Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
January 3, 2009
Deadline On Carrier Move Passes; Still No Decision
By Dale Eisman and Louis Hansen, The Virginian-Pilot
A self-imposed Navy deadline for a decision on placing a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Mayport Naval Station in Florida has passed, although officials insist the process is still on track.
Capt. Beci Brenton, a spokeswoman for Navy Secretary Donald Winter, said the secretary has made no decision on a carrier move. "I'm not aware of any timetable" for when a decision might be made, she added.
Virginia officials have been following the process closely, fearing the loss of a carrier and the thousands of jobs that go with it. Navy officials stated in mid-December that Winter would issue a final decision by year's end.
One possible hold up - a tardy environmental study from a federal agency, said Frank Roberts, director of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance. At least two federal environmental studies on the Navy's plan were expected by Dec. 30.
In late November, the Navy endorsed a proposal to improve Mayport Naval Station and move a nuclear carrier to the base in northern Florida.
The service argued that sending one East Coast carrier to a different homeport would improve security. Construction to make the base capable of homeporting a nuclear carrier would cost at least $565 million, according to Navy estimates.
Virginia officials are concerned that the Navy is rushing a decision to place the new carrier George H.W. Bush at Mayport.
The ship is to be commissioned Jan. 10 in Norfolk.
Federal law required Winter to wait at least 30 days before rendering a final decision. After the 30-day waiting period, there is no deadline for a final decision, said Navy spokesman Lt. Cmdr. John Daniels. "We want to get this done as quick as possible," he said.
The Navy asked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, and the Fish and Wildlife Service to study the environmental effects of moving a nuclear carrier to Florida.
Roberts said the Fish and Wildlife Service report has not been completed.
Officials from the two agencies did not return calls seeking comment on Friday.
Last month, Sens. John Warner and Jim Webb wrote a letter to the chiefs of both agencies expressing concern that the comprehensive reports weren't due until just before the Navy was expected to make its decision.
The Virginia senators, both former Navy secretaries, said the dredging, construction and increased ship traffic at Mayport could harm protected right whales and manatees.
Even after the secretary renders a decision, Webb and new Virginia Sen. Mark Warner have vowed to fight it in Congress.
The Florida and Virginia delegations continue to compete for the ship and crew, which could bring an estimated 11,000 jobs and $650 million in annual salaries and economic activity.
The Navy will still face challenges to pay for new construction at Mayport, Roberts said. The service will have to justify construction at Mayport when ship building and maintenance budgets are stretched thin, he said.
He compared the Navy's predicament to a struggling renter making a decision on a stack of bills. "Are you going to pay your rent or are you going to pay your electric bill this month?" he asked.
Deadline On Carrier Move Passes; Still No Decision
-
USS ALASKA
- Member
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:05 pm
-
USS ALASKA
- Member
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:05 pm
Navy Backs Plan To Move A Carrier To Mayport, Florida
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
January 15, 2009
Navy Backs Plan To Move A Carrier To Mayport, Florida
By Dale Eisman and Louis Hansen, The Virginian-Pilot
NORFOLK -- The Navy on Wednesday formally endorsed plans to make Florida's Mayport Naval Station the home of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, potentially ending Norfolk's status as the lone nuclear-capable carrier port on the East Coast.
Virginia officials expect a Norfolk-based carrier will be moved to Florida, draining the Hampton Roads economy of an estimated 11,000 jobs and $600 million in annual income.
The Navy argues that dispersing the East Coast carriers will reduce the risk of a catastrophic attack or natural disaster crippling the fleet. That was "the ultimate determining factor in the decision," said Lt. Sean Robertson, a Navy spokesman.
The Navy estimates it will cost at least $565 million to prepare Mayport for construction and dredging. A ship transfer is at least five years away, in 2014. Mayport's carrier won't be chosen until one year prior to the move, according to the Navy.
Wednesday's decision pushes the long-running rivalry between Florida and Virginia for Navy assets back to Congress, where Virginia representatives said they would try to block the move.
"This announcement by the Navy was absolutely not the end of the process; it was an early step," said U.S. Rep. Glenn Nye, D-Norfolk.
"The Navy has not demonstrated a clear tactical, strategic, or security reason to move a carrier to Mayport."
As members of the Armed Services Committees in their respective houses of Congress, Sen. Jim Webb and local Reps. Randy Forbes, Rob Wittman and Nye are well-positioned to make themselves heard as Congress reviews the Mayport proposal and the rest of the Navy's 2010 budget plan.
Mayport also has powerful allies: Florida Sens. Bill Nelson, a Democrat and Mel Martinez, a Republican, both sit with Webb on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the House panel includes Florida Republicans Jeff Miller and Tom Rooney.
The Navy plans to build facilities at Mayport to maintain nuclear propulsion plants, as well as make improvements to parking, wharves and roads. Robertson declined to comment on funding for the construction because the Navy's 2010 budget has not been released.
Webb, a former Navy secretary, said he was not persuaded by the Navy's strategic argument.
"If I were serving as secretary of the Navy today, I would be very worried about where I would be finding $4.6 billion to pay for unfunded requirements in the Navy's existing budget," Webb said in a statement. "I would not be proposing an additional billion dollars on top of these shortfalls for a nonessential, redundant facility in Mayport."
The Navy's announcement came just hours after a speech in which the service's top resources officer, Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, acknowledged current and future budgets don't include enough money for all the ships and aircraft the Navy needs, said Forbes, a Republican from Chesapeake.
"The Navy nevertheless proceeded with a short-sighted, political decision inadequately justified by a supposed need for strategic dispersal" of the carrier fleet, Forbes said in a statement.
With the cost of relocating a carrier to Mayport estimated to rise to as much as $1 billion, he said, "I look forward to asking Navy officials... what other priorities were sacrificed for this costly and unnecessary decision."
Florida leaders celebrated the decision even before the Navy made its official announcement Wednesday afternoon.
"For more than 60 years, the Navy has seen rich strategic benefits in homeporting aircraft carriers at Mayport," Martinez said. "The Navy's recognition of Mayport's role directly benefits our national security."
Mayport lost its conventionally powered carrier, the John F. Kennedy, which was decommissioned in 2007. The Navy plans to decommission the frigate fleet at Mayport, leaving space for other ships and assets.
Wednesday's decision ends a 2-1/2-year federal process that studied the environmental effects of moving a nuclear carrier and other ships to Mayport. The decision was signed by B.J. Penn, assistant secretary of the Navy for installations and the environment.
January 15, 2009
Navy Backs Plan To Move A Carrier To Mayport, Florida
By Dale Eisman and Louis Hansen, The Virginian-Pilot
NORFOLK -- The Navy on Wednesday formally endorsed plans to make Florida's Mayport Naval Station the home of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, potentially ending Norfolk's status as the lone nuclear-capable carrier port on the East Coast.
Virginia officials expect a Norfolk-based carrier will be moved to Florida, draining the Hampton Roads economy of an estimated 11,000 jobs and $600 million in annual income.
The Navy argues that dispersing the East Coast carriers will reduce the risk of a catastrophic attack or natural disaster crippling the fleet. That was "the ultimate determining factor in the decision," said Lt. Sean Robertson, a Navy spokesman.
The Navy estimates it will cost at least $565 million to prepare Mayport for construction and dredging. A ship transfer is at least five years away, in 2014. Mayport's carrier won't be chosen until one year prior to the move, according to the Navy.
Wednesday's decision pushes the long-running rivalry between Florida and Virginia for Navy assets back to Congress, where Virginia representatives said they would try to block the move.
"This announcement by the Navy was absolutely not the end of the process; it was an early step," said U.S. Rep. Glenn Nye, D-Norfolk.
"The Navy has not demonstrated a clear tactical, strategic, or security reason to move a carrier to Mayport."
As members of the Armed Services Committees in their respective houses of Congress, Sen. Jim Webb and local Reps. Randy Forbes, Rob Wittman and Nye are well-positioned to make themselves heard as Congress reviews the Mayport proposal and the rest of the Navy's 2010 budget plan.
Mayport also has powerful allies: Florida Sens. Bill Nelson, a Democrat and Mel Martinez, a Republican, both sit with Webb on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the House panel includes Florida Republicans Jeff Miller and Tom Rooney.
The Navy plans to build facilities at Mayport to maintain nuclear propulsion plants, as well as make improvements to parking, wharves and roads. Robertson declined to comment on funding for the construction because the Navy's 2010 budget has not been released.
Webb, a former Navy secretary, said he was not persuaded by the Navy's strategic argument.
"If I were serving as secretary of the Navy today, I would be very worried about where I would be finding $4.6 billion to pay for unfunded requirements in the Navy's existing budget," Webb said in a statement. "I would not be proposing an additional billion dollars on top of these shortfalls for a nonessential, redundant facility in Mayport."
The Navy's announcement came just hours after a speech in which the service's top resources officer, Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, acknowledged current and future budgets don't include enough money for all the ships and aircraft the Navy needs, said Forbes, a Republican from Chesapeake.
"The Navy nevertheless proceeded with a short-sighted, political decision inadequately justified by a supposed need for strategic dispersal" of the carrier fleet, Forbes said in a statement.
With the cost of relocating a carrier to Mayport estimated to rise to as much as $1 billion, he said, "I look forward to asking Navy officials... what other priorities were sacrificed for this costly and unnecessary decision."
Florida leaders celebrated the decision even before the Navy made its official announcement Wednesday afternoon.
"For more than 60 years, the Navy has seen rich strategic benefits in homeporting aircraft carriers at Mayport," Martinez said. "The Navy's recognition of Mayport's role directly benefits our national security."
Mayport lost its conventionally powered carrier, the John F. Kennedy, which was decommissioned in 2007. The Navy plans to decommission the frigate fleet at Mayport, leaving space for other ships and assets.
Wednesday's decision ends a 2-1/2-year federal process that studied the environmental effects of moving a nuclear carrier and other ships to Mayport. The decision was signed by B.J. Penn, assistant secretary of the Navy for installations and the environment.