North Carolina Gov. Easley Urges NC Congressional Delegation To Ask Navy To Develop Alternative OLF Proposals

Article continues below...

11/14/2007 -- Raleigh - North Carolina Governor Mike Easley today urged the Navy to take into account the overwhelming local opposition to an outlying landing field and develop alternative proposals following receipt of a report from Judge Sidney S. Eagles on the activities of the OLF Study Group. Easley sent a letter to North Carolina's congressional delegation and Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter, along with copies of the report from Eagles’ who chaired the study group. Winter is expected shortly to announce sites, possibly in Virginia and North Carolina, that the Navy wants to explore further for the training facility.

''The most important information gathered came from the citizens and public officials from affected counties who testified at the study group's public meeting in Elizabeth City,'' said Easley. ''They were overwhelmingly opposed to an OLF in their communities. They see an OLF as almost all burden and no benefit. That is why I am urging our congressional delegation to ask the Navy to take these views into account and develop alternative proposals.''

Two months ago Easley activated the OLF Study Group, headed by former state Court of Appeals Judge Eagles, to examine the strategic, economic and environmental aspects of finding sites that will meet the U.S. Navy’s training needs, protect the environment, not threaten wildlife and respect the concerns of local communities and property owners. The study group met four times, including a public hearing in Elizabeth City.

''Almost all of the public comments received by the study group stressed that placing an OLF in Northeastern North Carolina would have devastating economic, social and cultural consequences,'' Eagles said in his letter to the governor. ''Based on expert presentations, exchanges with local governments and citizen testimony that we received, it does appear that the six additional locations may be more suitable from an environmental perspective than Site C (near the Washington-Beaufort county line),'' Eagles said. ''However, the information provided to us also strongly demonstrates that there are genuine concerns that siting any OLF would have substantial adverse economic and cultural impacts to affected communities. If the Navy is to proceed with placing an OLF in North Carolina, it should commit to providing economic incentives and working hand in hand with the communities to mitigate these concerns.''

Rear Adm. David Anderson, who has been leading the Navy’s effort to locate an OLF, has said that Navy Secretary Winter was expected to decide by Nov. 15 which of the six potential sites, if any, would be selected for further exploration and environmental study.

The members of the study group are: State Sen. Ed Jones (D-Bertie, Chowan, Gates, Halifax, Hertford, Northampton, Perquimans); state Rep. Bill Owens (D-Camden, Currituck, Pasquotank, Tyrrell); state Rep. William Wainwright (D-Craven, Lenoir), Bryan Beatty, Crime Control and Public Safety secretary; Bill Ross, Environment and Natural Resources secretary; Jim Fain, Commerce secretary; Troy Pate, co-chair of the N.C. Advisory Commission on Military Affairs; Jane Preyer, regional director of the N.C. Environmental Defense Fund; Doug Parsons, member of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Management Commission and Ducks Unlimited; Marion Deerhake, member of the N.C. Environmental Management Commission and an environmental scientist; Paul Spruill, Beaufort County manger; David Peoples, Washington County manager; Peter Daniel, N.C. Farm Bureau Federation; and John Crumpler, formerly of the N.C. Economic Development Board.

The text of the governor's letter to North Carolina's congressional delegation and the full text of Judge Eagles’ letter are attached and are also available on the Internet at www.enr.state.nc.us under the ''current events'' heading on the top right side of the web page.

TEXT OF LETTER FROM GOV. EASLEY TO NORTH CAROLINA'S CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION AND SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:
I have enclosed for your reference a letter that I have just received from Judge Sidney S. Eagles that provides a summary of the work of the OLF Study Group over the past eight weeks.

The most important information in this letter was conveyed by the citizens and public officials from affected counties who testified at the Study Group's public meeting in Elizabeth City. They were overwhelmingly opposed to an OLF in their communities. They see an OLF as almost a burden and no benefit.

After carefully consideration of this letter, my recommendation is that you ask the Navy to take these views into account and develop alternative proposals.

With kindest regards, I remain
-- Michael F. Easley --

TEXT OF LETTER FROM OLF STUDY GROUP CHAIRMAN JUDGE SIDNEY S. EAGLES TO GOV. MIKE EASLEY

Dear Governor Easley:
I am writing to provide an update on the work of the Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Study Group. While our study group’s authority is advisory in nature and our role is not to provide recommendations or an endorsement of any of the additional locations which the Navy may choose to study further, I believe it is important to provide you with a summary of the information that we received during the discussions and deliberations by study group members.

First, as chairman of this group, I want to thank you for the opportunity to serve on the task force. My fellow members of the study group are to be commended for the time and effort each of them has invested in this matter. During the study group process we have received outstanding cooperation from local governments, the Navy, state and federal agencies and other interested parties. They all provided us with valuable information and candid statements of their views. We were also able to hear from those communities and local citizens who could possibly be impacted by the Navy’s decision to site an OLF in North Carolina.

In reactivating the study group, you charged us with examining the strategic, economic and environmental aspects of identifying sites that will meet the training needs of the Navy. We endeavored to meet this charge. Over several weeks our study group met four times, three meetings were in Raleigh and one was a public meeting in Elizabeth City at which we invited citizens to share their views, concerns and comments. I have provided more detail below, but it is important to recognize that almost all of the public comments received by the study group stressed that placing an OLF in Northeastern North Carolina would have devastating economic, social and cultural consequences.

In addition to hearing from citizens over the course of our meetings, we heard from a variety of experts. Each of the experts also provided valuable input; some of whom spoke to general impacts from siting an OLF, while others directed their comments specifically to the six additional locations. In short, based on the expert presentations, exchanges with local governments and citizen testimony that we received, it does appear that the six additional locations may be more suitable from an environmental perspective than Site C. However, the information provided to us also strongly demonstrates that there are genuine concerns that siting an OLF would have substantial adverse economic and cultural impacts to affected communities. If the Navy is to proceed with placing an OLF in North Carolina, it should commit to providing economic incentives and working hand in hand with the communities and region to mitigate these concerns.

From a perspective solely focused on environmental concerns, I believe it is accurate to say that the negative environmental impacts that were concerns at Site C in Washington and Beaufort Counties do not seem, upon preliminary review, to be present to the same degree at the six additional locations under review. In the course of our study of the environmental issues at the additional locations we received presentations from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Audubon Society of North Carolina. While it should be noted that this evaluation by the agencies and organizations is preliminary and does not substitute for a full and detailed analysis that would occur under the National Environmental Policy Act, the consistent message was that the placement of an OLF at one of these six additional locations would result in fewer adverse environmental impacts than at Site C. Included in this analysis was a preliminary review of bird populations in the areas of the additional locations. This preliminary review did not reveal the same type of wildlife issues and pilot safety concerns that were prevalent at Site C.

Although an initial environmental review of the new additional locations in comparison with site C indicates that these six additional locations are all likely more suitable for an OLF than Site C, with a facility of this size and magnitude, there will of course be substantial environmental impacts. Based on the information we received however, it does appear that these impacts can be minimized and mitigated, which was not the case at Site C. Furthermore, we also received information that at some of the new locations there may be opportunities for future environmental enhancements.

Next, the focus of our group turned to the economic ramifications of siting an OLF. As you have stated before, it is imperative that a suitable OLF site must secure benefits for the people of North Carolina. The Navy presented information detailing the fifty-two civilian permanent jobs that would be associated with an OLF (over a two year period there would also be several hundred construction jobs). The Navy committed to provide training opportunities through the community college system or other means to ensure that local citizens would be qualified to be hired for these jobs. An analysis done for the study group by J. Ted Morris, Associate Vice Chancellor for Economic Development at East Carolina University, indicates that, on average, these permanent jobs would be relatively high paying positions. The study group also received comments from Allies for Cherry Point and learned of their support for siting an OLF in North Carolina. Their presentation outlined the irreplaceable economic and social benefits associated with the military to their region of the state. In addition, they believe that placing an OLF in North Carolina is vital to the continued perception that North Carolina remains the most military friendly state in the nation.

In the course of our discussions about what an OLF could bring to a community through jobs and other ancillary economic benefits, we repeatedly heard concerns that the small number of jobs for the region would be cancelled out by other negative economic and quality of life considerations. An overwhelming majority of all of the comments we received from residents, citizen groups and local governments in the Northeastern part of the state contends that the impact of an OLF could have a dramatic negative impact on the economic future of a community and on its quality of life. One underlying theme that ran throughout these comments centered on the inequity of providing the economic benefits associated with the squadrons to one region, while the negative aspects of an OLF are shouldered by another region. A variety of negative economic consequences were cited as potentially arising from an OLF. These factors ranged from a devaluation of the property tax base to a decrease in tourism revenue to an impediment towards future residential, commercial and industrial development.

I believe it is a fair conclusion that these economic and quality of life concerns are significant. Consequently, it is essential that the Navy meaningfully address these economic and quality of life considerations. Furthermore, efforts to address the financial incentives associated with an OLF need to progress beyond generalized statements and concepts to a process that identifies specific and individualized financial packages. Associated with this type of specific effort, the Navy must work to address the inequities that exist in placing an OLF in one community while the economic benefits accrue to other communities in different regions of the state and country. Only through this type of targeted approach can those impacted communities be assured that they will retain the opportunity to guide their future decisions from an economic and quality of life perspective.

Finally, I would be remiss if, on behalf of the study group, I did not note the intense interest related to this issue by the potentially affected communities. It was clear from the more than 400 people in attendance at the public meeting in Elizabeth City that this is an issue of momentous local and regional significance. It is also clear that identifying a suitable OLF site is a complex and challenging issue. For many, it is also a very personal and emotional issue. I am proud that the study group as been able to serve as a forum for all of the varying interests to have their views heard, and also as a way for these views to be conveyed to the Navy.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Study Group. If you or your staff would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Sidney S. Eagles, Jr.

Source: North Carolina Governor