Bill would assist landing-field fight

Lawmakers are considering legislation that could give residents of southeast Virginia a significant boost in their fight against the proposed construction of a Navy outlying landing field.

A bill sponsored by Del. William K. Barlow, D-Isle of Wight, would give localities more land-use control by repealing existing provisions that require local governments to adopt Navy zoning ordinances.

The bill will be considered Thursday.

The proposal would thwart efforts to place such a training facility in the area.

A bill by Sen. Frederick M. Quayle, R-Chesapeake, would have required the General Assembly's approval before the U.S. could acquire property for a landing field in localities that have no current military base at which aircraft squadrons are stationed. The bill was killed in committee last week.

The Navy is looking at three sites in southeast Virginia and two in North Carolina for a field that would support training for pilots from Oceana Naval Air Station and Norfolk Naval Station. The Virginia sites under consideration include land in Southampton, Sussex and Surry counties, with this last one encroaching on Prince George County.

With the Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field in Chesapeake at capacity, a new field is needed to train aircraft carrier-based pilots. Complaints of noise have grown at Fentress, while training has been affected by lights from residential subdivisions surrounding the field.

The Navy, which has been looking since 2000 for a site suitable as a practice field, is expected to narrow its alternatives this year.

An environmental assessment of the sites is expected to be released this spring. The report was delayed a few months so it would incorporate an analysis of the next generation of aircraft that likely could be based at Oceana.

Once the environmental report is released, the public will have at least 45 days to provide written and oral comment in response. The Navy will then review the comments and proceed to pick a site. Then it would request an appropriation from Congress.

In choosing a site, the Navy will consider the distance between the site and Oceana Naval Air Station and Norfolk Naval Station and take into consideration the effect on landowners and the environment, said Ted Brown, a spokesman for the Navy's U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk.

He said the Navy is aware of residents' concerns regarding land use and jet noise during practice landings, which are conducted mostly at night. Minimizing the relocation of residents is a priority, he said.

"It is obvious that there is probably no place in the East Coast where we could go with this idea and have everyone with open arms," Brown said. "But it is important to keep in mind that the Navy needs this."

. . .

The four affected counties and nearby Greensville County and the city of Franklin have passed resolutions opposing the construction of a landing field at any of the three Virginia sites or at one in their locality.

The localities' stands make the landing-field proposal a difficult subject for state and congressional officials who have favored retaining Oceana.

Virginia fought hard during the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission proceedings to keep Oceana, the master jet base for the East Coast. As a result, some state officials say, Virginia is obligated to work with the Navy to find a location for the landing field.

Barry Steinberg, a Washington attorney who represents the Virginia localities affected by the proposal, said the jurisdictions are confronted by significant economic interests with the Navy's strong fiscal contributions to the area.

"The Navy has said they will close if they don't get an outlying landing field," he said, a notion that scares legislators.

If the Navy picks a Virginia site, Steinberg said he's certain there will be a lawsuit in federal court.

"It is good policy for the commonwealth of Virginia to continue to keep Oceana as the master jet base for the East Coast," said Barlow, who represents Surry and parts of Southampton in the House of Delegates.

He suggested the possibility that the Navy pursue using land at Fort Pickett, in Blackstone, farther west of the Navy's proposed sites.

Southeast Virginia residents strongly oppose the Navy plan because a facility has the potential to significantly change their quality of life, with jet noise during the night, Barlow said.

The economic contributions of the landing field do not measure up to the potential economic losses, said Southampton County Administrator Michael W. Johnson.

The landing facility would bring in $4.2 million in annual revenue to the area and about 62 full-time civilian jobs, Brown said.

The localities would lose 30,000 acres, about the size of Portsmouth, Johnson said.

"When you weigh that against the potential benefit," it doesn't add up, he said.

"This is not only an economic issue, this is clearly a noise issue and a quality-of-life issue," Johnson said, noting the legislation would help the localities' positions.

Contact Luz Lazo at (804) 649-6058 or llazo@timesdispatch.com.