BY R.E. SPEARS III/STAFF WRITER/res.spears@tidewaternews.com

FRANKLIN—Area residents still would have no senator to champion their cause against the Navy, but they would get support for an important flood study if he were elected to replace retiring John Warner, Republican candidate Jim Gilmore promised Tuesday.

Having visited Franklin as Virginia's governor during the 1999 flood, Gilmore said, "I understand the displacement and the tragedy" high waters brought the city and the area around the Blackwater and Nottoway rivers.

"I commit to you" to be an ally of the community in the U.S. Senate, if elected, he said.

Gilmore stopped in Franklin Tuesday morning on an excursion through Southside Virginia that started with an early tour of the Smithfield Foods meatpacking facility and was scheduled to wind up at a meet-and-greet event in Danville.

Gilmore's commitment regarding the Corps of Engineers' Chowan Basin flood study was the good-news portion of his two-part local message.

The bad news, at least for the many local opponents of a proposed outlying landing field, was that they are not likely to find a sympathetic ear in the Senate in November. "We're going to have to solve the Navy's problem," Gilmore said.

"We're in a national security crisis."

Supporting the Navy's plans for an OLF is one thing that Gilmore and his opponent, former governor Mark Warner, a Democrat, agree on.

"I think the OLF is critical to maintaining the mission at Oceana," Warner told The Virginian-Pilot last week.

Virginia's other senator, Jim Webb, made similar comments earlier this year, when local government officials and OLF opponents visited him in Washington, D.C.

"I want certainly to be respectful of the people in the community,"

Gilmore said in an interview at The Tidewater News Tuesday, adding that he hopes to help them "find ways to protect their property values and their quality of life" if one of the three proposed Virginia sites is chosen for the training facility.

In the end, though, he said, "We've got to have a compromise both ways," because there is too much at stake for Virginia and for Navy pilots.

"We can't have them move the carriers to another place," he said. And as a veteran of the U.S. Army, he is resolute in his desire to provide Navy pilots "a dark place" to practice carrier landings.

On the national level, Gilmore said, rising energy costs are the biggest issue of the campaign season, affecting issues ranging from personal income to foreign policy.

The U.S., he said, has lacked "a decisive energy policy" for 30 years and is now paying the cost for its recalcitrant legislators.

"If the U.S. declares once and for all it's going to have an energy policy ... oil prices will come down immediately," he said.

Gilmore's proposed policy would start with an emphasis on conservation, he said. There also would be incentives to develop renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. An increased emphasis on coal, which he called "an element of America's national power,"

also highlights his plan, along with building new refineries and nuclear power plants. Finally, he said, America must allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and offshore.

"Drill(ing) for more oil in the U.S.," he said, "is the most fundamental thing we can do."

---

Comments

---

Carolyn R wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:08 AM:

" Surprise, all sites are not working together but, I won't elaborate on that. I am sure all are aware of that fact by now.

With Mayport planes practicing here that is supports the need for more practice area. It is not like Fentress and Oceana are going to cease practice operations. "

---

allsitesshouldworktogather wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:08 PM:

" Gillmore: he is resolute in his desire to provide Navy pilots "a dark place" to practice carrier landings.

The Navy planned to perform about 24,000 total FCLPs at the new OLF, and planned to perform 116,508 touch and goes and FCLPs at Oceana and Fentress. Of all these, only the ones performed at the new OLF meet the established training syllabus as outlined by the Navy. 600feet on the down wind leg on a race track vice kidney shaped flight path? That is 17% of the training being done properly. Thats a problem.

For night operations the Navy is claiming 70% of these operations are to be done in "a dark place". That means 16,731 flight operations of all the night FCLP training that would be performed is done properly (98,287 night FCLP and touch and go operations). The rest are done incorrectly because Oceana and Fentress are not dark places. That is proof that Oceana and Fentress has an encroachment problem and cannot perform the mission properly.

Based on this logic train, Oceana and Fentress cannot properly perform the darkness missions assigned to those facilities. They are not a dark place. Where is the dark place? at the 2nd OLF. That is a problem. A huge problem. A problem that is not being addressed by anyone. Not Gov. Kaine or Easley, Not Senators Webb, Werner, Dole or Burr. Not by the Navy, not by anyone in congress. Dang sounds like a DR. Suess book only this is peoples livelihood and property. This goes directly to the core of our constitution. Can the king force someone to board his troops here in the states? Can the government just take things frivolously? The Navy has not shown any proof they need this OLF, but they already have 5 finalist sites chosen. That is not a problem to anyone either. Gov Kaine and Easley are not up in arms about this. At least Kaine allowed the Navy to discuss with the proposed sites information. Easley requested that the Navy not tell his sites who was a potential finalist.

Why should any community outside of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake have to be included in fixing this "Navy problem"? You get rid of the encroachment problem, and the Navy has all the capacity they need, and a nice dark space. It seems to me that it is NOT a Navy problem, but two city's problem. You wish to keep the carriers and planes in Virginia, you might want to think about giving these pilots the proper training field at all the facilities they train at or will train at, and not just this new OLF site. No one wishes to lose their community over this.

Oceana and Fentress performed 231,000 total FCLP operations for 2000. Sorry, but those two fields HAVE the capacity no matter how the Navy wishs to state it. This is not a national crisis, but a self inflicted wound of a critical nature that must be handled by the cities responsible for maintaining the military mission.

VA cities caused this problem, and these two VA cities need to fix the problem.

BTW, where would the carriers go? One to Mayport and the other three to where? No deep sea ports for them to go to. They are kinda stuck in Norfolk regardless. Where the carriers go, the small boys that support them (DD, CG etc) go. Do not see them carriers going anywhere except right were they are at. Shuuushhhh, another silly little secret.....Airplanes fly over land and water. They can meet a carrier most anywhere between here and Mayport, thats called navigating, something our pilots are real good at.

When the carrier goes to Mayport, the planes are still going to train right here at Oceana. The planes do not have a site near Mayport to be stationed at. They will stay in VA to train. "

---

allsitesshouldworktogather wrote on Jul 30, 2008 5:31 PM:

" "We're going to have to solve the Navy's problem," Gilmore said. It is a mutual problem between the Navy and the local governments of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. Everything the Navy is claiming is a requirement at this second OLF site, must be done at Oceana and Fentress and they should be doing it now for the National security crisis we are in. Is the Navy doing that? No, this is not a national security crisis. It is a shame that our only east coast master jet base cannot do the mission because our Navy and local governments failed our pilots and this country.

"We're in a national security crisis."

National security crisis? come on, a little bit of a reach? Up until Sept. 18, 2007 and really up to 9 April 2008, the Navy's official stance was that an OLF was not required if most or all of the super hornets were stationed at Oceana. Because of this statement and the NEPA study supporting this statement, the Navy went ahead and stationed all the planes at Oceana. They have the capacity.

Statements like this are geared to soften up the inevitable blow to a community when that site is selected for this want of a facility. Did the Navy demonstrate a need to you at any of scoping meetings they performed?

Supporting the Navy's plans for an OLF is one thing that Gilmore and his opponent, former governor Mark Warner, a Democrat, agree on.

"I think the OLF is critical to maintaining the mission at Oceana," Warner told The Virginian-Pilot last week.

The OLF is critical to the finical well-being of Virginia Beach. He is not concerned with the mission as much as making sure the mission is done at Oceana or in Virginia. "

---

BY R.E. SPEARS III/STAFF WRITER/res.spears@tidewaternews.com

FRANKLIN—Southampton, Sussex and Surry counties got a new ally this week in their fight against a proposed Navy outlying landing field.

Acting on a motion by Carrsville District Supervisor Phillip Bradshaw, Isle of Wight County supervisors committed $20,000 to the effort during their meeting Tuesday.

But the new money comes with strings attached.

Isle of Wight supervisors stipulated that Southampton County must join the CASA program in Virginia's 5th Judicial District before they will actually provide the OLF money. Southampton supervisors had declined during their springtime budget deliberations to spend the 5th Judicial District before they will actually provide the OLF money. Southampton supervisors had declined during their springtime budget deliberations to spend the $18,000 to fund the program.

The Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children program is intended to provide courtroom advocates for children who are victims of abuse or neglect. Funding for the program in Southampton was a victim of tight fiscal restraints this year, which resulted in supervisors declining to fund any new programs.

Isle of Wight's contribution, if accepted, would fund Southampton County's participation in CASA at a cost of $18,000 and leave $2,000 to help with the OLF opposition.

Southampton County Administrator Michael Johnson said he had told Isle of Wight County Administrator Douglas Caskey on Wednesday that his Board of Supervisors would consider the proposal during its July meeting.

If the board accepts the deal, Virginia counties will have committed a total of $340,000 to the effort to stop the Navy from building a new airfield in Virginia for pilots to practice aircraft carrier landings.

Southampton and Sussex share two of the sites the Navy is considering for such a facility. Surry has another. Two others are located in northeastern North Carolina.

The three potential Virginia hosts have committed $100,000 each to the fight, while Greensville County has promised $20,000 from this year's budget.

Most of the money, about $200,000, is being set aside to cover legal fees expected from the Washington, D.C., firm Kutak Rock LLC, which the counties have hired to represent them against the Navy.

Johnson said another $100,000 is expected to be used for putting a noise expert on retainer and hiring a public relations and media specialist.

Attorney Barry P. Steinberg has been given the task of interviewing for those two positions and returning to the counties with recommendations later this year.

---

Navy seeks closer look at proposed OLF sites

BY R.E. SPEARS III/STAFF WRITER/res.spears@tidewaternews.com

FRANKLIN—The Navy began the process Tuesday of identifying exactly what property lies within the 2,000-acre "core area" that it would own and fence off at one of five sites it is considering for a proposed outlying landing field.

Owners of property within the potential exclusion zones could be asked to sell the Navy and its contractors temporary access to their property. Being able to visit the properties would give the service a chance to study features that need to be considered within the federally mandated environmental impact study.

A Navy spokesman said Tuesday that representatives will visit county tax offices and deed offices in Southampton, Sussex and Surry counties in Virginia and in North Carolina's Gates and Camden counties to establish a list of property owners for all five of the short-listed host locations.

The identification process should take about three days of research, but it likely will be spread over several weeks, according to Ted Brown, a spokesman for the Navy's Fleet Forces Command.

Some of those property owners can expect phone calls from Navy representatives looking to negotiate terms of a temporary easement that would allow investigators to explore their land to catalogue and study the potential environmental impacts of the controversial airfield.

Brown said the Navy's recent scoping meetings, along with state agencies and other sources, would provide the consultants completing the environmental impact statement with the information they need to choose which properties to visit.

"The Navy obviously will not go on private property without permission," he added, noting that the first call property owners would receive from the Navy would be a request to negotiate the terms of temporary easements.

He stressed that the Navy is not yet near the point of negotiating the outright purchase of property.

"We're certainly not negotiating with anybody to purchase property," he said. "We don't have a preferred site or even a record of decision yet."

"There's nothing new," said Tony Clark on learning of the Navy's plans. "The Navy wants to get more land, and we still don't want to give it to them."

Clark leads the Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field, a citizens' group that has organized to fight the Navy's plans.

He said Tuesday he is wary of advising his group's members yet regarding whether to cooperate with the Navy's expected access requests.

"Let's find out first a little bit more about what the Navy wants access for," he said.

If a landowner refuses to make a deal to sell the Navy a temporary easement, Brown said, the service could initiate condemnation proceedings directed at forcing the temporary access.

"Obviously our preference would be voluntary," he said. "But in the past the Navy has pursued condemnation proceedings" to obtain "a very temporary easement for a limited purpose."

Brown stressed that landowners will benefit from the most exhaustive study possible of the airfield's potential environmental impacts on their property. Giving investigators access to the areas in question will help ensure a quality report, he said.

He said there was no current indication of a need to expand the region sought for visits beyond the 2,000-acre core areas and into the 25,000- to 30,000-acre buffer zones that would surround the training fields.

"It should be fairly intuitive that, if you're going to have an environmental impact, it would be most significant in the core area," he said.

---

We should have all learned by now that when we think we've heard all there is to hear about the Navy's study to find a location for a new outlying landing field, there's something else to be said.

U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-4th) visited on Monday, meeting the members of the board of directors of the Franklin-Southampton Area Chamber of Commerce and their counterparts from the Isle of Wight-Smithfield-Windsor Chamber. Also on hand were local government leaders to ask questions of the congressman.

In these parts, those questions start with placement of the OLF.

But Forbes tossed a curve ball: He said the Navy might not be able to afford building a new field and the auxiliary components that go along with it.

"There's a real question over whether the Navy will have the money to build an OLF," Forbes said.

That's a new one on us. Opponents are gambling that saving the environment surrounding the site could stop the mighty Navy. Or perhaps old-fashioned lobbying could prevent the Navy from moving its loud jets here.

Few, we suspect, ever thought the Navy might not be able to foot the bill.

---

In the battle against the Navy’s attempt to build an outlying landing field in their respective communities, opponents have brandished many weapons.

From that first massing of troops nearly a year ago at Southampton High School to the current state of readiness, opponents have gathered whatever tools they could get their hands on to thwart the Navy’s plan to place a practice landing field to train fighter pilots in the dangerous art of landing jets on aircraft carriers.

At first the method of choice included signs and banners and fliers.

Then letters were written — letters to the editors of local newspapers, to state legislators, to lawmakers in Washington.

Once the Navy narrowed its choices for an airstrip to five localities — Southampton, Sussex and Surry counties in Virginia, and Camden and Gates counties in North Carolina — the choice of weapons has become more specific to the fight at hand.

A high-powered lawyer well-versed in such war tactics was retained to show local elected officials in Virginia how to battle the mighty Navy.

Over the border in North Carolina, the weapon of choice is an American standard: advertising.

The Raleigh, N.C.-based public relations firm of French/West/Vaughan has been hired to represent Camden and Currituck counties.

Camden County commissioners have set aside up to $300,000 in next year’s budget to pay for public relations, attorney’s fees and an independent environmental study, according to County Manager Randall Woodruff. Currituck County has pledged to pay half of the total cost for those services.

The public relations company hired by Camden and Currituck circulated a press release this week noting the growing body of official opposition to a North Carolina location for the airfield.

“This airfield could destroy valuable North Carolina farmland, so we feel the Navy needs to seriously consider its sites in Virginia,” Larry Johnson, head of the NO OLF Camden group, said in the press release that is sure to be a source of fighting words.

Still, one big unknown through all of this is how closely the Navy brass was listening to the locals, those who have loudly protested against placing a site in their neighborhoods.

Tony Clark, who leads the group Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field, said: “How do you deliver the truth in a way that attracts the attention of people who are otherwise not paying attention?”

So once again this battle — at least in the short term — pits Virginia against North Carolina, and forces on each side of the fight believes they can win by being the louder, the more persuasive, the more persistent of the two.

---

Comments

---

Helen Harrell wrote on Jun 15, 2008 5:49 PM:
" We, in Sussex are in this fight also. Both Southampton sites include Sussex in them. Please always include Sussex when you talk about Southampton sites. It seems everyone ignores Sussex. The Mason and Dory sites in Sussex have been trying to work with Southampton. "

---

Helen Harrell wrote on Jun 15, 2008 3:46 PM:
" allsites, I agree with you 100%!

We all need to work together on this. It is very hurtful when we hear NC say keep it in Virginia. I have never heard anyone in the sites in Virginia say "send it to NC". We say that the Navy should make Virginia Beach do what it was told, "condemn the encroachment around Oceana", or move the base elsewhere where there is a base that can handle it. It is Virginia Beach area that reaps the benefits of the base, not the rural areas. The rural areas here are the same as NC. We have Century farms and properties that have been in same families 100 to 200 years.

Let's work together, please! "

---

allsitesshouldworktogather wrote on Jun 15, 2008 11:02 AM:
" Mr. Clark asks how to show the truth to people who do are not listening?

Show them the Navy's own documentation and actions.

For land acquisition strategies show http://www.olfeis.com/documents/posters/Aircraft%20Noise%20and%20Safety-Key%20Issues.pdf point out in Zone 3, the Navy states that they would "purchase homes and relocate residents". This zone 3 is anywhere from 7500 to 8300 depending on the noise contour based on utilization. It also encompasses the APZ1 and 2. Because you guys are part of Hampton Roads, I would reference the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study the Navy helped develope and point out that the Navy needs to start condemning the 52,000 people right now in the highest noise zones as that is what is required around this 2nd OLF. Table 2.5 of http://www.vbgov.com/file_source/dept/planning/Document/JLUS_Ch2.pdf

In Zone 1 and 2, the "Navy would consider purchase if in the best interest of the Navy and property owner" and "incompatible development would be prohibited through restrictive use easements". This could result in up to 30,000 acres which the Navy has repeatedly stated they want to control.

Around Oceana, fentress and NS Norfolk, how many acres of land do they own? How many acres have they condemned for the best interest of the Navy and property owner since 1980? How much land do they have restrictive use easements over, and does this easements carry the "no development" clause? How many acres of land has the Navy imposed or forced restrictive use easements on people around Oceana and Fentress that was not the result of a settlement of a lawsuit or other community started action?

I hope this paper reviews the Navy's proposed intentions for Franklin, Southampton and Isle of Wight and raises the flag every time the Navy deviates from this intention around Oceana and Fentress. Your the voice of the community. Every time you raise those inconsistencies, not only will you help your community, you help the overall fight and just maybe get others to listen like Mr. Clark is desiring. Look into this Laskin gateway project being proposed and see if the Navy is condemning any of those properties or imposing restrictive use easements on those properties? I am fairly sure the project falls into the 70dB DNL contour zone, or Zone 2.

This paper in the past has reported fairly on this issue. Please continue to work with your communities as well as the entire area (both states) in requiring the Navy to perform all of their decisions fairly and properly. Do not allow the Navy to generate two different standards. One for Oceana and one for the 2nd OLF site. Why does the 2nd OLF site even have a zone 1 when everything is compatible? The Navy is overstepping their authority, and has been doing so for this entire process (2001 or whenever the original DEIS published)?

The last decision for the planes of Oceana are they should be relocated somewhere else due to encroachment (2005 BRAC process). This decision has not been superseded by any other.

The Navy is stating they need this OLF because that is what our pilots need. Our pilots need all the fields that practice at to be on par with what the Navy is proposing for this 2nd OLF. Because the Navy insists Oceana, NS Norfolk and Fentress will continue to perform this training, all these fields must have the same standard that incorporates the safety and proper training requirements enumerated by the Navy for this 2nd OLF? Do they? Can they ever? Before the Navy condemns one acre at any of these sites, they must show they are committed to making Oceana, Fentress and NS Norfolk first-rate training facilities for our pilots. Do around those facilities what they intend to do at the 2nd OLF site. If the Navy cannot or will not, than stay away from the 2nd OLF site. Utilize the full power of the AICUZ instructions at those facilities first and make, not plan to make, but make those facilities first rate. Fair is fair. The Navy has had since the 1950s to get it right. The Navy does not need to rush into this decision without doing it right. We can wait 50 years for the Navy to get Oceana proper. "

---

allsitesshouldworktogather wrote on Jun 14, 2008 6:36 PM:
" All five sites can work with each other and provide mutual assistance to each other.

From an editorial point of view, why is this paper trying to drive a wedge between two communities? Are you accepting that the Navy does require this OLF even if there was no encroachment, or as Adm Anderson stated 18 Sept 2007 in Raleigh, If there was not a house within 100 miles of Oceana, I would need this OLF, encroachment is not my problem, capacity is. The Navy is grossly misrepresenting their capacities for east coast capacity. The Navy has never provided any quantitative data to substantiate this statement. How about investigating that? How about investigating why does the Navy have two land acquisition strategies, one at the 2nd OLF were if in the best interest of the Navy and the property owner, the Navy will condemn properties and has stated they will condemn between 7500 and 8200 acres of land, but for Oceana, they only have 5300 acres for that base and 2300 for Fentress. Around Oceana, it is up to the local government to condemn properties. The Navy will not for the best interest of the Navy condemn any properties.

Instead of this paper asking the Navy for their capacity for their bases, you decide to divide and lose this fight.

The Navy is stating they need this 2nd OLF for operational flexibility. Ask them why do they need a 2nd OLF for east coast operational flexibility when they kept MCAS Beaufort open to provide that operational flexibility especially with the viability of Oceana in question. That was a 2005 BRAC decision.

Please work with all 5 sites to build a coalition to keep all of our communities free from a Navy want.

Get from the Navy their operational requirements. Have them show us this 63% overcapacity in the summer time, esp right now with Fentress closed for maintenance and everything is being done at Oceana. "

---

BY R.E. SPEARS III/STAFF WRITER/res.spears@tidewaternews.com

FRANKLIN—As Navy contractors sift through thousands of public comments and questions submitted during a public input period for the service's proposed outlying landing field, the fight has moved into the court of public opinion.

A Navy contractor working on the federally mandated environmental impact study of five potential Virginia and North Carolina OLF sites has more than 2,900 submissions to sort, collate, count and then answer, according to Ted Brown, a Navy spokesman.

Navy and company officials also are beginning their environmental assessments of the three Virginia and two North Carolina sites, with a goal of releasing a draft environmental impact study early next summer.

But with the conclusion last week of the public comment period that will help define the bounds of that study, the real action in the OLF battle now revolves around winning the hearts and minds of the uncommitted.

Through personal contacts and even professional image-makers, OLF opponents are stepping up their campaign against the Navy's plan for a new airfield that would be used to train pilots in the dangerous art of landing jets on aircraft carriers.

"How do you deliver the truth in a way that attracts the attention of people who are otherwise not paying attention?" mused Tony Clark, who leads the group Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field. Clark and other Virginia OLF opponents have been keeping a keen eye on their neighbors to the south relative to the fight against the airfield. In Clark's opinion, a strongly united North Carolina populace has taken some important steps to try to block the OLF from proposed sites in Camden and Gates counties.

Among those steps was the hiring of a public relations firm, Raleigh, N.C.-based French/West/Vaughan, to represent Camden and Currituck counties.

Camden County commissioners have set aside up to $300,000 in next year's budget to pay for public relations, attorney's fees and an independent environmental study, according to County Manager Randall Woodruff. Currituck County has pledged to pay half of the total cost for those services.

"We felt it was imperative to use that type of resource to get our word out," Woodruff said of the county's decision to hire a public relations firm. Camden commissioners have come out strongly against the OLF being located in their county, as have those from every other community listed as a potential host. Woodruff said his board wants to make sure the Navy understands it is not "just posturing to get more incentives," and they want to do what they can to increase the "political leverage" the 10,000 residents there can exert on the selection process.

To that end, the public relations company hired by Camden and Currituck sent a press release this week noting the growing body of official opposition to a North Carolina location for the airfield.

The Elizabeth City Council, the Pasquotank County Board of Commissioners, the Albemarle Economic Development Commission and the Albemarle Rural Planning Organization all have joined the fight against the OLF by passing opposition resolutions and, in the case of Pasquotank, even pledging financial support for the effort.

Perhaps more important to residents of the Virginia counties that are under consideration for the facility, some opponents in North Carolina have begun to point back across the state line at the Virginia sites.

"This airfield could destroy valuable North Carolina farmland, so we feel the Navy needs to seriously consider its sites in Virginia," Larry Johnson, head of the NO OLF Camden group, said in a press release from French/West/Vaughan.

Leaders from those communities—Southampton, Sussex and Surry counties—have engaged in their own public relations efforts within the last week.

Administrators from all three counties appeared on television Sunday making their case that the OLF is not the answer to problems at Oceana Naval Air Station that were identified in a 2005 report by the federal Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

"We don't disagree with the fact that military readiness is important," Southampton County Administrator Michael Johnson said on WVEC's "On the Record" Sunday news program with Joel Rubin. "Simply locating a military landing field is not the best solution to military readiness."

"We need to focus on the big picture, not just looking at the OLF," agreed Surry County Administrator Tyrone Franklin. "People have actually moved into our county from Virginia Beach and Chesapeake to get away from the same impacts that they are now being asked to accept into this community."

Under the format of Rubin's program, the administrators and the Navy got equal time to present their positions. Speaking for the Navy were Rear Adm. Richard O'Hanlon and Mark Anthony, a retired Navy captain and current civilian director of Fleet Ashore Readiness.

O'Hanlon said it's wrong to characterize OLF opponents as unpatriotic. "They're very proud Americans ... [who] jealously guard their quality of life."

Though he did not directly answer a question about Oceana's fate absent construction of a new OLF, O'Hanlon said, "Oceana is a vital Naval Air Station that we've used for years, and the F-18 aircraft that are stationed there will be around for many, many years to come."

"If we get this outlying field, and we have the ability to train our pilots," he said, "Oceana will be a primary Naval Air Station for many years to come."

---

BY R.E. SPEARS III/STAFF WRITER/res.spears@tidewaternews.com

FRANKLIN—With just a couple of days left to submit comments and questions for consideration in a required environmental study, opponents of the Navy's proposed outlying landing field are busier than ever.

Strategy and organizational meetings have been held or are planned during the next week, administrative officials will appear on television and fund-raisers are being arranged.

Meanwhile, both the Navy and its local opponents in the OLF fight are urging interested citizens to remember the midnight Friday deadline for comments and questions.

Any questions about the controversial proposal to dedicate 30,000 acres to a so-called "field carrier landing practice" airfield must be received by that deadline or the Navy is not compelled to respond in its environmental impact statement.

Southampton and Sussex counties share two of the three proposed Virginia OLF sites. Surry and Prince George counties share another. Two other potential locations are in North Carolina.

The federally-required study of the five sites is expected to cover issues as diverse as noise impacts on farm animals and the global-warming impact of cutting down the 2,000 acres or so of trees that would be required for the actual airstrip.

Citizens have submitted questions about the potential impact on counties' ability to pay their debts with less taxable land on the rolls, about the impact of noise on historic structures and about the methods the Navy plans to use to clear wildlife from the fenced-in portion of the airfield.

"It's safe to say the Navy appreciates the comments we have received from all the people who are interested in the project," Navy spokesman Ted Brown said Tuesday.

Brown noted that more than 2,000 comments were submitted during seven public scoping sessions held in locations throughout Southside Virginia and northeast North Carolina.

He said he was unsure how many comments have come in electronically or by mail or fax since then. Also, it is impossible to say yet what are the leading concerns.

"We have not had the opportunity yet to go through the comments and catalog them," he said.

Leaders of the group Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field hope that people from the potentially affected areas will get busy and submit even more comments during the next couple of days.

"We want them to submit as many concerns as they possibly can think of," Tony Clark, president of the group, said Tuesday.

Clark encouraged people to log on to the Navy's site, olfeis.com, and click on the public involvement link to submit their questions.

But he also asked that those who do so visit www.novaolf.com and send a copy to his group of whatever they provide to the Navy.

"The reason we're putting this list together ... is so we have some sort of formal way to say that everything has been submitted," he said. "We want to make sure that every question that was submitted has been addressed."

Clark and about 15 other invited leaders from Southampton, Sussex and Surry counties met with Washington, D.C., attorney Barry Steinberg on Saturday to discuss strategy and to reorganize the corporate structure of the opposition group.

"We're finally kind of tying Sussex, Surry and Southampton together," he said, explaining that some committees had been restructured to include Sussex and Surry leaders.

Clark said the group is also planning some events in the near future to help raise money to support its cause and will "regroup and refocus (its) efforts" a bit following Friday's deadline.

Supervisors from Southampton, Sussex, Surry and Greensville counties will meet next week with Steinberg, whom they have hired to represent the counties against the Navy.

"We'll be talking about where we go from here," Southampton County Administrator Mike Johnson said. Steinberg has been working with VAOLF to put together a master list of questions that have been submitted by area residents. At last count, officials said, that list had grown to 500 questions.

As the deadline passes, the attorney's role likely will change. Next Tuesday's closed meeting is expected to help determine that future role.

Hampton Roads residents will get a chance on Sunday to hear from both sides of the issue, as WVEC airs Joel Rubin's "On the Record," featuring a 15-minute segment with Navy's Adm. David Anderson and another 15-minute segment that will feature Johnson, Surry County Administrator Tyrone Franklin and Sussex County Administrator Mary Jones representing the opposition.

The program will be taped on Friday, and it will air at 11:30 a.m. Sunday.