We are concerned that NEPA is almost 40 years old with no improvements for environmental issues leaving us powerless and unprotected. Under the NEPA process, if an environmental issue is discovered, nothing needs to be done. NEPA only requires the identification of impacts and proposed mitigation. It does not require abandonment of the project even if serious environmental issues are discovered. The NEPA process has been satisfied and the project may still move forward.

Why should I care?
The Navy has identified approximately 22 sites at various locations across northeastern North Carolina and Virginia. At almost all of those locations overwhelming opposition has existed. The tax payers at each of these locations have had to utilize funds that could have been used to build schools, playgrounds, and other facilities that may have improved the community.

Your tax dollars have been used to study each site (most studies have not been released for public record). Your money, our tax dollars, could have been used to improve our military by upgrading pay, equipment or to just make life easier for our hardworking military families.

During a previous EIS process for a proposed OLF in Washington County, North Carolina, the Navy brass fought with the community for almost seven years before abandoning the project. Why should you care? This can happen to you.

Well, Does the Navy Really Need an OLF?
The Navy does not need an OLF in North Carolina. The Navy currently has plenty of training capacity at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach and at Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress in Chesapeake, Virginia, as well as at multiple existing military facilities up and down the east coast. A new OLF nearby in North Carolina would be a convenience for the Navy and not a demonstrated need.  As former Virginia Governor Mark Warner recently said, there are rarely more than two carrier groups in port at Norfolk at any given time.  The air wings normally deploy with the carrier groups...when the carrier groups are not in port, neither are the air wings.

"In fact, there are seldom more than two of our nation's 11 carriers in Norfolk at any one time." - Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner in a Virginian Pilot Editorial dated May 25, 2008

Are There Alternatives to an OLF or Are Existing Landing Fields Available?
Yes. Virginia senior Senator John Warner has suggested the use of an existing abandoned military landing field at Fort Pickett, Virginia. This site would be ideal in that it is already a Federal facility with an existing runway that is suitable for carrier landing practice. The Navy has refused to consider this site and has cited distance to Fort Pickett as a deterrent. However, Fort Pickett is roughly the same distance from Oceana as was the Navy’s previously preferred site in Washington County, North Carolina.

North Carolina Governor Mike Easley has proposed a site in Carteret County called the Open Grounds Farm Site. It consists of thousands of acres of undeveloped farmland and is owned primarily by one owner. The Navy has balked at this site as well again citing distance and airspace issues.

North Carolina State Senator Marc Basnight has questioned why the Navy hasn’t studied the development of an offshore landing platform for carrier landing training. The Navy has dismissed Senator Basnight's suggestion as infeasible but has yet to perform any studies to back up this assertion.

The Navy already has an OLF at Fentress which is consistently underutilized. The Navy has used "surge" calculations to improperly give the impression that Fentress is frequently over capacity. These calculations assume the use of the Fentress OLF by nearly every available aircraft at Norfolk Naval Station and Oceana at the same time on the shortest night of the year. This is not a realistic scenario! Under normal operating conditions, Fentress has more than enough capacity to handle F-18 carrier landing training operations. During the extremely rare cases when a "surge" situation might exist, the Navy has plenty of available landing field training capacity at other existing military facilities up and down the east coast.  In addition, according to the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study (HRJLUS), Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) operations are restricted at Oceana!  If the Navy's operational projections do not even include available capacity at Oceana, how can Fentress truly be "over capacity"?  Fentress is only "over capacity" when the Navy refuses to utilize the existing capacity available at Oceana.

Why Do We Oppose An OLF at Hales Lake/Moyock?

1.  Currituck and Camden Counties are two of the fastest growing counties in the U.S.  The Navy has said that they are looking for a sparsely populated, "remote" area to practice carrier landings.  Sparsely populated and remote does not describe Currituck and Camden Counties.  This is simply the wrong place for an OLF.

2. The Hales Lake/Moyock site is prone to dangerous peat fires...a hazard to both the pilots as well as the community.

3. The Hales Lake/Moyock site is prone to severe flooding.

4. The Hales Lake/Moyock site is home to thousands of migratory birds.  An OLF here would be dangerous to both the pilots and the birds.

5. Virginia Beach and Chesapeake citizens have sued the Navy to the tune of $500 million dollars over the noise created by the Super Hornet jet aircraft.  This is the same noise that the Navy is trying to export to North Carolina. 

6. The Navy has other more cost-effective options including using the existing underutilized capacity at Oceana, exploring other Super Hornet siting options that would place the jets closer to existing government facilities, revisiting alternative sites such as the Open Grounds Farm site, and exploring the use of other government owned properties such as Fort Pickett in Virginia.

7. In 2005, the BRAC Commission emphatically stated that "Oceana is not the future of Naval aviation on the East Coast."  If Oceana's future is in doubt, why is the Navy spending upwards of $300 million of our tax dollars and destroying a community for an OLF that may be obsolete in 5 or 10 years?

Some of these jets have been flying very low over Moyock in particular.

Will The OLF Bring Jobs?

An OLF at any of the proposed sites in North Carolina and Virginia would create 52 jobs, according to the Navy.

The location at the Hales Lake site is a potato farm. This farm employs approximately 90 full and part-time employees a year.
 
About 5,000 acres of potatoes are grown in Pasquotank and Camden counties and the gross value of the crop each year is about $6.5 million to $8 million. The two counties are usually first and second in the state for potato production.

It is important to understand that when the U.S. Government takes land, they do not pay taxes on it. Plus 30,000 acres around the site will be deemed incompatible development and restrictive easements will be placed on the land surrounding the core site.

Do not be fooled by looking at the Virginia sites. Oceana will be little more than a garage for the aircraft (F-18 Super Hornets). The housing of the aircraft is where the money is…that is in Virginia - to the tune of $773 million a year in revenue for Virginia Beach. The OLF currently serving Oceana is Fentress in Chesapeake, Virginia. Where are the industry/jobs around Fentress? There are just homes. Fentress will most likely close due to pressure from developers wanting more land.

Look at the big picture: 30,000 acres (an area roughly the size of the city of Norfolk) taken away from potential development, environmental destruction and loss of valuable cropland, and intense noise that will drive people away. THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO THE CITIZENS HOSTING AN OLF IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

Meanwhile, Oceana will only be a home base for the Super Hornet aircraft. They will only use Oceana for 5 nighttime field carrier landing practice (FCLP) operations a year. In contrast, they are projecting 30,000+ nighttime FCLP operations to be conducted at Fentress per year. If a new OLF is constructed in North Carolina, Fentress’ 30,000+ nighttime FCLP operations will be shifted to North Carolina while Oceana remains underutilized and Fentress is likely to be closed.

On August 20, 2005, at the 2005 BRAC Commission Regional Hearings, then Virginia Governor Mark Warner testified, "a new OLF that the Navy has made the decision to build will improve the overall capability of Oceana by moving out of Fentress."

Oceana has four runways—three measuring 8,000 feet (2,400 m) in length and one measuring 12,000 feet—that are designed for high-performance aircraft.

Why is the Navy only projecting five nighttime FCLP operations to be conducted at Oceana per year?? Isn’t Oceana the East Coast Master Jet Base? Shouldn’t the available training capacity at the Master Jet Base be utilized first before even considering spending $300 million dollars of taxpayer money on a new OLF in North Carolina?

NAS Oceana's primary mission is to train and deploy the Navy's Atlantic Fleet strike fighter squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets. The available training capacity at Oceana is what the Navy and Virginia relied upon in securing the eight Super Hornet squadrons in 2003. Now they are telling us that they cannot complete their mission of training Super Hornet pilots without a new OLF in North Carolina. It’s a misleading job interview…you claim to be able to do the job but when you get the job you can’t complete the task.