The Virginian-Pilot
©
CAMDEN COUNTY, N.C.
Undocumented wetlands and rare mussels could block Navy plans to build a practice airfield in northeastern North Carolina, representatives of OLF opponents said in separate statements.
Both announcements came a few days after the Navy said it would delay the release of an environmental impact study until spring.
The study was expected to name the Navy's preferred airfield site from among five - three in Virginia and two in North Carolina.
Wetlands at both North Carolina sites have been underestimated and the necessary permits could be denied, according to a July 21 letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the Navy.
The Navy has been told "several times" about this deficiency in their environmental study so far, the letter said.
"The study is not good enough at this point," said Glenn Dunn, an environmental attorney with Raleigh-based law firm Poyner Spruill. "If the Navy does not conduct a thorough analysis of the wetlands, I don't see how the Corps of Engineers can issue a Clean Water Act permit, and that would stop an OLF from being built."
Agencies such as the Corps of Engineers often review environmental studies before they are released.
Camden and Currituck counties hired Dunn's firm to help oppose an outlying landing field proposed for the Hales Lake area where jets would practice aircraft carrier landings. Dunn got the letter from the corps and released it this week, he said.
The Navy is working closely with the Corps of Engineers and will meet the wetlands requirements, Navy spokesman Ted Brown said.
The Navy said in a release Friday that " environmental planning which would lead to a decision to establish an OLF has been a challenging process."
"Various delays" have pushed release of the airfield environmental study back to coincide with a study to determine where to base the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, the Navy release stated.
In Gates County, a study in the Chowan River found a mussel listed as endangered in North Carolina - the Lampsilis cariosa, or yellow lampmussel - and five others listed as threatened.
"The Navy should remove Gates County from the list based on the rare mussels and the wetlands," said Ryke Longest, director of Duke University's Environmental Law and Policy Clinic. "The Chowan River basin is one of the few examples where we can say things have gotten significantly better since the 1970s."
The Duke clinic and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice are helping a Gates County residents group oppose the Navy airfield.
Freshwater mussels are like filters for the environment and are early indicators of pollution, therefore necessary to protect, said the study, conducted by Alderman Environmental Services.
The study found 13 freshwater mussel species in a section of the lower Chowan River included within the noise contour area of the proposed airfield. The river is globally significant for its diversity of freshwater mussels, said the study, commissioned by the Gates County residents group.
The Navy's study will take into consideration all endangered and threatened species, Brown said.
In 2002, the Navy selected farmland in Washington County as its preferred site for an airfield.
A residents group teamed with environmental organizations to file suit and wo n, forcing the Navy to withdraw its choice and start over.
In January 2008, the Navy announced it was considering five other sites.
Jeff Hampton, (252) 338-0159, jeff.hampton@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
The Navy. . .
. . Is once again demonstrating how utterly clueless they are. While they continue to lie about sound footprints and environmental studies, the reality of the JSF sets in. And I've said it a million times on this subject; The JSF is the end of Oceana, and I for one will be elated. This is not about "capacity" or "light intrusion. ." It's the fact the JSF is so freaking loud the Navy would be sued again, again and again, and lose many millions. This jet (JSF/F-35)makes an FA-18 sound like a mouse, the Navy knows this is a major issue and it's getting late in the day.
Sound familiar?
Besides wetland studies, the Navy is also busy reverse engineering noise studies for the JSF35.
The Navy is releasing statements saying the JSF35 is no louder than the FA18 Super Hornet. They are manipulating their average Day/Night data to avoid stating true noise levels. There are independent studies that find the JSF35 will be 2-3 times louder than the FA18 Super Hornet.
The Navy wanted to have the OLF in place, then later slip in the JSF35, without having to include
it in their OLF site analysis. Sound familiar? Has the Navy ever released accurate noise zones at
Oceana or Fentress?
The Study is Bogus.
Now we know the Navy’s preferred site. Their OLF sites are either Gates County or Camden County, North Carolina.
It looks like the folks in Virginia can sit back relax and enjoy the show. Watch the Navy torture NC again. It seems to be their preferred pastime, bully the citizens of North Carolina. They have been doing for almost 10 years.
We know how the Navy is, even if it is bad for the pilots, the aircraft, the environment or the citizens, they are going for it. It’s the “mission”.
Heck, their preferred site a few years ago was Washington County, NC where their pilots would have to fly through over 40,000 flocks of birds and over 70,000 were identified as large birds.
If the preferred site were in Virginia, the study would have been released already.
Yea, we know how they operate, relax Virginia, It’s not you.
Suprise, Surprise, Suprise!
The letter from the Army Corps only validates what people in the 5 sites have know from the beginning, that the Navy has been spending the last two years fabricating studies to justify
selecting sites that have previously been unsuitable for an OLF. If and when the Navy releases
their studies, wetlands will not be the only environmental issue understated or distorted. The Navy
is reverse engineering data, to support whatever site they "just want". Sound familiar? That's exactly
what the Navy did with the previous 5 sites for years. The Navy chose the same firm to study the
new 5 sites, Ecology & Environment, that preformed the flawed, inadequate, Washington County studies.
Hawkgirl
your so right. What the Navy is doing to the five new sites is exactly the same stuff they did for the five old sites. They realize that all they have to do is get the checks in the box and then move on. That is all they are attempting to do. PROPER study? Even when told they had a problem, they wanted to run with it. If not for the Army Corp letter getting out, would the Navy have moved forward with this action and "dared" folks to find it? Then the Navy would have glossed over it in the FEIS. Is this robust or transparency? Including the JSF is NOT proper. It deserves its own study.
Meanwhile, the Navy still has not demonstrated a requirement for this OLF. Just another check in the box item. No facts, just a waste of time presentation that failed to demonstrate need. It was a nicely presented presentation, well versed, respectful, etc, but it failed to demonstrate that the complex of Oceana's runways does not have the capacity.
Capacity at Oceana/Fentress is not the primary issue
The more important issue is the lighting that exists around Oceana and Fentress from the development encroachment that makes night practice no where near what is seen at sea in an actual carrier landing at night.
The real truth was given to all in the first FEIS
and the letter from Adm Natter back in Oct 2000. Regardless of what the Navy is saying today, that letter by Adm Natter to HR is "the real truth". It is about noise mitigation for the people of HR. To this day, the people of the rural communities have not been brought into any real, or robust conversations on the Navy's requirements.
The FEIS of 2003 was terrible for demonstrating the impact. The DSEIS of 2007 twisted the findings of other agencies. Now we see that the Navy failed to account for potential wet lands and other critters. They have been told a few times, but failed to address the issue? WHAT? WHY? What is worse is the Navy said, "oo we are gonna delay the EIS till Spring for the JSF" but did not mention THIS problem with their report. Since 2003, the Navy has been harming their believability with regard to this OLF. Why is it others are seeing data on this OLF but the rural communities are not. The Navy still has not placed the data they have on the various sites on their web site, why is that? They presented the data 18 Sept, 2007. Transparency and robust communication was promised; still looking for it.
The Study is Bogus.
Now we know the Navy’s preferred site. Their OLF sites are either Gates County or Camden County, North Carolina.
It looks like the folks in Virginia can sit back relax and enjoy the show. Watch the Navy torture NC again. It seems to be their preferred pastime, bully the citizens of North Carolina. They have been doing for almost 10 years.
We know how the Navy is, even if it is bad for the pilots, the aircraft, the environment or the citizens, they are going for it. It’s the “mission”.
Heck, their preferred site a few years ago was Washington County, NC where their pilots would have to fly through over 40,000 flocks of birds and over 70,000 were identified as large birds.
If the preferred site were in Virginia, the study would have been released already.
Yea, we know how they operate, relax Virginia, It’s not you.
The Real Truth Part 2
Now, the Navy postponed the environmental impact statement until the spring because of one site; Hales Lake.
Why isn’t the Navy moving ahead with one of the other 4 sites? Because, the other sites are nothing more than, “SMOKE and MIRRORS.
The Navy is lying and they are in bed with a shady company attempting to reverse engineer this site, again.
Where’s the local media on this story? This sounds like a 60 minutes story.
Oh dear
What is it, two times the Navy has messed up? They need to stop wasting our tax money on useless projects, how much has been wasted since day 1?
It is past time for Oceana to leave the area. The Army Corps should evaluate all the sites.
We have learned one thing positively, is that the politicians really only care about where the most voters are.