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

ISLE OF WIGHT—With a decision by the Isle of Wight Board of Supervisors Thursday night, Southampton County now has the support of all of its neighbors in the fight against a proposed Navy airfield.

After postponing a decision on the matter two different times, supervisors voted unanimously to approve a resolution opposing the construction of an airfield in Southampton that would be used for field carrier landing practice for Navy jets.

With a resolution nearly identical to one passed by the City of Franklin last month, Isle of Wight’s governing body solidified a region of support for Southampton County that extends from the western border of Suffolk through Greensville and Prince George counties, from the North Carolina border to the James River.

Opposition to the Navy’s plans actually extends deep into northeast North Carolina, as residents there are fighting two potential sites that are under consideration at Hale’s Lake and Sandbanks.

Southampton and Sussex counties share two sites under consideration in Virginia. Surry and Prince George counties share another. Surry’s Cabin Point site has even raised the concerns of residents in James City County across the James River, though that county’s board has not yet taken a position on the Navy’s proposal.

---

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

JAMESTOWN—With the 17th-century Jamestown Church Tower as a backdrop, historians Tuesday called the Navy's proposed outlying landing field a threat to historic sites throughout Southampton and Surry counties.

"Three of these potential [OLF] sites ... could have an impact on multiple historic sites and landmarks, including here at Jamestown," Elizabeth S. Kostelny, executive director of the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, said during a press conference at the historic site of the original Jamestown fort.

The group, founded in 1889, is the oldest statewide preservation organization in the nation. Its mission is "to preserve and promote Virginia's irreplaceable historic structures, landscapes, collections, communities and archeological sites."

Kostelny was in Jamestown to announce the APVA's annual list of Virginia's most endangered historic sites. Southampton and Surry, along with their neighbors in Sussex and Prince George counties, were among seven areas identified as threatened this year.

"Despite a great deal of progress in the preservation movement throughout Virginia, the threat to the Commonwealth's historic resources continues to grow," she said. "The sites on this year's list embody the diversity and complexity of Virginia's story and the variety of threats that endanger it."

The Navy has identified three sites in Virginia and two in North Carolina as potential locations for its proposed airfield, which would be used for field carrier landing practice for pilots of fighter jets and other airplanes. "It seems fitting to come here in the shadow of the Jamestown Church Tower, once threatened by neglect and decay," Kostelny told a group of about 20 who attended the event. "This site symbolizes the value of preserving places of Virginia's past."

"You can't sit back and watch your heritage be destroyed," said Surry resident Alice Higgins, who had nominated Surry for the APVA's list this year.

"We're at a point where we have a say, and we can do something. I just think we need to do it."

Surry and Prince George counties share one of the Navy's proposed OLF sites. Southampton and Sussex share two others. Higgins and Felice Hancock, who nominated Southampton County for the list, put together applications noting their counties' many historic features, from old cemeteries and buildings to Century Farms and ancient trees.

In fact, Hancock said she had originally thought of including only Southampton's many small, historic cemeteries on her nomination. But APVA officials encouraged her to "think bigger," she said, and she plunged into research online and through the county's comprehensive plan and other resources.

Hancock, who owns a Century Farm, the Emma Davis Jackson Hancock Farm, with her husband, William, was pleased that the entire county is included in the "endangered" designation.

The OLF, she explained, would have an impact far beyond the 10 percent of county land that it and its buffer zone would occupy.

"The jets don't just drop out of the sky."

The APVA describes potential OLF threats to historical resources, including "degradation of historic structures by excessive vibration, noise pollution and the loss of thousands of acres of rural landscape."

"Since the first settlers landed at Jamestown over 400 years ago and planted crops to sustain themselves through the winters to come, agriculture has been at the heart of Virginia," the group's Endangered Historic Sites brochure states. "The Commonwealth's traditions and values stem from this heritage and from those Founding Fathers of our state and our nation, many of whom were farmers themselves.

Among those on hand for the announcement were Surry County Administrator Tyrone Franklin and Tony Clark, leader of Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field.

Noting that progress in fighting the Navy's plans seems to come "a little bite at a time," Clark said he hoped the APVA announcement would help get the attention of political leaders, especially the governor, in Richmond.

"Today is more than just a step," he said. This will help us hold the state accountable. "It would be impossible for Gov. [Timothy] Kaine to talk about preservation ... and at the same time wipe out an entire community's historic resources."

Kaine got the OLF process off the ground last summer, when he announced that he had submitted 10 Virginia locations to the Navy for consideration as possible airfield sites. North Carolina's governor submitted a similar list.

The Navy honed those lists down to the five current sites in January.

Navy officials are in the process of a two-year survey of those five sites and hope to have an extensive environmental report complete next year. The expected effects of the OLF and its jet traffic on area historic resources must be considered within that report.

---

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

FRANKLIN—During the course of seven recent meetings in Virginia and North Carolina, the Navy has received hundreds of comments and questions from citizens interested in guiding the environmental review for a proposed outlying landing field.

With the close of the last of those meetings Wednesday in Surry County, a 30-day period began in which people who still have questions or concerns may submit them in writing, either online or by mail.

By the end of that period, June 6, opponents of the three proposed Virginia OLF sites expect to identify nearly 500 issues for the Navy to examine in its environmental impact statement, according to Tony Clark, chairman of Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field, a grassroots organization fighting the Navy's plan to put a practice landing facility on a site in Virginia or North Carolina.

Clark's group organized people to attend the public scoping sessions in Southampton, Sussex, Surry and Prince George counties. Attendance at the Southampton session was higher than that of any of the others, according to Navy spokesman Ted Brown.

The Navy hosted 462 people in Southampton, 252 in Prince George, 320 in Sussex, 315 in Surry, 242 in Currituck County, N.C., and 392 in Camden County, N.C.

"I think it was productive," Brown said. "We had a good turnout at all seven sites." The open-house sessions, he added, were "a good opportunity for the Navy to meet with the public one-on-one and answer their questions."

Clark and other opponents, however, continued this week to complain that they weren't getting satisfactory answers to the questions they posed at the informal informational sessions.

"The most common response to any given question was, 'Sir, I don't know,'" he said Wednesday. "This whole thing is a Greek tragedy."

Commenting that Rear Adm. David Anderson had sent "low-level, uninformed" contractors and naval personnel to the sessions, Clark called the public input sessions "a publicity stunt" gone bad.

Anderson, he said, should have avoided sending civilian environmental consultants to talk to area residents, or at the least he should have "armed them with enough information, that they would have had basic answers."

Brown took exception to the suggestion that the Navy's representatives stonewalled the citizens who attended the meetings. Most of those who couldn't get answers to their questions were asking questions for which no one yet knows the answer, he said.

"We frequently had frustrations, because we could not answer specific questions as to how loud (passing jets) will be at a particular site," he said.

Such questions cannot be answered until the Navy develops flight tracks and models the noise contours that will be associated with them, he said.

"We are where we are in the process," Brown said. "Yes, there are some things at this point that we do not know."

With the scoping sessions over and the public comment period set to expire at midnight June 6, the Navy and its consultants will begin in earnest their assessment of the proposed sites, gathering data through a variety of means, including site visits, he said.

Officials also will continue a public relations push designed to help people understand why the Navy believes it needs such a facility and what it sees as the benefits of the sites that have been identified as potential hosts. Brown said officials would continue to be available to speak to elected and appointed officials, as well as community groups, about the OLF, even after the close of the public input period.

For his part, Clark was also critical of area citizens, noting that only 1 percent or so of Southampton, Sussex and Surry residents attended the scoping sessions.

"Along with freedom and our way of life comes the responsibility of citizens to be involved," he said Wednesday.

Bemoaning the "apathy and laziness" of those who say they support the mission of the VAOLF group but chose not to attend the scoping sessions, Clark said, "We haven't even solidified our base yet."

---

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is a collaborative effort by the county administrators of Greensville, Southampton, Surry and Sussex counties. These counties are the subjects of a Navy proposal to place an outlying landing field in the region. It was submitted to The Tidewater News by Southampton County Administrator Michael Johnson.

As the chief administrative officers for the four Virginia counties that would be most directly affected by the proposed location of an outlying landing field, we welcome this opportunity to explain the position taken by the overwhelming majority of our citizens and all of our local elected officials.

Much can be said about Virginia’s history, our rural character, and the beauty and benefits of a bucolic environment. While those attributes certainly explain much of the emotion attached to our position, let’s set aside emotion (for now) and deal with facts.

An OLF is noisy and disruptive, generates almost no economic benefit, reduces the tax base, depresses the value of the surrounding real estate, introduces an element of risk that does not presently exist, disrupts the balance of a sensitive ecosystem, requires clear-cutting of thousands of acres of forest and has adverse implications for aquifer recharge.

While the degree of these consequences may be debated, the fact of their occurrence is beyond dispute. Noise and safety are frequently raised in objection to military aviation activities. Noise disruption is not debatable, as evidenced by litigation brought by citizens of Hampton Roads, complaints filed with the Navy over the last 20 years and the belated effort of the local municipality to constrain development around Oceana.

Fears about Oceana’s future are linked to fears about the loss of carrier battle groups.

The argument is that if the jets leave Oceana, the region will suffer the loss of billions of dollars of economic benefit because the Navy will abandon tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure, a magnificent natural harbor, and the nation’s only nuclear certified public shipyard capable of accommodating nuclear carriers. Frankly, that argument is as fraught with at least as much emotion as our residents express over the loss of our way of life. Naval relocation would require congressional appropriations of tens of billions of dollars to replicate elsewhere (to the extent possible) what already exists. So the issue boils down to what’s important to Hampton Roads residents and what’s important to ours. You have a rich naval history; we have an equally rich history of our own. Ours is supported by a centuries-old attachment to the land and direct lineage to the farmers who settled and first tilled the soil. We both have financial interests at stake, and we both want to keep what we have. It serves no purpose to debate whose argument is best, because it will not resolve what appear to be fundamental differences about what is important.

It has been suggested that we should relish the opportunity to share in the sound of freedom. The implication is that we are being unpatriotic by resisting efforts to provide naval aviators with resources to assure combat effectiveness and to maintain a state of readiness commensurate with the global threats facing the United States. Our history and our commitment prove otherwise. Further, there are serious issues concerning the dedication of more than $100 million to build an OLF that may be obsolete within a few years of its completion. That obsolescence would occur, even if the encroachment at Oceana is addressed with scarce Virginia tax dollars (including ours) to buy up a small portion of encroaching properties each year, if pilots have to continue to alter their normal flight patterns to accommodate tourists and their encroaching activities, if the next generation of aircraft cannot be housed at Oceana or if the next round of base closures shutters the Master Jet Base.

Yet with all of these variables affecting the future of Oceana, what is the Navy evaluating at his time: five potential OLF sites and the no action alternative. In 2003, a Navy study reported that there was no need for an additional OLF to support Oceana, yet five years later, the Navy insists that it needs a new OLF.

The three sites in Virginia are from a list nominated by our governor. In essence, someone else engaged in a process to bargain away our land. We were neither consulted nor asked how we felt about that nomination. And we are told that if our site is ultimately selected, the power of eminent domain may be used to condemn our property. We would receive “just compensation” for what is seized, but “just compensation” is a material concept, devoid of what is truly important to us. So let’s summarize: The Navy wants our land, volunteered by a third party, which once seized, will no longer be subject to local taxation. We will endure the noise and risk that already exists elsewhere in order to host training missions from Oceana, a facility that may not be viable in the long run. And this will ensure that Hampton Roads avoids the loss of economic benefits that would result from a massive Navy relocation, which Congress would have to approve.

If all of this strikes you as unfair, then we are in agreement. And perhaps from that agreement, we can require a strategic analysis of the real issue, not just an expensive band aid on the perceived one.

K. David Whittington, Greensville County
Michael W. Johnson, Southampton County
Tyrone Franklin, Surry County
Mary E. Jones, Sussex County

---

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

COURTLAND—Halfway through a series of seven public information sessions, the U.S. Navy hosted its biggest crowd yet at Southampton High School Thursday.

Navy officials said Friday that 462 people showed up for the Courtland public scoping meeting, the fourth such meeting on the service's two-week traveling schedule.

The turnout has been building with every meeting since the sessions began in Currituck on Monday. Navy spokesman Ted Brown said 242 people showed up for that meeting; 252 were on hand at the following session in Disputanta; and 320 attended a Sussex meeting Wednesday. Navy officials were set to hold their open-house style sessions in Gates County, N.C., on Friday, Camden County, N.C., on Monday and Surry County High School on Wednesday.

The meetings are intended as an opportunity for people to learn directly from the Navy about its plans for a new outlying landing field in Virginia and North Carolina. Federal law also requires the sessions as part of the Navy's environmental impact study.

"The bigger the turnout, the better," Brown said as he surveyed a lunchroom area where dozens of interested citizens milled about, chatting with each other and with the Navy representatives sent to answer questions about the OLF and its expected impacts on the community that ultimately hosts it.

Southampton and Sussex counties share two sites under Navy consideration for the airfield, which would be used for pilots to take part in field carrier landing practice. Surry and Prince George counties share a third Virginia site, and two more are located in North Carolina. The scoping meetings are a major component of the environmental impact statements the Navy is required to prepare. Comments and questions received by the Navy during the meetings are all supposed to be addressed in the written environmental evaluation of sites that it expects to release next April.

During Thursday's meeting, interested citizens were able to submit written questions in one of several comment boxes or by typing them on one of three laptops that were provided for that purpose.

A steady stream of people visited the school between 4 and 9 p.m. to learn more about the project and leave their comments for the Navy's review. They were asked to register at one booth and were then directed inside to the school's Commons area, where they were able to stop at any or all of seven other booths.

The informational booths featured naval aviators and sailors, as well as civilian consultants, who talked with visitors about topics including the Navy's need for a new OLF, the conditions pilots face when landing on aircraft carriers, the noise impacts of pilot training, the potential economic impacts of the facility and its impact on landowners in the 30,000-acre area the Navy says will be most directly impacted. A major complaint of members of Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field, which had its own table set up outside of the school, was that they were unable to get specific information about such things as expected noise levels at specific locations or the likelihood that particular properties within the areas targeted for the OLF would need to be taken over by the Navy.

Brown said it was unfair at this point in the process to expect the Navy to have specific answers to such specific questions. The whole purpose of the environmental review, he said, is to identify any problems the potential sites might have.

Also, he said, the process has generated substantially more interest much earlier than it did when the last group of proposed sites went up for environmental review. Even the full-scale, formal public hearings for those North Carolina sites—which have since been withdrawn from consideration—did not attract as much interest as have the initial scoping meetings for the new crop of sites, he said.

Still, some of those attending Thursday's meeting seemed disappointed in the answers they got to their questions.

At one booth, Daniel Jenkins Jr. pointed out the location of the home he built 10 years ago, which lies within the 30,000-acre noise buffer zone of the proposed Dory site.

When he asked a civilian Navy representative about the noise levels that could be expected there and how that noise would affect him in his home, he was told the studies had not yet been completed and was sent to the next booth for more information.

At that booth, Jenkins appeared a bit flustered as another representative described accident potential zones and the various noise zones that exist around an OLF.

In the past, the Navy has said it would try to move people out of the buffer zone where Jenkins would be located. He did not seem to get that information Thursday night.

"If I'm within that barrier there, I'm not going to be able to sleep at night," he told a reporter.

Noise was also the main concern for Connie Burgess, whose Courtland home is almost in the center of a triangle formed by the proposed Dory, Mason and Sandbanks sites.

"I really don't want to hear jets flying over at all hours of the night," she said. "I relish the peace and quiet."