The fact the U.S. Navy rejected two northeastern North Carolina sites for a proposed jet landing field in a previous study should be enough reason for Navy officials to dismiss those sites from consideration now, a citizens group opposed to the airfield says.

Navy officials, however, say the previous study of the Hale's Lake area in Camden and the Sandbanks area in Gates County has no bearing on the current outlying landing field study, which is expected to take more than two years.

Members of Currituck/Camden Against the OLF believe the previous study is relevant, and in a June 6 letter to Navy officials ask that the sites again be removed from consideration for the jet training airfield.

Larry Johnson, the citizens group president, makes it clear in his letter that residents are unhappy with the Navy's designation of Hale's Lake and Sandbanks as "new" sites for OLF consideration.

Johnson writes that the Navy's April "Notice of Intent" to begin a two-year study of the Hale's Lake site provides "false and misleading information to the public when it identifies the sites ... as 'new."' In fact, Johnson's letter states, "four of the five 'new' alternative sites identified (for the OLF) are not new at all ... (but) have been studied before."

Johnson's letter notes that an evaluation of the Hale's Lake site was completed in July 2003 as part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for a study entitled "Introduction of F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Aircraft to the East Coast of the United States."

"Of the four sites previously studied in 2003, only the Cabin Point and Mason sites (in Virginia) were retained for further study in the 2003 OLF Siting Study," Johnson writes in his letter. "Both the Sandbanks site (in Gates County) and the Hale's Lake site were recommended for 'no further action'... indicating that neither site even made it beyond simple preliminary screening."

Navy spokesman Ted Brown said it is true that the Navy examined the Camden and Gates sites previously in 2000 and 2001. However, just because the sites were subsequently dropped by the Navy after the original "siting study" does not mean they had glaring faults for an OLF, he said.

He also said the Navy's criteria for the OLF has changed since that time.

"Remember where we were when we conducted the siting study," Brown said. "We were looking at 50,000 aces (for an OLF), as opposed to what we are looking at now, which is 30,000 acres."

Earlier this decade, the Navy believed it needed to have at least some control over 50,000 acres for an OLF, Brown said.

Today, the Navy believes much less government-controlled land is needed for the airfield, he said.

The 30,000-acre zone Navy officials refer to today is a noise contour area that might be irritating to some residents. But the Navy is not looking to buy anywhere near that much property, Brown said.

Uses like farming could still continue on much of the acreage within the noise contours, Navy officials have said.

Only a couple of thousand acres where the runway would be located would actually have to be purchased.

Brown said he did not believe the Navy announced any specific reason for dropping the Camden and Gates county sites from previous consideration for the OLF.

"The Navy made a decision at that time to narrow the (potential OLF) sites down from in excess of 20 to six," he said. "We looked at the ones that best met (the Navy's needs)."