Dear N&O editors: Please read this

Following is a complete and insightful analysis of the US Navy's OLF juggernaut here in North Carolina. It was written in a comment by one of our frequent visitors, Parmea. One can only wish that the reporters and editorial writers at the N&O would take such care in their own commentary about the Navy's assault on our state:

Editor, News and Observer,

For many people in Northeast North Carolina, this OLF was not about birds. It was about our communities, our way of life, our heritage. It was about being treated equally and fairly by the Navy as compared to our Northern neighbors. It was about asking what right does the Navy have to dictate to farmers how, what, and when they would plant their crops. It was about keeping our identities as farmers and people who just wish to live our lives on the lands our fathers provided for us. It was never about what can we get out of the Navy. It was not a political statement. We were not on an anti-Navy crusade. We wanted truthful answers to our questions. We wanted to know why the people of Hampton Roads did not have to forfeit their lands but we were about to be forced to leave our lands for the benefit of the Navy. The Navy actually told us that they would condemn lands if it was in the benefit of the Navy and the property owner. They never defined this statement. They never intend to impose this on the people around Oceana and Fentress. If they did, they would be doing it now out to the 75 dB DNL contour line. They still will not impose this on Virginians. So what does “for the benefit of the Navy and property owner” actually mean in Virginia and North Carolina?

The U.S. Navy at long last has run up the white flag regarding a practice landing field for aircraft carrier pilots near a sensitive wildlife refuge full of large birds. It took five years for opposition to the poorly conceived plan finally to prevail. Yet the decision was the right one, and Navy brass deserve credit for a strategic retreat.

This is not a surrender if they are doing a strategic retreat. They are coming back. They are going to take the lessons learned from the previous 5 years and apply them to this next attempt at convincing some community to allow them to place an OLF in their region. The Navy is looking for allies and you may be inadvertently offering yourself as one. They have already shot the first rounds in the next battle by shifting targets to Camden and Currituck Counties. They are already changing the requirements to include the planes of NAS Norfolk as well as NAS Oceana. This will now bring in the C-2, E-2 as well as all the fighter aircraft. They will have a lot of planes with a lot of requirements to confuse the issue. They will try to show where the training squadrons, fleet squadrons and all the variants cannot be deconflicted without a second OLF. The only problem is the Navy already evaluated the ability of Oceana and NALF Fentress to perform this mission with the 2005 BRAC. A second OLF was not required under that study. In fact, that study recognized that there was additional capacity that could be utilized. A second OLF was not identified as required to make Oceana a viable master jet base. The decision to continue pursuing an OLF without first correcting the viability concerns (encroachment) at the East Coast Master Jet Base is not the “right one”. The Navy brass does not deserve any credit for shifting their search to 5 new communities for a project that they cannot prove is required and not be caught lying to the people of NE North Carolina for the last 5 years. All the Navy is doing is placing 5 new communities under the hell that the 5 old sites have gone through for the last 8+ years. Only there sentence in hell will be reduced because the Navy desires to “streamline” this process (even though it will be starting fresh).

Opponents of the outlying landing field, or OLF, ranged from farmers around the site in Washington and Beaufort counties, to environmentalists concerned about harm to birds from nearby Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, to most of North Carolina's top state and national politicians. There were worries about bird-aircraft collisions that could be fatal to pilots. The combination of environmental and safety issues, along with impacts on the area's agricultural traditions, outweighed the Navy's strange insistence that this was the best available site.

There were 5 identified counties plus additional counties opposing this OLF and not just because of Pocosin. There was a 16 County Coalition opposing this OLF in the region. Regardless of what site was selected, as a region, we were unified. A review of the county commissioners resolutions indicated that they opposed this OLF for their county and the region. That local support for it was not in the county. Only because the Navy zeroed in on Washington/Beaufort County was the Pocosin refuge so prominent in the discussion. Each site was opposed to by our representatives for unique reasons. But each was opposed because the local people did not wish it.

The Navy also now has dropped four other prospective North Carolina sites that had been on its final list. But it has added five new sites for consideration, clustered in northeastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia. Those sites must be put through rigorous regulatory paces to see if any are suitable.

Camden and Gates County should not have to be put through any rigorous regulatory paces to see if they are suitable. The County Commissioners from both Counties have stated that there is not local support for this project. These counties, by listening to the people, have determined that they do not wish to have this facility. Governor Easley, Representative Butterfield, Senator Dole and Burr, State Senators Basnight and Jones have all stated that the local communities must be in support of this OLF before moving forward. With this in mind, no matter what the Navy might determine through any kind of study, these two sites have already removed one of the highest criteria items; Local support. The Navy is wasting a lot of people’s time including their own by pursuing these two counties especially if they do not wish it.

The Navy seeks to replace its current OLF in fast-growing Chesapeake, Va. Super Hornet jets from Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach and carriers in the Atlantic fleet would use the new practice strip. Two Hornet squadrons would be based at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North Carolina, the Navy says, but it now says those jets won't need to use the proposed OLF -- a change in plans.

Where did you get the information that the Navy seeks to replace Fentress? The previous study stated that Fentress would continue to operate as an OLF. The Navy is wanting a second OLF to augment Fentress, not replace it. Please read the Navy’s comments regarding the public’s concerns about the continued utilization of Fentress in the old EIS. If the Navy is indeed desiring to replace Fentress, then the Navy has been lying to the people of North Carolina since the publishing of the FEIS in July 2003. It is inappropriate for the Navy to change plans like this. What has changed? Before moving forward with this, I would hope that the N&O would get the ole journalistic juices flowing and inquire about this new plan. Will this plan actually prove a need for a second OLF or is this a white washing attempt by the Navy?

The new sites have the obvious advantage of not being near a refuge used by thousands of waterfowl as a migration stopover. It's also true that military pilots need somewhere with dark nighttime conditions to practice carrier landings. And North Carolina wants to maintain its traditional support of the military, an important economic factor in the state as well as furthering the national defense.

Because the Navy has stated that they will continue to utilize Fentress and Oceana for fleet carrier landing practices or touch-and-goes and many of these will be done in an environment that will have a huge light pollution concern, it begs to question the validity of this darkness criteria. From ¾ mile to touch down, the pilot would need darkness. Over Oceana and Fentress, the Navy has control over that area regarding lights. They can make it as dark or light as they desire. If they wish to press the argument that darkness is paramount, then the Navy needs to condemn all the properties within the 75 dB DNL contour line (as they stated they would do to North Carolinians in the SEIS). National defense is not enhanced when the military is allowed to condemn lands for a project that is not needed nor is it constitutional. The Constitution empowers Congress to maintain a Navy and to erect needful buildings. This OLF does not fall into the category of need, but of want as defined for the last 5 years. The Navy has to go to Congress for approval of this process. Our representatives should do a preemptive strike and just tell the Navy to first ask the community if they would allow this facility to be placed in their county. If the county says no thank you, then off to the next site. Would make this process extremely quick at least for North Carolina sites.

For those reasons the Navy is owed an open mind. Even if it was reluctant to yield on the Washington County site, the service has acted in good faith to find alternatives. The five new locations ought to be judged on an orderly and sensible basis, certainly with the environment and a community's culture and economy taken into account. That said, hard questions should be asked as to whether the Navy might be able to get along without a new OLF after all. Might conditions have changed since the need first was projected?

The Navy has not acted in good faith when searching for alternatives. The Navy did not give the new sites the courtesy of forewarning that they were being reviewed as a potential OLF site. While Governor Easley via DENR (?) might have requested the Navy not discuss with these communities, it was the responsibility of the Navy to talk to these communities. This indicates that the Navy is still approaching this OLF process utilizing the easy method vice doing what is proper. If the Navy will not open a dialog with the community on potential site selection what makes you think a valid review of the facts under the NEPA process will occur? Based on the studies generated so far for this project, it will be extremely difficult to trust the current authors of this upcoming NEPA process. The fact that the Navy is scrapping the original plan indicates that they are going to “fudge” the requirements in order to validate a requirement.

Political arm-twisting or gamesmanship between North Carolina and Virginia leaders shouldn't play a part in the decision. If an OLF must be built, the goal should be to choose the site that causes the fewest adverse impacts of all kinds, regardless of where it happens to be.

First and foremost, the Navy must prove that this OLF is indeed required. With the poor quality of workmanship already presented to North Carolinians, the confidence of their information demonstrating proof may never be accepted. It certainly will always be questioned.

The only way they can prove an OLF is needed is if they first prove that Fentress cannot do the job even if the encroachment concerns were removed. In order to do that, they would also have to show were the 2005 BRAC erred. However, the 2005 BRAC utilized Navy evaluations on the ability of Fentress and Oceana to perform the mission. Did the Navy lie to 2005 BRAC and subsequently Congress and the Commander in Chief or is it true that if the encroachment is removed, Oceana can continue to function as the East Coast master jet base with just one OLF?

For 5 years the Navy has stated that Washington County was the preferred site; that a thorough siting study was conducted to find the best possible site; that an OLF is not required if most or all of the squadrons are home based at Oceana but a second OLF would be reviewed to provide Hampton Roads with some noise mitigation and provide the Navy with some operational flexibility. Now the Navy is going to say that potentially Gates or Camden County is the best choice (20% chance of this being said toward those two sites) when in actuality, they would be the 6th best site, or 7th if you include the NO OLF option.

The Navy will not do what is required to make Oceana a viable master jet base, remove the encroachment out to the 75 dB DNL contour line as they stated was required for this OLF.

A review of the Navy’s directives on airfield management shows that the local governments have a responsibility to maintain the viability of the mission at this airfield by controlling the off-base encroachment. This responsibility was not performed at Oceana as evident by the 2005 BRAC decision and subsequent findings of DOD IG. Virginia Beach has stated that they would not do what was required to support Oceana, curb and roll back encroachment. It is now up to the Navy to make Oceana viable. Building a second OLF will not accomplish that. Most planes that will utilize this second OLF will take off and land at Oceana and must work with this encroachment problem. Every carrier training flight conducted at Oceana and Fentress will not be “as done at the carrier” due to encroachment causing the flight profile to be altered.

Admiral Nathman stated that “the fidelity at Oceana and Fentress is terrible, this is not a place to train young pilots”. The Navy is doing nothing on the scale envisioned for this second OLF around Oceana. It seems like the Navy first should take care of Oceana before destroying a community in North Carolina.

News and Observer, please accept the statements from the local communities and from our representatives. An OLF is not desired in North Carolina. The Navy told us that an OLF is not required for the decision they selected under the old study. The Navy cannot just void out all the information they have presented to us and call for a mulligan. If the information presented before is not valid, then why was 24,000 to 30,000 acres of land authorized to be condemned in Washington County? This OLF is a want, not a need. The Navy is trying to convince some county to allow them to place an OLF in their county and you are helping the Navy with much of this editorial.

The Navy should be required to answer all the questions received from the public comments period as many of those comments will be applicable to any North Carolina site under review. The Navy should be required to explain what is the new plan and new requirements before moving forward with any study.

The people of North Carolina have the right to know what the new playing field is. As evident by the September 18, 2007 meeting were the Navy had all the answers and my representative did not even know what were the sites about to be disclosed, the people of North Carolina do not need to be put in that position again.

The Navy should be transparent, honest, approachable, accessible and supportive to the questions and needs of North Carolinians regarding this OLF process.

Answering all the old questions and explaining to us the new requirements before they come to our community would go a long way to demonstrating that. Right now, I feel like the Navy is on a steam roller and we are about to get run over again.