Residents grill Navy on landing field plan in Prince George - 04/30/2008
BY ELLIOTT ROBINSON
STAFF WRITERThat means that, if the Navy chooses to build its outlying landing field near Laurel Springs Road in Sussex, they most likely will have to move.
“I’m in ground zero,” Mike Edwards said of their home of four years. “My residence will be in the core area.”
The Edwards were among residences of three counties with questions and concerns about the landing field at an open house at J.E.J. Moore Middle School yesterday afternoon.
Ted Brown, media relations officer for the U.S. Fleet Forces Command, said the open house is to show the process the Navy will take to draft its Environmental Impact Statement for each of the five proposed sites. It also gets comments from people in the area.
The five sites are in Prince George, Surry and Sussex counties; in Gates and Hertford counties in North Carolina; in Camden and Currituck counties in North Carolina; and along the Sussex and Southampton county line.
“We have no preferred alternative at this point,” Brown said.
The landing field is needed due to encroachment, the volume of flights and the inability to properly simulate carrier landings at Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field in the city of Chesapeake.
The additional landing field is expected to be situated within a 30,000-acre buffer zone. The Navy does not intend on outright buying the entire 30,000 acres, Brown said, but will buy property or easements to limit residential encroachment in areas with high noise levels.
“Our goal is to buy as small an amount of property as we can,” he said. “If it’s farmland, we want it to remain farmland.”
The field will have “touch and go” landings that will simulate landing on an aircraft carrier. Pilots will be able to train at this site before attempting the challenging landings on a carrier.
“The majority of operations will be in the hours of darkness,” Brown said. As Fentress will still be used, he said, the nighttime hours will be limited.
Aircraft that will be using this field include the E-2C Hawkeye, the F/A-18 EF Super Hornet, the C-2A Greyhound and the F/A 18-C Hornet.
Along with the core area, which is roughly where the runway will be, homes will be purchased within an area that will receive over an average sound level of 75 decibels, said Fred Pierson, a community planner with the Navy. That noise level is about the same as a vacuum cleaner or garbage disposal. People will also be recommended not to live in areas with an average noise level between 65 and 75 decibels, Pierson said.
William Cox has property that is barely within the conjectured noise zone. As the process moves along, Pierson said, actual noise contour lines will be created for each site.
Until then, Cox, who has been on his land for 22 years, is in a precarious situation.
“Half of my property is in it,” he said.
If he needs to, he is unsure if he’ll be able to do anything with the property.
“I don’t know if I can sell it,” he said.
He was also discouraged at how he learned about the proposed field. He and Edwards were disappointed that they did not learn of the proposed site from the Navy or from the governor’s office, which offered the site as an alternative.
“I heard about this second-hand,” he said. “It was several weeks before I saw anything on it.”
Helen Eggleston, a Surry resident, is concerned about noise as well. She and several other area residents met in Surry later that evening to formally organize a group in opposition of the Outlying Landing Field.
“Thank God for the Navy but I don’t want an OLF in Surry County,” Eggleston said. Her property is between Oceana Naval Air Station and the proposed landing field. “I can anticipate planes flying over the farm and peace and quiet being a thing of memory,” she said.
Jerry J. Skalsky, vice chairman of the Prince George Board of Supervisors, was in attendance at the open house. Earlier in the month, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution opposing the landing field.
Despite the official opposition, he came out to see what the Navy had to say.
“I think it’s a mistake to take things at face value,” he said as he viewed the Navy’s displays. “People need to expose themselves to the information and become informed citizens.”
Donald Livesay came to the open house to do just that. He owns property that could fall under the noise zone.
“I’m still trying to evaluate what’s going on,” he said. “Right now I don’t have a home on the property, but if I want to, what will I have to put up with?”
Brown said the draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be completed by the summer of 2009. Afterward, there will be open houses and public hearings in localities near the five sites. The final Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be complete in the spring of 2010 and a site could be chosen by the summer of 2010.
Construction of the landing field could take about two years after the decision, and an additional six months would be taken to properly outfit the site.
Public comments to the Navy must be postmarked or received electronically by June 7.
Mailed comments may be sent to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, Attn: Code EV OLF EIS Project Manager, 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, VA 23508. The comments form may be found at www.olfeis.com.
The price tag of the OLF project is estimated to be about $230 million.
• Elliott Robinson may be reached at 722-5160 or at erobinson@progress-index.com.
©The Progress-Index 2008
When choosing landing field, Navy should consider impact on particular county and its residents 02/13/2008
Recently, the Navy announced the final five sites for an outlying landing field. Off the list was Fort Pickett. But two sites in North Carolina and three sites in Virginia — in Southampton, Surry and Sussex counties — are still under consideration.The air field would be used by the Navy for practice aircraft carrier landings for F/A-18 Super Hornet pilots to practice night landings on aircraft carriers.
The field would not be a permanent air base, but would rather be the site of constant touch-and-go landings for the fighter jets.
The need for a landing field stems from encroaching development around Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach.
The Navy says a final decision on the $230 million project could be at least 2 ½ years away.
No locality wants the outlying landing field. All five counties that have made the final cut had previously registered opposition to the landing field.
And folks from the counties that didn’t make the cut are happy. “I’m very happy about it, that it isn’t coming here, but it’s not something I want to celebrate,” Blackstone Mayor William Coleburn said.
Sussex County officials say the economic benefit of the landing field is not worth the economic price.
The Navy will buy about 2,000 acres of land, but will control another 20,000 to 30,000 acres through development restrictions, according to Sussex County Administrator Mary E. Jones.
And the noise of the jets would realistically limit development on that land anyway, Jones said. Finally, the project would create only about 25 jobs.
“That’s not a great deal of employment that’s being offered,” Jones said. He also said that the county also considered the possibility of an accident when taking its stance on the possible location of an OLF in the county.
“There’s the possibility of a crash or one of these jets could need to dump its fuel,” Jones said.
Sussex officials are considering meetings with members of the Virginia congressional delegation. The Sussex Board of Supervisors is meeting to discuss their next steps regarding the OLF.
Next up are public meetings on the sites this spring, in advance of detailed environmental-impact statements the federal government requires.
The outlying landing field is a classic case of Not In My Back Yard. Most agree that the outlying landing field is needed by the Navy.
The question is where to put the landing field. No matter where it goes, some people will be very unhappy.
The Navy, in deciding on a site, should not look just at military criteria. It should also look at what site will cause the least impact on a particular county and its residents.
Counties oppose landing field - 02/10/2008
BY F.M. WIGGINS STAFF WRITER
SUSSEX — Right now Sussex County is a pretty quiet place according to County Administrator Mary E. Jones. But that could all change.Sussex County is one of three places in Virginia still under consideration as the site of an Outlying Landing Field. Last month, the Navy announced that it had whittled the list of 22 potential sites to just five.
Fort Pickett was one of the sites that was removed. Fort Pickett located near the town of Blackstone is already used as an infantry training site. It also was the site furthest from Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach.
“I’m very happy about it, that it isn’t coming here, but it’s not something I want to celebrate,” Blackstone Mayor William Coleburn said.
Coleburn said he thought those two reasons were probably what went into removing Fort Pickett from consideration.
But three other sites in Virginia and two in North Carolina are still under consideration.
One of those sites is Sussex County.
“We first learned that we were under consideration for this in July or August of last year,” Jones said. “As soon as we found out, the Board of Supervisors went on record in opposition to Sussex as a site for the OLF. Nothing has changed since the summer, we’re still in opposition to this.”
The two other Virginia sites are in Southampton and Surry counties. Jones said those localities also went on record in opposition to proposed sites in their localities. There are also two sites still under consideration in North Carolina.
The two North Carolina sites are in Gates County and in Camden and Currituck counties.
Jones said the Sussex Board of Supervisors created and approved another resolution Jan. 31 in opposition to the proposed OLF.
“We’ve looked at the economic benefit of having the field here, and the Navy will only buy about 2,000 acres of land,” Jones said. She added that the Navy will want control of another 20,000 to 30,000 acres. That land will have restrictions on development, she said.
Realistically though, Jones said the noise of the jets would prevent any further development, residential or even commercial.
The field will also only create about 25 jobs.
“That’s not a great deal of employment that’s being offered,” Jones said.
Jones said the county also considered the possibility of an accident when taking its stance on the possible location of an OLF in the county.
“There’s the possibility of a crash or one of these jets could need to dump its fuel,” Jones said.
Jones said the Board of Supervisors is considering arranging a meeting with U.S. Sen. James Webb and Rep. J. Randy Forbes, R-4th.
“We’re very supportive that there are other alternatives that can and should be looked into,” Jones said. “This is a very peaceful area, and this would disrupt it and bring quite a change.”
Sharon B. Mattox, a resident of Jarratt, said she isn’t opposed to the OLF in general, but she is opposed to the location in Sussex County.
“My dad is a [World War II] veteran, but now at the age of 87 is having to fight a war just to save his home of the last 56 years,” Mattox said in a letter to the editor. “What is fair about that? Whatever happened to the American dream?”
Mattox said she believes the proposed Fort Pickett location is probably the best option.
“Just because it was removed from the list doesn’t mean that it can’t be put back,” Mattox said. “People think this is an unpopulated area, but there are real people here. It is a populated area.”
Mattox said she doesn’t want to see any homeowners forced from their land for the construction of the OLF.
“People like to play the patriotism card, and we support the OLF, just not here. I think the Navy already bought land in North Carolina,” Mattox said. “Why can’t it go there?”
Jones said she is also talking with representatives from surrounding localities.
“This wouldn’t just affect Sussex, it would affect the region as a whole,” Jones said.
Next up are public meetings on the sites this spring, in advance of detailed environmental-impact statements the federal government requires.
A final decision on the $230 million project could be at least 2½ years away, the Navy said.
• F.M. Wiggins may be reached at 732-3456, ext. 254 or fwiggins@progress-index.com.
Your Opinion; No Navy landing field on her Southside property - 02/03/2008
To the Editor:I realize I am blessed and very fortunate to say that I live on land where I was born and where I have lived all of my 50 plus years. Not many people can say that nor do some care. It means a lot to me personally, however.
Just for a moment, imagine what it is like to raise your children on land that was homesteaded by your great-great grandfather well over 100 years ago. While you are thinking about that, imagine what it is like to live on land that you watched your father and your grandfather till and toil over for years. Imagine living on land that you and your husband actually hand cleared of trees, stumps, roots and debris so that you could build your home and start your life together. It is not just the peace and tranquility and freedom of living in a rural area that I covet, I love these particular hundreds of acres of land because of my heritage and my ancestry.
If you can possibly imagine how I feel, I hope you can understand why the possible location of the Outlying Landing Field (OLF) on the Mason tract in Sussex and Southampton counties is traumatizing real people.
If you are still trying to imagine how I feel, picture my parents and the needless stress and strain this is putting them through. My dad is a World War II war veteran, but now at the age of 87 is having to fight a war just to save his home of the last 56 years.
What is fair about that? Whatever happened to the American dream? My mother has lived on this land for virtually all of her 82 years. How do we explain to her that she may have to move and/or have what should be her golden years turned into turmoil and despair? Would you like to see your parents suffer like this? I humbly ask for your support in opposing the location of the OLF in Southside Virginia.
Sharon B. Mattox
Jarratt