Landing field critics gain allies

Sen. Burr and Rep. Coble join opponents of a Navy site near a wildlife refuge where jets could practice carrier landings

WASHINGTON -- Environmental forces in North Carolina might finally have the U.S. Navy in their cross hairs.

With new outrage surfacing last week from one U.S. senator and harsh questions posed by another, there is a wave of political momentum against the Navy's plans to build an airstrip alongside a national wildlife refuge.

On Monday, Sen. Richard Burr told the Navy its preferred site in Washington and Beaufort counties faced "insurmountable and growing opposition."

Sen. Elizabeth Dole has not come out against the site, but this month she issued the Navy a series of strongly worded questions that buoyed opponents of the proposed landing field site.

Gov. Mike Easley recently said the landing field site has the potential to do more environmental damage than any other issue in state history. Also this month, two Republican North Carolina congressmen -- both members of the House Armed Services Committee -- joined Democrats in the delegation in opposing the site.

And just Friday, Republican Rep. Howard Coble of Greensboro added his opposition, in part because of calls from his Piedmont constituents. That means a majority of the state's 15-member delegation in Congress are now publically against the site, while the others have not taken a public position.

Some say the gathering opposition doesn't bode well for the Navy, especially if top Pentagon staffers become interested in the issue.

"Why would you want to tick off a significant part of the state's delegation -- which is usually a pro-military delegation -- over an issue in their backyard?" asked John K. Mashburn, an appropriations expert and former staffer with Sen. Jesse Helms and Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate.

State's stand telling

"It would be different than saying, 'Don't build the [landing field] in North Carolina at all," said Mashburn, who works in government affairs in the Washington office of Womble Carlyle, a North Carolina law firm. "But when the state says, 'Don't pick this site,' I think the Department of Defense loses."

Ted Brown, spokesman for the Navy's Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., said he won't speculate on what impact the growing opposition might have on the agency. Still, he emphasized that the Navy has several additional sites under consideration and that a final environmental report won't be finished until next fall.

"No decision has been made on this project yet," Brown said.

The Navy has said it wants to build an "outlying landing field" close to Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the wintering grounds of tens of thousands of migrating waterfowl.

The runway would be used by F/A-18 Super Hornets from Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia to practice simulated night landings on an aircraft carrier. Jets from the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point would also use the strip.

"I think the Navy will inevitably have to reckon with this," said Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a Wilson Democrat who represents the First District, in which the proposed site lies. "I would hope they'd understand that stakeholders are determined to keep this field away from this refuge."

Opponents have been traveling to Capitol Hill for lobbying excursions, talking with members from key committees. Butterfield spoke about the issue with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland on a trans-Atlantic flight earlier this month.

Blocking tactics

Ultimately Congress decides the Navy's budget, including a $10 million request for the airstrip.

Mashburn, the appropriations expert, said a senator or House member could, in an extreme case, march to the floor of his or her chamber and amend the military construction appropriations bill to block funding for the site.