CommunityEditor
02-17-2009, 08:16 PM
NORFOLK, Va. — Residents of rural communities in southeast Virginia and northeastern North Carolina are building their case against the Navy’s plan to construct a jet landing strip in their backyard.
The proposed $200 million outlying landing field primarily would serve as a practice area for fighter pilots based at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach.
The Navy abandoned plans to build the OLF in Washington County, N.C., after opponents successfully sued the service for breaching the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. It’s now considering three Virginia sites, in Surry, Southampton and Sussex counties, one in Gates County, N.C., and another North Carolina site on the border of Camden and Currituck counties.
Pilots of F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets now prepare for night carrier landings at Oceana and Fentress Auxiliary Landing Field in Chesapeake, both of which have been encircled by suburban development. The Navy contends that it needs another strip to relieve the pressure on Oceana and Fentress.
The Navy is expected to release results of its preliminary environmental studies of the sites this summer, but community residents aren’t waiting until then to make their opposition known.
Tony Clark and Roland Evans, for example, are finishing an 18-minute documentary about life in the three Virginia counties.
One of several stories the film highlights is that of Cyndi Raiford, who owns 65 acres in Southampton and leases part of it to a horse-riding program for children with autism and other disabilities. Raiford says she used to work at a similar program near Oceana, and her lessons would come to a halt when Navy jets passed overhead.
In Gates County, Citizens Against OLF also is gearing up. Group member Anita Earls is helping residents compile census data and other evidence of their long-standing connection to the community, which they say the Navy field would disrupt.
Opponents in Camden County are using a report from a Cary, N.C., environmental consulting firm to bolster their argument not to locate the OLF in the vicinity of Hale’s Lake.
“This report confirms an OLF in Hale’s Lake would pose serious risk to our citizen’s safety and endanger our economic and environmental well-being,” Camden County Manager Randell Woodruff said in a statement. “In addition, the added costs of building in such a remote area make it hard for anyone to see the logic of choosing Hale’s Lake instead of alternate locations.”
The report by Withers & Ravenel also found the Hale’s Lake site may cost the Navy substantially more to build than other sites. Peat soil excavation and replacement costs could add $10 million to $14 million to the construction tab.
A group of 10 students from Duke University School of Law’s environmental law and policy clinic is assessing potential environmental impacts of a landing field in Gates County, Earls said. The students are compiling a “shadow environmental impact statement” to compare with the document the Navy plans to publish this summer.
Navy brass and Virginia officials who want to protect Oceana’s status as the East Coast’s master jet base are frustrated by the early and intense opposition.
Rear Adm. David Anderson, vice commander of the Navy’s Fleet Forces Command, heads the Navy’s effort to have a landing field operational by 2013. He has said the Navy would work with local residents and governments.
But landowners and residents not only question the Navy’s need for the landing field, but some doubt the future of Oceana itself.
If the base is in jeopardy, or if its limitations mean it won’t be able to host the next-generation fighter jet, they argue, the Navy shouldn’t spend up to $200 million on a landing field that could soon become obsolete.
The debate isn’t about encroachment, Anderson says. Even if Oceana and Fentress were surrounded by a desert, the service would need an outlying landing field.
The Navy “is out of capacity to train pilots” on the East Coast, he said.
Article: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/02/ap_navy_landing_field_021709/
The proposed $200 million outlying landing field primarily would serve as a practice area for fighter pilots based at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach.
The Navy abandoned plans to build the OLF in Washington County, N.C., after opponents successfully sued the service for breaching the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. It’s now considering three Virginia sites, in Surry, Southampton and Sussex counties, one in Gates County, N.C., and another North Carolina site on the border of Camden and Currituck counties.
Pilots of F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets now prepare for night carrier landings at Oceana and Fentress Auxiliary Landing Field in Chesapeake, both of which have been encircled by suburban development. The Navy contends that it needs another strip to relieve the pressure on Oceana and Fentress.
The Navy is expected to release results of its preliminary environmental studies of the sites this summer, but community residents aren’t waiting until then to make their opposition known.
Tony Clark and Roland Evans, for example, are finishing an 18-minute documentary about life in the three Virginia counties.
One of several stories the film highlights is that of Cyndi Raiford, who owns 65 acres in Southampton and leases part of it to a horse-riding program for children with autism and other disabilities. Raiford says she used to work at a similar program near Oceana, and her lessons would come to a halt when Navy jets passed overhead.
In Gates County, Citizens Against OLF also is gearing up. Group member Anita Earls is helping residents compile census data and other evidence of their long-standing connection to the community, which they say the Navy field would disrupt.
Opponents in Camden County are using a report from a Cary, N.C., environmental consulting firm to bolster their argument not to locate the OLF in the vicinity of Hale’s Lake.
“This report confirms an OLF in Hale’s Lake would pose serious risk to our citizen’s safety and endanger our economic and environmental well-being,” Camden County Manager Randell Woodruff said in a statement. “In addition, the added costs of building in such a remote area make it hard for anyone to see the logic of choosing Hale’s Lake instead of alternate locations.”
The report by Withers & Ravenel also found the Hale’s Lake site may cost the Navy substantially more to build than other sites. Peat soil excavation and replacement costs could add $10 million to $14 million to the construction tab.
A group of 10 students from Duke University School of Law’s environmental law and policy clinic is assessing potential environmental impacts of a landing field in Gates County, Earls said. The students are compiling a “shadow environmental impact statement” to compare with the document the Navy plans to publish this summer.
Navy brass and Virginia officials who want to protect Oceana’s status as the East Coast’s master jet base are frustrated by the early and intense opposition.
Rear Adm. David Anderson, vice commander of the Navy’s Fleet Forces Command, heads the Navy’s effort to have a landing field operational by 2013. He has said the Navy would work with local residents and governments.
But landowners and residents not only question the Navy’s need for the landing field, but some doubt the future of Oceana itself.
If the base is in jeopardy, or if its limitations mean it won’t be able to host the next-generation fighter jet, they argue, the Navy shouldn’t spend up to $200 million on a landing field that could soon become obsolete.
The debate isn’t about encroachment, Anderson says. Even if Oceana and Fentress were surrounded by a desert, the service would need an outlying landing field.
The Navy “is out of capacity to train pilots” on the East Coast, he said.
Article: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/02/ap_navy_landing_field_021709/