OR MORE INNOCENCE PEOPLE DIED AS AN IMMEDIATE RESULTS OF THE ATTACKS.USA WAKE UP TO REALITY THE TERRORISTS ARE WORKING 24/7 TO ATTACK THE USA AGAIN.NOW IRA TATEU,THAT IS WHAT IS CALLED (DISRUPTION)
By Ira Tateu
May 21, 2008 11:45 AMIf you think that the so called USAPATRIOT is a disruption, wait until the jets she supports start buzzing your property. Don't be fooled-NO TO OLF!
A very poor attempt to bury others opinions in the thread.
By Mike
May 21, 2008 11:06 AMPatriot, You really need to relax and Smell the rose's. We love our Navy and Support the Pilots 100%. However this issue is Oceana & Fentress can not support the Navy as a MJB. Brac need to step in, Close Oceana and look for a proper place for a MJB on the East or SouthEast Coast that will support our Pilots. Wasting Money on an OLF when a MJB is needed is Silly. Have a Great Navy Day....:)-
By Ira Tateu
May 21, 2008 11:06 AMTo USAPATRIOT:
There is no liberty if the goverment can take away the enjoyment of my property at will. Nor is it when they can steal land from under other citizens. Liberty and freedom are the ability to stand up and fight for yourself. So keep your comments in Va where you are. Using all caps really makes you look silly. Kicking and screaming are poor ways to sway peoples opinion.
By concerned citizen
May 21, 2008 10:28 AMFor all of the folks who wear Bear claw Logo DOD contractor shirts around town. Remember this company has been lobbying hard for the OLF and the Navy wouldn't be looking at Hales lake if it wasn't for them. Now were fighting for our lives to keep our way of life and paying for it. This company could care less about the citizens and the mighty $$ is all that matters. Trade in your bear claw shirt for a "NO OLF" shirt.
By USA PATRIOT
May 21, 2008 10:06 AMSUPPORT THE OLF,WERE EVER THE NAVY MAY CHOSE,WEATHER IT BE IN NC OR VA.HOLD PUBLIC REFERENDUMS,LIKE GATES COUNTY,WHO IS ON THE OLF LIST,TO SEE IF THE TAX PAYERS WANT TO USE THEIR MONEY TO FIGHT THE USA NAVY.STOP EXPLOITING THE NO OLF SIGNS IN (RED,WHITE AND BLUE)IT IS LIKE THROWING SAND IN THE EYES OF THE MILTARY,WHO ARE FIGHTING FOR OUR LIBERTY.I AGREE WITH PATRIC HENRY,WHEN THE AMERICAN REVOLTION WAR TOOK PLACE.(GIVE ME LIBERTY,OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By concerned citizen
May 21, 2008 9:21 AMFor all of the folks who wear Bear claw Logo DOD contractor shirts around town. Remember this company has been lobbying hard for the OLF and the Navy wouldn't be looking at Hales lake if it wasn't for them. Now were fighting for our lives to keep our way of life and paying for it. This company could care less about the citizens and the mighty $$ is all that matters. Trade in your bear claw shirt for a "NO OLF" shirt.
By NCguy
May 21, 2008 6:25 AMSOLIDARITY!
Keep it going all! Even if its just resolution support. That helps!
Money is a key to this, so is solidarity as a region.
Broad local support is required for Dole to approve this thing. Benifits to the community and the local communities rights and desires are suppose to be looked at according Burr.
As a region, we say no anywhere in NE NC then we are giving our senators the ammo they claim they need to keep this out of our region.
Camden proposes $300K for OLF fight - Saturday, May 17, 2008
No tax hikes in $10M spending proposalBy JOHN HENDERSON
Staff WriterCamden County has budgeted $300,000 in next year's budget for a looming legal battle over a proposed Navy pilot training field in the county.
Even so, Camden taxpayers will notice no change in their property tax bill if the Board of Commissioners adopts the proposed $10 million county budget for the coming fiscal year.
County Manager Randell Woodruff outlined the proposed budget in an interview earlier this week.
According to Woodruff, Camden's property tax rate of 59 cents per $100 of valuation would stay the same even though county spending is proposed to increase by 13.6 percent. More than half of the proposed increase is for non-discretionary items like fuel, property insurance, workers compensation and employees' health insurance.
"There are a lot of things that have increased this year that were beyond our control," Woodruff said.
Camden plans to pay for the increases, as well as the legal fight over the Navy outlying landing field, from the county's $4 million reserve fund, he said.
"We knew when we took on (the OLF) fight that we were going to have to go into our reserves," Woodruff said.
The increases in Camden's proposed budget come at the same time the county has seen significant reductions in land-transfer and sales-tax revenues because of the declining economy.
The county's proposed budget calls for $1.17 million in new general fund expenditures, Woodruff said. Included is $50,000 that will go toward raising the salaries of the county's 75 workers if a $11,700 pay study, also included in the budget, determines the increases are warranted.
Camden Sheriff Tony Perry had requested two new deputies, including a school resource officer, but those have been trimmed from the proposed budget.
"This is just a year where we can't afford to create a lot of new positions," Woodruff said.
The budget does include, however, $25,103 for a new half-a-year position for the Register of Deeds office and $31,383 for a new parks and recreation department position.
A public hearing on the budget scheduled for Monday has been postponed as the county compiles clearer spending numbers, Woodruff said.
"We're just at the starting point," he said. "We'll probably make some more cuts."
Other proposed new general fund expenditures include:
• $75,000 for software to improve communications equipment for the sheriff's department;
• $50,000 toward a community park;
• $70,000 for the county's new wastewater system;
• $25,000 for an economic incentive fund to pay for wastewater fees for new businesses;
• $10,000 for fuel costs;
• $25,957 for property insurance;
• $103,708 for workers compensation; and
• $40,732 for employees health insurance.
Comments
By NCguy
May 24, 2008 8:41 PMEvery comment and especially those that have questions attached to them the Navy is suppose to answer. If enough people ask the same question, then it is not an anomaly, but a valid concern. One person asking about the viability of Oceana and Fentress is probably not going to get a response from the Navy. 50, 100, 1000 should. Also, writing this same question to our representatives and informing them that you have also asked the Navy this exact question should also be ammo for us and our representatives when the DEIS comes out and that flat out ignore, or continue to state that the viability of Oceana is not a concern or that this OLF process is not intended to address that issue. It will make the Navy look extremely bad when so many people ask about the viability of Oceana especially when 2005 BRAC process concluded the planes of that base should be relocated and they just ignore it or claim that is not a concern for this OLF process. It will also show us if they are going to work with the host site, or treat the host site with hostility.
Also ask any question of the Navy you feel is important. Because the Navy failed to provide us with any kind of information, any concern you have is valid! so ask away.
I too, was told by CDR Catoire that this OLF study was not empowered to review or comment on the viability of Oceana and Fentress. I also feel that if my community is going to be condemned then all the facilities that our pilots must train at must be equal.
The CDR as well as ADM Anderson are not the final say in this process. In fact, I feel it is inappropriate for the CDR to be stating that this NEPA process is not going to look at that. The very reason the Navy is coming to us is because Oceana and Fentress supposidly cannot perform the mission and that the training at those sites is less than optimal.
When you look at SECNAVINST 11010.11 for AICUZ instructions, you will find starting at pg 4. property right acquisition. When you read this to pg 5. and get to item (ii) you will find that as a result of a study to determine the viability of an air field that field has been found to be wanting, then only for safety reason can any other expansion for that facility be completed. This instruction is a senior instruction to and empowers OPNAVINST 11010.36B, the instruction the Navy is using to condemn our properties for this OLF process.
Because the Navy insists that Oceana and Fentress are the future of naval aviation, it is hard to accept their is a safety problem recognized at that facility. The Navy pilots, BRAC, and us dumb farmers realize that Oceana is not the future of naval aviation. When is the Navy going to figure this out?
By NCguy
May 24, 2008 8:19 PMSo people, please, ooo please ask. Go to this this web site and fill out the questioner. Please copy paste if you so desire the below questions and statements. Navy website, please Ask:
Since the Navy failed to provide any kind of information or specifics concerning this second OLF, I have a few questions and concerns. I feel it is extremely inappropriate for the Navy to treat or threaten to treat my and my community differently and unfairly to those commuities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. The air fields in those areas do not meet the pilots needs yet the Navy is doing nothing to correct this.
When is the Navy going to make Oceana and Fentress meet our pilots needs?
How will this OLF fix the fidelity issues Adm. Nathman stated exists at Oceana and Fentress that makes training at these facilities terrible for our pilots?
When is the Navy going to make Oceana and Fentress first-rate facilities on par with what they envision for this second OLF?
When is the Navy going to condemn the 33,000 people that live in the 75 dB DNL contour line around Oceana and Fentress that has made training at these facilities less than optimal?
When is the Navy going to fix the light encroachment found around Oceana and Fentress that has made training at these facilities less than optimal?
Why is the Navy prepared to condemn developed properties in the 75 dB DNL contour line at the second OLF when the Navy refuses to do this around Oceana and Fentress in Virginia?
Why is the Navy treating those of us in poor communities in North Carolina differently than those same people living in the same contour lines around Oceana and Fentress?
How much money would it cost the Navy to condemn all the incompatible properties in the 75 dB DNL contour line around Oceana and Fentress?
How many properties around Oceana and Fentress in the 65 - 74 dB DNL contour line would be required to sign restrictive use easements? How much would it cost the Navy to impose these restrictive use easements around Oceana and Fentress?
When is the Navy going to condemn all the incompatible developments found around Oceana and Fentress....If the Navy cannot or will not, then the Navy cannot and should not come to North Carolina and condemn one acre here.
How many parcels around each of the proposed sites will be outright condemned because of being in the 75 dB DNL contour line? How many will be required to sign restrictive use easements?
How many parcels of land should be condemned around Oceana and Fentress, but will not be by the Navy that are within the 75 dB DNL contour line?
How many parcels of land around Oceana and Fentress would be required to sign restrictive use easements if these properties were around the second OLF site?
How many restrictive use easements will the Navy require signed around Oceana and Fentress?
How many parcels will the Navy condemn around Oceana and Fentress to provide our pilots with the first-rate training they deserve?
By Ernest T. Bass
May 24, 2008 12:01 PMNCguy,
You make an EXCELLENT point. People need to realize that these scoping meetings were nothing more than a checkbox for the Navy in the NEPA process. They don't have to provide us with specifics at this stage under NEPA and they didn't. The entire process is heavily weighted in the Navy's favor.
Did you know that if the Navy can choose to ignore comments made during the scoping process that it finds unsuitable? For example, I was told by Cdr Catoire at one of the scoping meetings that this Environmental Impact Study (EIS) would not address the viability (or lack thereof) of Oceana as an East Coast Master Jet Base. This means that any comments regarding the viability of Oceana are likely to be ignored in the EIS. How convenient. In my mind, the OLF and the viability of Oceana are inextricably linked. The fact that the Navy refuses to even acknowledge this flaws the entire process in my opinion.
NCguy, you are correct. The cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, in fact, the Commonwealth of Virginia as well have FAILED the Navy. Now the good citizens of NC are being forced (NOT asked) to pay for it.
Darrell is right. The Navy is asking MORE of the citizens of NC than they are willing to ask of the citizens of Virginia. Why? It is because we are comparatively poor and less numerous and it is less costly for the Navy as a federal government institution to impose their will on us versus imposing their will on Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. And THAT folks, is patently unfair, unethical, and in my opinion, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
By NCguy
May 23, 2008 5:11 PMDarrell,
to the best of my knowledge, no lands have been condemned around Oceana or Fentress to support the homebasing of any planes at Oceana. If lands were the papers etc, would be screaming about it. You are so right with your analysis. I hope more and more people come to your realization.
You have nailed one of the many unfair things about this OLF process. Equality. The Navy thinks that just because we are a bunch of dumb farmers in NE NC, we do not count. Our farms are not businesses that employee people. Because we have taken care of our heritage, our lands and our homes, the Navy feels we have not done this well enough and thinks they can do better. So the Navy first is developing noise contour lines out to the 60 dB DNL contour line in NC, then on their whim, will require certain people to sign restrictive use easements. If a person decides not to, for the good of the Navy and the home owner, the Navy may condemn your property. Those who live in side the 75 dB DNL contour line, just get out.
In VA, none of this is happening. VA, the Navy is requiring the cities to perform their police responsibilities and fix the problem of encroachment and of light pollution. What noise contour lines they are developing only go to the 65 dB DNL contour line. Little if anyone is required to sign any restrictive use easements. No one is being condemned by the Navy inside the 75 dB DNL contour line.
The Navy has stated that with farm lands under restrictive use easements or under Navy ownership, that no additional farm lands will be removed for development. That they will keep the land as farm land better than the farmer who owns that land now.
Is the Navy being a good partner regarding this OLF? Is the Navy treating NC equally?
The biggest problem about this Navy NEPA process is it is so vanilla that there is nothing to comment against. Nothing was presented to us to comment upon. But the Navy did the scoping step and the people at the sites only complained about the noise.
To bad thats all we have to complain about. We were not giving anything else by the Navy to comment upon.
By Darrell
May 23, 2008 7:32 AMIn 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 theyıll have no resources with which to fight. Itıs long been known, Without property rights, there are no other rights. Wake up folks.
By Ira Tateu
May 22, 2008 9:59 AMtc:
Yet it would appear that even though you pat me on the back for moving, you also advocate moving the noise to me. Will I be called a "whiner" if they start landing here? You choose to live under the noise yet we do not. How about you keep your BS info over on your side of the line? Maybe you could rattle off some letters in all caps to help you displace some of your frustrations? Maybe it is the unseen culmination of stress from jet noise that has manifested itself in your writings and opinions?
By tc
May 22, 2008 9:09 AMto miss ira tateu
well you did the right thing MOVE IF you did not like the jet noise.
By Ira Tateu
May 21, 2008 11:55 AMtc,
I still say your a liar. I lived in the affected areas for many years. I used to hear silly comments like yours from people who lived in areas that were not as affected as much as they though tthey were. Then every once and a while you would have someone move into the community touting the "sound of freedom" crap. Sooner or later, you would be talking to them and they would shake their head and tell you they never thought their tune would change but the noise had become unbearable for them. There were no "I love jet noise" stickers in our area. None. You cannot get used to continious passes of 117db unless you are deaf. Even then you can feel it in your bones. As for your red herring about 9/11, it would appear you want us to become additional victims because a small group that jets have no power to stop commited an act of terrorism. If you want to train special ops in Currituck that can actually make a difference, then I am willing to listen. Enough of this false patriotism crap.
By NCguy
May 20, 2008 9:22 PMThe cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake FAILED the Navy and this country when they turned their backs on the Navy and encouraged encroachment on those two fields. These two cities have a responsibility to protect the military mission of those two fields. The Navy has the responsibility to this country to correct this problem, or to find a new home for the planes of the East Coast. Apparently, the Navy is going to make another improper decision and try to keep Oceana alive.
But us in NC have to deal with all this? Why?
Because the Navy insists that Oceana can continue to function as the east coast MJB even with all these problems, it begs the question, when is the Navy going to give our east coast jet fighter pilots and the E-2/C-2 pilots the first rate training facility they deserve? Adm. Nathman acknowledged that the training is terrible, he was speaking for the Navy and for our pilots. The Navy insists they will continue to perform operations at Fentress, Oceana and this new field. Why does the Navy have two standards for their facilities. One that allows substandard and degraded training and one that is first rate? All the fields should be first rate, or find a new city that will properly host our pilots. VB is not that host city. Oceana is the cornerstone to the east coast fighter pilot. That home must be solid and meet all the needs of our pilots. Right now, Oceana does not meet the needs of our pilots, thanks to Virginia and Virginia Beach politicians.
The cost to rollback and correct the mistakes around Oceana is to high now. So the Navy is saying that Oceana does not have to be first rate if we kick out a few farmers at a second OLF site. That our pilots will be able to train at this second OLF and all is good. Yet half of the training will still be done at Fentress a poor site.
Based on that logic, we actually need two additional OLFs. One for what the Navy claims as their need, and one to replace Fentress.
Oceana is only good for take off and landings. Oceana cannot properly perform FCLP training, the east coast MJB. This base cannot perform one of the most critical missions for our pilots, the ability to get our pilots safely aboard a Navy aircraft carrier at sea potentially 100s of miles from any safe air strip. Arguably, the most critical mission of any Navy carrier pilot, the ability to get safely back home.
By John
May 20, 2008 7:20 PMtc,
I lost a dear friend on 9ll. I tell you with all my heart, if he was here now, he would stand tall and fight this. We all work hard for what we have, it may not be much and we do not deserve it to be taken away by the land developers in Chesapeake and VB. For the love of God, show me the need for an OLF. Show me why my tax dollars need to destroy and entire community. Show me why they cannot use Ft. Pickett. The need is to make those residents in VB happy and settle law suits. If the Navy really wants to come here they need to properly buy everyone out within a 50,000 acre radius at fair market value.
tc, I guess I'm too poor and dont deserve to keep my way of life. Do you know what this noise will do to my trailer? I dont have the money to do anything about this. I breaks my heart to see my US Govt. doing this to poor communities while the rich people control the strings. Thank you Camden County for using my tax dollars wisely. The OLF will destroy us forever. KEEP UP THE FIGHT.
By tc
May 20, 2008 3:25 PMto ira tateu
I can not help if you do not believe me, when i say that the jet noise does not bother me.I am used to it.In fact if it was not for the jet noise,I would not be able to get any sleep.I think of the USA NATIONAL SECURITY.DID YOU FORGET SEPTEMBER 11,2001 WHEN 19 TERROISTS ATTACKED THE USA AND KILLED 3,000 PEOPLE??? DID ANY OF YOUR LOVE ONES DIE???
By Ira Tateu
May 20, 2008 10:52 AMTO TC and CAROLYN:
"I live in virginia beach next to oceana naval air station.The jet noise does not bother me.
TC, your a liar. Either you are not directly affected by the noise or you are financially connected to the base.
I know people like to think that these 75DB conours are accurate but it is a lie as well. The jset easily exceed the 117DB the claim is the single pass level. They take 24 hours and average the time they flew in a day. So if they fly non stop for X amount of time at 110db to 130db then they lower their "average." It is a crock folks.
If you want to take Carolyns suggestion, go sit out at the point around Oceana where the pilots turn around or "bank" their aircraft. Imagine that at 11:00PM or later. Yes,it happens. Many of us have friends in the affected areas. Go to their house or ask them how it is working out. Ask yourself why the Navy settled a lawsuit based on nothing more than noise. It is terrible folks and they will destroy your lifestyle and property values.
By Carolyn R
May 19, 2008 11:02 PMModerate? Mr. Tateu, I have no intention of appearing moderate nor have I said I did. I have always said I want the OLF where the USN decides they need it, regardless of whether it is in NC or VA. That has been the position I have held since I first heard they were looking for a new OLF location four years ago. For someone who seems to be very concerned with my opinion of the OLF you don't read it very closely.
As to the noise, I would suggest everyone make their own determination. The OD at Oceana will let you know when the FA-18s are practicing at Oceana if you want a true experience of the noise level produced.
By NCguy
May 19, 2008 5:25 PMtc,
Do you live inside the 75 dB DNL contour line around Oceana?
Is your property under the specter of eminent domain?
Is the Navy telling you that you have to move or give up your community?
Is the Navy implying that if you do not sigh over restrictive use easements that they will "for the good of the Navy and yourself" condemn your property?
The Navy is prepared to tell the community around this second OLF that the above will happen to us. The Navy actually decided to condemn 30,000 acres of my neighbor's lands for safety and continued growth potential so you can keep your piece of happiness around Oceana in Virginia Beach.
You were given the opportunity to decide to stay or leave. It sounds like you decided to stay. With that, all I can think of is you wish for relief from the noise you experience and you feel this second OLF might provide you some relief.
Around this second OLF, people will not be given the opportunity to stay if they are within the 75 dB DNL contour line. They are condemned, gone, their small chunk of happiness is taken from them. Those who live in the 60 to 74 dB DNL contour line, many will be given a restrictive use easement document to sign. If they do not, will the Navy condemn our property? Their documentation at the scoping meeting indicated they would.
The Navy is not treating everyone fairly. Right now, if what you indicated is correct, you should be condemned out of your chunk of happiness. You should not be given any chances. You should be gone. Good bye.
tc, I am not mad angry or anything at you. I just want the Navy to treat everyone fairly for our pilots. If around the 75 dB DNL contour line in NC is incompatible, and the Navy is going to condemn developed properties in that zone, then the Navy MUST do the same around Oceana and Fentress. That is 33,000 (45,000 if you use the JLUS documentation the Navy assisted VB in developing) of your neighbors. When the Navy starts treating everyone fairly, your chunk of happiness will be gone. You will not have to worry about the jet noise, you should not be living at your house to HEAR the noise. Your house should be bulldozed. That is what the Navy intends to do to us in NC or at this second OLF. One house, 140 houses, 33,000 people, it does not matter, fair is fair. Each chuck of land in the 75 dB DNL contour line is equal in all respects to every other dwelling. They are all incompatible and should all be removed. If the Navy cannot do that, they should look for a new master jet base.
By tc
May 19, 2008 2:45 PMTO IRA TATEU
I live in virginia beach next to oceana naval air station.The jet noise does not bother me.The destruction of the value of my property has not gone down, but my taxes have gone up.The economy is still booming,thanks to the military bases up here and north carolina license tags that i see a lot up here.
By Ira Tateu
May 19, 2008 12:21 PM"This relieved my internal conflict for those who would be most affected by the location of the OLF in Camden County."
Folks, I am a refugee from the jet noise in VB. I assure you that Carolyn R's "internal conflict" will grow once the jets actually start flying into an OLF near her home. This person attempts to paint the taking of private land as the only issue, yet disregards the noise of a +117DB flying over your tranquil country homes. She disregards the safety and health issues. The destruction of your property values and way of life. Her attempts to appear moderate and conflicted by the issue are directly contradicted by her prior statements both here and at the Virginia Pilot.
Simply put, she is asking you to dance w/ the devil. Once you realize what you have done it will be too late. No person who truly understands the implications of the OLF could ask their friends and neighbors to make this sacrafice.
You should note that between the Navy and the supporters of the OLF, there will be many more attempts to deceive you. Anyone who has ever served in the Navy has to admit that the brass can be less than honest.
By Carolyn R
May 18, 2008 11:51 PMAn increased number of pilots practicing and the fact that Oceana is planned to be a MJB for at least twenty-five more years are two reasons the Navy told me they needed the OLF. I was also told Fentress would not cease to operate. The pilot I talked to did say that practicing at the Oceana runway was not desirable. He said that was not because of encroachment issues but because practicing at the base itself was not considered a good practice. The encroachment issues are still a problem at the base for routine operations but that is not the reason for not wanting to practice there. I was told Lemoore was acceptalbe because of its large layout and the built in separation (that Washington won't fund for Oceana).
One of my biggest reservations, although I admit when it comes to national defense it was repressed, was that the landowners who were displaced by the actual tarmac itself would experience changes in their personal livelihoods. When I questioned the pilot at the Camden meeting about this, I was told the only unusable land would be the concrete covered land. A farmer could actually plant up to the edge of the tarmac. He did say that the crop planted should be a crop that does not attract birds due to safety issues. I am glad they are considering that issue in this round of possible sites. This relieved my internal conflict for those who would be most affected by the location of the OLF in Camden County .
The Navy is blamed for not expanding Fentress by many making comments. It makes me wonder do some understand the process by which the USN gets its funds. If the USN did want to expand Fentress or even Oceana, I do not believe they have a chance in this world of that happening. Do not blame them. The money is the key to what gets condemned and Senator Dole and the rest of the Washington politicians are the ones in control of that. I credit Governor Easley with the creation of Camden and Gates being on the list but the Senate and House Armed Services Committee are the bankers.
By USA PATRIOT
May 18, 2008 3:13 PMCORRECTION
IT IS THE SUBIVISIONS (DELELOPERS) THAT ARE CAMDENS ARCHENEMY.THEY ARE THE ONES THAT SHOULD BE BUILDING NEW SCHOOLS.THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CAMDEN SHOULD BE FIGHTING,INSTEAD OF THE OLF.
By USA PATRIOT
May 18, 2008 2:34 PMTO ERNEST T. BASS
CAMDEN IS NOT RESPECTING THE CAMDEN TAX PAYERS.THEY ARE FORCIBLY TAKING CAMDEN COUNTY TAX PAYERS MONEY,WITH OUT HAVING A PUBLIC REFERENDUM TO SEE IF THEY ARE FOR IT OR AGAINIST IT.IF CAMDEN HAD A PUBLIC REFERENDUM,YOU WOULD SEE THAT THE MAJORITY WOULD SUPPORT THE OLF.THE OLF IS NOT CAMDENS ENEMY.THE SUBIVISIONS ARE CAMDENS ARCHENEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Ernest T. Bass
May 18, 2008 12:56 PMPatriot,
You have just made our argument for us. You are right. The OLF fight IS putting hardship on taxpayers. We shouldn't have to spend this kind of money to defend ourselves. But we do because the Navy is not respecting the wishes of the people and is seeking to forcibly establish an OLF here against the will of the majority.
You don't really want a referendum, Patriot. You will lose.
By USA PATROIT
May 18, 2008 10:30 AMIT IS NOT RIGHT THAT CAMDEN HAS NOT HAD A PUBLIC REFERENDUM TO SEE IF CAMDEN COUNTY TAX PAYERS WANT THEIR MONEY TO FIGHT THE OLF,VOTE TO SEE WHO IS FOR IT AND THE ONES THAT ARE NOT FOR IT.THE OLF FIGHT AND THE SUBIVISIONS DELELOPERS ARE PUTTING EXCRUCIATING HARDSHIP ON THE TAX PAYERS,CAMDEN COUNTY GOVERMENT AGENCIES AND SCHOOLS!!!!!!! SUPORT THE OLF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LET THE JETS ROAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By NCguy
May 18, 2008 8:02 AMThe Navy DOES know these counties are poor. They know how much on avg we make. They already have the demographics on all these counties, they've had em since 2001.
They also realize that it would be cheaper to condemn farmers in rural counties like Camden and Gates County then it would be to kick out residence in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.
From a Department of the Navy Office of the Secretary document dated October 9, 2007 Subj: Department of the Navy objectives for FY2008 and beyond signed by the CNO Senior Officer of the Navy and Secretary of the Navy Mr. Winter.
Item 6. Provide first-rate facilities to support stationing, training and operations of Naval forces.
item e. Implement a strategy that will enable construction of a new Outlying Landing Field to meet east coast Super Hornet training requirements. This came out after Sept 18, 2007 when Adm. Anderson tied the 5 new sites with the old NEPA process. This statement says start figuring out a plan to get us an OLF that works for our needs. Implying that Oceana/Fentress does not work, which 2005 BRAC stated and everyone realizes. They got tired of trying to make the old NEPA process work.
This also shows that the NO OLF option is not an option and is a smoke screen. Them farmers will not figure this out.
So from the get-go, the Navy is not above board with us, again. This is where I get my first-rate comments.
At the senior level, the decision has already been made that the Navy will build this OLF. The new strategy appears to be give them little to work with just to satisfy NEPA check in the boxes. Evident by the scoping meeting.
The fact that Oceana almost went away and the ability of Oceana and Fentress to perform the mission is not even addressed. It is not a concern to the Navy that half of their fighter squadrons cannot train properly (Oceana and NS Norfolk based planes that will continue to use Fentress). The Navy apparently feels that this second OLF is the magic cure-all for east coast aviation. The pilots realize that they still must fly out of Oceana/Fentress.
Talk about failing their own people. An item should have been, make Oceana a viable master jet base or implement a strategy to provide east coast pilots with a master jet base that provides for all training needs.
By Ernest T. Bass
May 17, 2008 10:26 PMNCguy:
I could not agree with you more. I must commend the Currituck commissioners for their support against this OLF. They have pledged financial support to the fight (I believe $250,000 so far) and have been very involved. Well some of them have been involved. But that's another story.
I agree as well that this OLF is a want of the Navy and not a need. I too attended both scoping sessions seeking something, anything from the Navy that would show me that they truly need this. They do not. They had a display entitled "Purpose and Need" at the scoping sessions. Under "Need" it said things like "for increased flexibility" and "to minimize late night flights" and "to provide an alternate landing strip during bad weather". Do they realize that Hales Lake is not more than a dozen or so miles from Fentress as the crow flies? Most days of the year the weather is likely to be no different at Fentress than at Hales Lake. These are ridiculous statements of "need" and I questioned the Navy representatives on it. Not surprisingly, they couldn't or wouldn't add anything further.
I am aware that both Hales Lake and Sandbanks have been previously studied and found not suitable. Why they are back here again making these counties have to spend precious time and resources fighting this is beyond me.
When the Navy selected Site C in Washington County in 2003, they selected it from a final five that also included sites Perquimans County, Bertie County, Hyde County, and Craven County. In the Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register in 2007, the Navy announced that it was abruptly dropping these four other sites they had studied in 2003 and starting all over with a list of five new sites of which Hales Lake was one. The Navy spent all that time and money studying the original five sites in 2003 only to throw them all out with no explanation because they didn't get their preferred site in Washington County. Were the other four sites just a ruse? When they selected Site C in Washington County, I'm sure they must have had a second choice of the five sites. What happened? One would think that with all that time and energy spent studying five sites, when Plan A didn't work out at Washington County, that they would have had a Plan B from the other four sites. Nope. Throw it all out and start from scratch. Let's throw five brand new communities into a tizzy. With allegations of reverse engineering at the Washington County site, it makes one wonder. Have they already selected the site they want? All the signs seem to point to Hales Lake. Are the other four sites just a ruse as it appears the other four sites were in 2003?
These "studies" are damaging to the communities being targeted. They strip financial resources from rural counties that can ill afford it in an effort to protect themselves and they pit neighbor against neighbor for several years at a time. In the last seven years, the Navy has done this to localities all over Eastern North Carolina over and over again. They have targeted all or parts of the counties of Washington, Beaufort, Hyde, Martin, Perquimans, Bertie, Chowan, Craven, Pasquotank, and more recently, Gates, Camden, Currituck, and Hertford. The Navy doesn't realize and doesn't seem to care that most of these counties are poor and rural and must tap deeply into their own resources to protect themselves. These counties have fought for years only to be dropped on a whim. But wait, the Navy could always come back! This is not fair to any of these counties and it is not right.
It may border on un-Constitutional for the Navy to force an OLF on a locality that doesn't want it. Maybe a binding referendum is in order like the folks in Jacksonville, Florida held regarding the re-opening of Cecil Field?
By NCguy
May 17, 2008 5:05 PMFrom the Tidewater News of Virginia..
If your gonna allocate $300,000 as a county, you should also be building a coalition with support from all the counties around. I think all the counties have expressed some form of opposition and that is good. We as a region need to be of one accord. NO OLF.
The Navy had a chance to proof and show their rational for requiring coming to North Carolina. They failed to inform us of anything other than they want it.
Much of what they said at the public hearings was the exact same stuff they have been telling North Carolina for years. I went to the public hearings with an open mind. I talked with the pilots. I read their information. It is the same old story. Their information goes back to the same old stuff.
I wish the Navy would have provided us with information that explained why any site much less a North Carolina site must forfeit one of their communities for the mismanagement of the Navy and the cities of Virginia.
All the information the Navy provided us was found in either the FEIS, SEIS or the supplemental documentation for those studies. The Navy wants to say those studies are now historical. OK, tell me something new. Tell the region something new. That did not happen. Explain why the two sites in North Carolina are now one of the two finalists when they were studied and found wanting before.
This is sad that the Navy is requiring a community to fight and spend money they really do not have when the Navy already told the sites they will not meet their needs. Now you do?
Albury raises questions of McLain's position on OLF - Thursday, May 08, 2008
Primary winner says he opposes fieldBy John Henderson Staff Writer
Bob Albury said he doesn't want it to sound like sour grapes.
But the day after he lost his bid for a seat on the Camden County Commission, he questioned if he might have won if Camden County voters clearly understood that his opponent has taken an "open-minded" view about the prospects of a Navy pilot training field coming to Camden.