Woman from Morehead City sees no harm in it

Woman from Morehead City sees no harm in it

MOREHEAD CITY - They may be in the minority. But at least one local resident, who supports the proposition of a Navy sonar range off the North Carolina coast, thinks there are plenty of others like herself who have just not yet spoken up. "I can't see any harm in it, actually," said Kelly Cooke of Morehead City. "I think it's going to be good for the country." Cooke, who admits she is somewhat pro-military because many of her family members have served in different branches over the years, said she believes it would be an honor for the state to be selected as the sonar range site. "I think any red-blooded American ought to be proud of anything that goes in this area from the military," Cooke said. That has not been the opinion voiced at public hearings, thus far, where numerous people from the environmental and fishing communities have sounded off against the idea of building a 500 nautical square mile anti-submarine training facility about 47 nautical miles off Camp Lejeune. Topping concerns has been the non-specific nature of wording in a draft report that concludes the concentrated use of sonar will have minimal impact on marine life in the area. Now several elected officials have gotten involved. On Wednesday, N.C. Sen. President Pro-tem Marc Basnight sent a letter to the state's delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives expressing concern and disapproval of the proposal. "This facility will have a long-lasting negative impact on our state fisheries and coastal tourism, with no economic or environmental benefit to the citizens of North Carolina," Basnight wrote. Basnight asked Congressmen to urge the Navy to extend the public comment period on the draft environmental impact statement, originally set to end Dec. 28, so to allow the public time to review a final National Marine Fisheries Service report on the cause of strandings of more than 30 pilot whales along the coast of Oregon Inlet in January 2005. That report is due out sometime in January. U.S. Reps. Walter Jones, R-NC and Mike McIntyre, D-NC, also sent a letter Tuesday to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command asking for 60-day extension of the original Dec. 28 deadline. The Navy has granted the request from the public and elected officials to extend the comment period to Jan. 30. That is double the time period required by law for public comments under the National Environmental Policy Act, said Jim Brantley, public affairs officer for the Navy Fleet Forces Command. A 60-day extension would have afforded the public opportunity to read before commenting, as well, individual reports written by members of a federal Marine Mammal Commission Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals expected out in February, said Jim Stephenson of the North Carolina Coastal Federation. Cooke said she does not believe there will be any greater impacts from a sonar range than the amount of development already going on along the coast. Moreover, she said the public needs to balance the environmental aspects of the debate with the national security issues. "It's going to do more good than harm," Cooke said. The Navy contends it needs the sonar range because its two existing ranges off San Diego and Hawaii are not representative of the shallower ocean environments in which the Navy often operates. Additionally, it is logistically inefficient to take an East Coast-based ship and crew to the West Coast to train. Stephenson said he does not think the Navy has made a good case for this need. Construction of a sonar range off Onslow Beach would not bring more troops to Camp Lejeune or any other military base in North Carolina, but Cooke said it could still have a positive economic impact. "Even though they're from out-of-town they're still going to be spending money in our area and the government will be spending money in our area," she said.

http://snipurl.com/l4qf