The Navy has released its 2025
Draft Amended Analysis to Environmental Impact Statement for EA-18G “Growler” Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Complex, Washington, September 2018
From the Navy:​
​
"The Navy prepared this amended analysis consistent with the U.S. District Court’s findings. Specifically, the amended analysis (1) updates GHG emissions calculations and explains the basis for those calculations; (2) clarifies and expands on the analysis of species-specific impacts on birds; (3) refines the analysis of the impact of increased operations on childhood learning and attempts to quantify the degree of impact to the extent supported by the best available science; and (4) reassesses whether relocating some or all of the “Growler” community to Naval Air Facility (NAF) El Centro is a reasonable alternative and provides a fuller explanation of the Navy’s reasoning for eliminating the alternative from detailed study."
​
Read the Draft Amended Analysis here:
The Navy has scheduled 3 public meetings to discuss the Draft Amended Analysis:
April 1
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. PDT
​
Oak Harbor Elks Lodge, 155 NE Ernst Street, Oak Harbor, WA 98277
April 2
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. PDT
Whidbey Island Nordic Lodge Hall, 63 Jacobs Road, Coupeville, WA 98239
April 3
NOTE: The Navy will only address questions at the virtual meeting that are submitted IN ADVANCE. The DEADLINE to submit is March 21st, 11:50pm! Questions must be submitted to this email address: growler_amended_analysis@us.navy.mil
Below are sample questions that SDA & COER have prepared. We will hold an online discussion on March 26th (5-6:30pm) to provide more information, talking points, example questions and comments, and help prepare for the in-person meetings. Please RSVP for the Zoom link:
EXAMPLE QUESTIONS:
1) What is the difference between a “Draft Amended Analysis (DAA) of an EIS and a Supplemental EIS (SEIS)—that is, is your DAA an SEIS or what is it?
​
2) Does the Navy think the Growler noise effects on childhood learning and education are acceptable damages?
​
3) The Navy focused on noise effects on childhood learning in the school environs. But thousands of kids are further hurt by noise interfering with concentration and cognitive study at home. Why did the DAA not address that huge problem?
​
4) Does the Navy really believe there is no impact on education of Whidbey children as long as standardized tests shows them to be at or slightly above the average for the state?
​
5) Why did the Navy not include Coupeville’s middle and high school, which is 1/3 mile closer to the jet path at the OLF than the elementary school and, hence, experiences levels of loudness about 50% greater than the elementary school?
​
6) In around 2000, NATO and WHO were advising that schools and daycare centers (like Whidbey Academy) should not be located near aircraft noise areas. Why did the Navy in 2018 and now ignore that guidance and how close is the widest OLF #32 subtrack to the Coupeville high school?
​
7) Why has the Navy ignored Department of Defense Instruction, number 4165.57, which calls for taking multiple flight paths (as opposed to a single mid-line path) into account when determining APZ boundaries?
​
8) How many operations has the Navy flown at the OLF in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and what was the split between runways #14 and #32 in those years?
​
9) Please explain what and where the hypothetical Central Whidbey residence R03 is and how it acts as a surrogate school?
​
10) Did the Navy ever consider how much of an overall impact is too much, and if so, hasn’t that threshold been exceeded?
​
11) Re costs to move all or some Growler squadrons or alternatively move a portion of the FCLPs to other sites, how much cost is too much, given the cost of one Growler over its 9000-hour service life is about $426 million?
​
12) The DAA, expresses grave concerns over the impact on Navy families if all or some Growler squadrons were moved to El Centro; likewise for even just having a portion of the FCLPs practiced there (detachment). Where in the DAA can one locate the Navy’s concern over the impacts of FCLPs on Whidbey Island residents and children?
​
13) Per Navy standards the OLF runway is too short and has roads in the primary surface and clear areas where roads are not allowed. And the #32 flight path takes the jet at <1000 feet directly over agricultural fields and a bird refuge, in non-compliance with bird-strike guidelines. How does the Navy justify the safety risks imposed on Whidbey citizens?
​
14) The #32 flight path is dangerously close to Coupeville’s middle/high school. How does the Navy justify the risks?
​
15) The DAA notes that it would be “impossible to consider” all 134 DOD airfields in the U.S. Why not? Given the impact it seems that would seem to be a requisite. So why is that impossible?
The Navy only scheduled two in-person public meetings in Oak Harbor and Coupeville and one online meeting. They have allotted an extremely short period of only 18 days to review the document before the first public meeting.
Please make CALLS TO our elected officials to:
1. Ask for a 1-month extension of comment period (to May 28)
2. Add Navy public meetings in Port Townsend & Lopez Island
WASHINGTON DC. CALL NUMBERS in order of priority:
​
-
Sen. Cantwell 202) 224-3441
-
Sen. Murray (202) 224-2621
-
Rep. Larsen (202) 225-2605
-
Rep. Adam Smith (202) 225-8901
-
Rep Emily Randall (202) 225-5916
-
Rep. Kim Schrier 202) 225-7761
-
Rep. DelBene (202) 225-6311
-
Rep. Marilyn Strickland (202) 225-9740
Additional details:
​
A paper copy of the Draft Amended Analysis may be reviewed at 22 public libraries in the northern Puget Sound region. The full list of libraries may be found at the project website.
​
The Navy prepared the Draft Amended Analysis to the 2018 Final Environmental Impact Statement and 2019 Record of Decision for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the orders of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
​
The Navy has announced two in-person and one online public meetings to inform the public about the contents of the Draft Amended Analysis, answer questions, and provide the opportunity to submit official written comments. All comments must be submitted electronically or postmarked on or before 11:59 p.m. PDT on April 28, 2025 to be considered in the Final Amended Analysis.
We are requesting a comment period extension for May 28.
​
Thank you for taking ACTION with us
by making calls, reviewing the new draft, sending questions, attending the public meetings, and making comments!